Re: Religion & the SCA--was Lent
- --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "Amy L. Hornburg Heilveil"
> While this is an interesting point, I would point out that there areI'm glad to hear it. As with most analogies, it is of course
> those of us in this century who do very well without television.
imperfect - but even if you do not HAVE a television are you sure you
are totally uneffected by its presence in the general culture?
Certainly you may not watch Buffy or Star Trek (any incarnation), but
I suspect you know enough about them to make the cultural connection.
To be aware of the solid immediacy of -watching- the
Towers fall, or the images of the Challenger and the Columbia
exploding? The influence is there.
I know several people who do not own or watch television (some by
choice, some by circumstance). Most of them are at least marginally
familiar with what's happening because it's that big a part of the
culture we live in.
> However, in the Middle Ages, one could not (that I have seenI think they'd speak about what business they had together, and
> reference to) separate ones-self from religion in this manner. A
> Catholic wouldn't go up to a Protestant and just begin talking about
> their religion; they most likely wouldn't speak. So I don't think
> that the analogy is quite as good as intended.
religion wouldn't really enter into it. The difference would just be
there, except in some very specific cases in which they'd go and
report them to the authorities. Do you just walk up to people TODAY
and just start talking about your religion? (ok, admittedly some
strongly evangelical groups DO do this, but as a rule these aren't
terribly Period - only a small percent in a small period of time. I
suppose Waldensians might, or some other heretical sect that was
looking for converts).
"Man, what do you think about those Francisicans? Should the clergy
be poor? I dunno, sounds a little weird to me..."
- In a message dated 7/18/2003 10:23:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, gedney1@... writes:
The place where culture mixing occurs is in expatriot communities, such as
Chinatown, or the Hasidic Communities of Brooklyn, ot in period examples,
the Viking community of Dublin, and the community of flemish worsted weavers
of 1570's Norwich, as examples. In those communities there would be strong
cultural reinforcement of the differences from the main culture, and some of
the less extreme differences would get preserved (though some would be
quickly lost, especially if they are illegal in the host culture).
Similar situations also occur where communities kept from blending for various reasons nevertheless have to live alongside one another--Spain produces a lot of these, broken down along religous lines, and there are patterns that develop in areas where people are moving around a lot--well-travelled trade routes open some patterns. And certain cities--late-period Istanbul, fr'example.
It is much harder to posit a hypothetical mixed culture community, than and
individual, since communities would plainly have had more of an impact on a
historical period and place than an individual. But ths is the most likely
histoical fashion in which a person with mixed cultures would present.
Why 'posit' at all? We have lots that actually happened to pick from.
An individual that travels widely, and is born of parents that travelled
widely, as a source for a cultural blending is simply unlikely, and not
believable. the few examples that we have are, in effect exceptions that
prove the rule, since such persons quickly rose to the level of scandal or
Or are just odd blips...my Tunisian guy is a very small scandal, contained in a series of angry family letters that would have vanished from history if the Cairo Geniza had not been preserved.
and this is entirely my point. These cultural collisions were not the result
of individual persons. Individuals had almost no impact on the culture to
which they were transplanted. Impaction required a transplantation of enough
individuals to generate a separate subculture within the host culture.
Not arguing with you there, but cultures are made up of individuals, and and I can only 'be' one person at a time in the SCA.
I think we're agreeing, actually.
> (I'm guilty too.) But more often, someone wouldn't break
> down their
> family to component cultures, because everyone in Sicily has a
> family like this.
A Luvbovitcher Jew in Brooklyn would not describe themselves as a
Talmudic-Polish-Germannic-Hebrew-American-Zionist-Gemcutter. But we see this
sort of thing in the SCA all the time, with such Scabominations as a
Well yes, but the first makes sense, and can be summed up in a single identity, while the latter requires explanation, 'cause it just don't happen.
Which is all tyhat I was going after.
Mixed cultures expressed as individuals a historical mixed cultural context,
Mixed cultures as an individual using a mishmash of places (and times!) with
no connection to any likely (or even possible) historical context, no.
Uh yeah. What you said.
Raquel filla Bonastruch, not really a scandal, except to her brother Ysaac, who wishes she would get married again and stop hanging around the house inciting his daughters to sass him, and taking Vives' side when he's been gambling (and losing) again.