Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Change of heart #2

Expand Messages
  • Evian Blackthorn
    Tessa wrote, I disagree that making an archery guild would be like making a quasi-peerage. I know different kingdoms are different, but here in AEthelmearc
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Tessa wrote, "I disagree that making an archery guild would be like making a quasi-peerage. I know different kingdoms are different, but here in AEthelmearc there are a lot of different guilds. I fail to see why doing a society-wide one means we are trying to make a quasi-peerage."
      I am not saying it IS a quasi-peerage. I am only saying it will be PERCEIVED as one, by several persons. The reasons it will be perceived as a quasi-peerage, or at least as an attempt to create one are:
      1. Archery is a 'martial' activity, but one that at present is excluded from the 'martial' peerage (Knighthood). Other guilds (brewing, costuming, etc.) are not generally 'martial' in nature.
      2. It is (or will be) SCA wide. Most other guilds are not.
      3. Archers are, for the most part, excluded from the A&S Peerage (Laurel) because most do not use 'period' equipment. Laurels are not, and should not be, given for skill in what is primarily a 'modern' version of something that was done in period. Such as substituting a Laurel in Photography for one in painting, or for internet website building instead of printing on a hand operated movable type printing press (ala Gutenberg). (Combat archers cannot use period equipment, as it would never be allowed on the combat field.) Even the target archers have an occasional problem . "You can't use bodkins on MY target!" Only the VERY few persons in the archery community who work with only period equipment are perceived by the Laurels as potential candidates. As Kaz said, "the standards for the SCA archery game and the standards for the Laurel Society-wide are quite different. The Laurel promotes extremely period activities, deep knowledge of each period aspect of a particular art or science. The archery community snarls at this claiming snobbery if any type of contest or recognition requires more than the minimum." As long as that type of attitude pervails in the archery community, it casts a cloud on the whole community, thereby making it extremely difficult for the A&S community to take any of us seriously. And I doubt that that attitude is going to change any time soon.
      4. The whole concept started on the archery list by Sir Jon reporting that the BOD had turned thumbs down on a fourth Peerage, and proposing that since we can't get a peerage for archery, let's do something else to accomplish the same thing. (These are my words, not his, and are based upon MY perception of how the whole idea started and grew. Others might very well have gotten the same perception. That might not be what was meant, by Sir Jon, or others, but the perception can be justified as valid none the less, simply by the context. I was all for the idea myself, at first, and until I really thought over how others might perceive the idea, was doing everything I could to promote the Grand Fellowship idea, and the Guild idea.
      5. Archers (those who shoot, but do nothing else, or almost nothing else) are excluded from the Service Peerage (Pelican). Also excluded are those whose service is almost completely aimed toward service to the archery community. The reason for this has to do with the perceptions contained in point 1 & 3. If archers can't be taken serious by the Laurels or the Chivalry, why should service exclusivly to them count. Can you imagine a Pelican, or a bardic award of some type being given to Igor because Igor always brings 10 cases of Budwieser to the songfest (with only three period pieces being sung the whole night) at his camp. You and I might think it should count, but the Pelicans are the ones that make such decisions.
      We find ourselves in a "Catch 22" situation. The Pelicans say, "Archer is a 'skill', not a 'service'. Therefore, it falls under the Laruel's area. The Laurels say, "Archery is a 'martial' activity, therefore it falls under the Chivalry's area. The Chivalry say, "Archery is something that a Knight might have done for sport and fun, but was not something that was considered a chivalrous 'martial' activity, so if archers want recognition, they need to look at the other peerages for it, not us." And ANY attempt to achieve SCA wide recognition for excellence (read 'mastery') in archery that doesn't try to work within one of the three established peerages will be looked at as an attempt to create a quasi-peerage by some (maybe most) of those in those three established peerages. Once that perception has been established, the peerages will then try their best to see that it is NEVER recognized as their equal (read PEER), nor accepted within their peerage either.
      Macsen wrote, "Seriously, there will always be those who interpret *anything* anyone in the SCA tries to do as a group as "a shadow peerage." Why should we let those people *prevent* the organization of a beneficial guild because of their prejudice? The notion seems totally defeatist to me."
      If we DO NOT care if Archery is ever recognized as a serious and integral part of the mainstream of the SCA, we should NOT let these people *prevent* the organization of a beneficial guild. However, if we DO want Archery to be recognized as a serious and intregral part of the mainstream SCA, then we have to take account of how we will be PERCIEVED by the power structure of that mainstream SCA.
      It is not 'defeatist'. It is political reality! It may not be 'right', nor 'fair', but it is the way things are. All I ask is that those who support the ideas (either one, or both) look VERY closly at how others (outside the Archery community) MIGHT perceive the idea. If you feel the perceptions I have outlined MIGHT show up, approach anything you do VERY carefully. If you feel the perceptions I have outlined will PROBABLY show up, PLEEEEEASE don't do something that will damage all future hopes. If you feel the perceptions I have outlined will almost DEFINATELY show up (my personal opinion), run from it as I did, and join me in opposing the idea.
      Evian Blackthorn
      of THE WEB


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Karl Sandhoff
      I hear a lot of might s and maybe s without a lot of fact. A shadow peerage has to have several items in its makeup. First is a restriction of
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I hear a lot of "might's" and "maybe's" without a lot of fact. A "shadow
        peerage" has to have several items in its makeup. First is a restriction
        of membership to those deemed to be the best in a given field. Second, it
        must mimic peerage organization and structure. And third, it must
        present an attitude of "I'm better than you because I'm a member of xxx
        organization". In this we are avoiding the "shadow peerage" in the
        current frameworks by the following propositions: The Fellowship -
        membership by holding any kingdom level award issued for archery
        activities and no bureaucratic overhead. This eliminates points 1 and 2
        right off, the third remains to be seen by the attitude of the membership
        should it come to pass. The guild - so far I have heard open membership,
        purpose to teach and expand skill sets, no polling or evaluation of
        potential members. Again, this eliminates points 1 and 2 right off, the
        third remains to be seen by the attitude of the membership should it come
        to pass. Now, this is all theory. Has any one actually talked with a
        peer about any of these suggestions? I've run a condensed version of the
        discussions past a couple I know and have received encouragement to
        continue. No sour notes yet. I think we are seeing shadows and making
        them into boogeymen. Perhaps we will need to abandon the idea of one or
        both of these as they get closer to fruition but I don't see it happening
        yet. Let's keep discussing.
        In service to the dream,
        Carolus von Eulenhorst
        eulenhorst@...

        On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:39:52 -0600 "Evian Blackthorn" <theweb@...>
        writes:
        >Tessa wrote, "I disagree that making an archery guild would be like
        >making a quasi-peerage. I know different kingdoms are different, but
        >here in AEthelmearc there are a lot of different guilds. I fail to
        >see why doing a society-wide one means we are trying to make a
        >quasi-peerage."
        > I am not saying it IS a quasi-peerage. I am only saying it will be
        >PERCEIVED as one, by several persons. The reasons it will be perceived
        >as a quasi-peerage, or at least as an attempt to create one are:
        >1. Archery is a 'martial' activity, but one that at present is
        >excluded from the 'martial' peerage (Knighthood). Other guilds
        >(brewing, costuming, etc.) are not generally 'martial' in nature.
        >2. It is (or will be) SCA wide. Most other guilds are not.
        >3. Archers are, for the most part, excluded from the A&S Peerage
        >(Laurel) because most do not use 'period' equipment. Laurels are not,
        >and should not be, given for skill in what is primarily a 'modern'
        >version of something that was done in period. Such as substituting a
        >Laurel in Photography for one in painting, or for internet website
        >building instead of printing on a hand operated movable type printing
        >press (ala Gutenberg). (Combat archers cannot use period equipment, as
        >it would never be allowed on the combat field.) Even the target
        >archers have an occasional problem . "You can't use bodkins on MY
        >target!" Only the VERY few persons in the archery community who work
        >with only period equipment are perceived by the Laurels as potential
        >candidates. As Kaz said, "the standards for the SCA archery game and
        >the standards for the Laurel Society-wide are quite different. The
        >Laurel promotes extremely period activities, deep knowledge of each
        >period aspect of a particular art or science. The archery community
        >snarls at this claiming snobbery if any type of contest or recognition
        >requires more than the minimum." As long as that type of attitude
        >pervails in the archery community, it casts a cloud on the whole
        >community, thereby making it extremely difficult for the A&S community
        >to take any of us seriously. And I doubt that that attitude is going
        >to change any time soon.
        >4. The whole concept started on the archery list by Sir Jon reporting
        >that the BOD had turned thumbs down on a fourth Peerage, and proposing
        >that since we can't get a peerage for archery, let's do something else
        >to accomplish the same thing. (These are my words, not his, and are
        >based upon MY perception of how the whole idea started and grew.
        >Others might very well have gotten the same perception. That might not
        >be what was meant, by Sir Jon, or others, but the perception can be
        >justified as valid none the less, simply by the context. I was all for
        >the idea myself, at first, and until I really thought over how others
        >might perceive the idea, was doing everything I could to promote the
        >Grand Fellowship idea, and the Guild idea.
        >5. Archers (those who shoot, but do nothing else, or almost nothing
        >else) are excluded from the Service Peerage (Pelican). Also excluded
        >are those whose service is almost completely aimed toward service to
        >the archery community. The reason for this has to do with the
        >perceptions contained in point 1 & 3. If archers can't be taken
        >serious by the Laurels or the Chivalry, why should service exclusivly
        >to them count. Can you imagine a Pelican, or a bardic award of some
        >type being given to Igor because Igor always brings 10 cases of
        >Budwieser to the songfest (with only three period pieces being sung
        >the whole night) at his camp. You and I might think it should count,
        >but the Pelicans are the ones that make such decisions.
        > We find ourselves in a "Catch 22" situation. The Pelicans say,
        >"Archer is a 'skill', not a 'service'. Therefore, it falls under the
        >Laruel's area. The Laurels say, "Archery is a 'martial' activity,
        >therefore it falls under the Chivalry's area. The Chivalry say,
        >"Archery is something that a Knight might have done for sport and fun,
        >but was not something that was considered a chivalrous 'martial'
        >activity, so if archers want recognition, they need to look at the
        >other peerages for it, not us." And ANY attempt to achieve SCA wide
        >recognition for excellence (read 'mastery') in archery that doesn't
        >try to work within one of the three established peerages will be
        >looked at as an attempt to create a quasi-peerage by some (maybe most)
        >of those in those three established peerages. Once that perception has
        >been established, the peerages will then try their best to see that it
        >is NEVER recognized as their equal (read PEER), nor accepted within
        >their peerage either.
        > Macsen wrote, "Seriously, there will always be those who interpret
        >*anything* anyone in the SCA tries to do as a group as "a shadow
        >peerage." Why should we let those people *prevent* the organization
        >of a beneficial guild because of their prejudice? The notion seems
        >totally defeatist to me."
        > If we DO NOT care if Archery is ever recognized as a serious and
        >integral part of the mainstream of the SCA, we should NOT let these
        >people *prevent* the organization of a beneficial guild. However, if
        >we DO want Archery to be recognized as a serious and intregral part of
        >the mainstream SCA, then we have to take account of how we will be
        >PERCIEVED by the power structure of that mainstream SCA.
        > It is not 'defeatist'. It is political reality! It may not be
        >'right', nor 'fair', but it is the way things are. All I ask is that
        >those who support the ideas (either one, or both) look VERY closly at
        >how others (outside the Archery community) MIGHT perceive the idea. If
        >you feel the perceptions I have outlined MIGHT show up, approach
        >anything you do VERY carefully. If you feel the perceptions I have
        >outlined will PROBABLY show up, PLEEEEEASE don't do something that
        >will damage all future hopes. If you feel the perceptions I have
        >outlined will almost DEFINATELY show up (my personal opinion), run
        >from it as I did, and join me in opposing the idea.
        >Evian Blackthorn
        >of THE WEB
        >
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        >---8<---------------------------------------------
        >Brought to you eGroups Ad Free in 2001 by Baron Bows
        >Need a bow? Check http://www.baronbows.com/
        >
        >[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@egroups.com to leave this list]
        >
        >

        ________________________________________________________________
        GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
        Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
        Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
        http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.