SCA Recognition (Long)
Nov. 4th, 2013 12:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
storytimewithjoeSo… within the SCA I have been a laurel for quite some time now. Not as long as some, but certainly longer than others. My years in working on my arts and judging and teaching and advising have taught me a thing or two. And it is with this experience in mind that I can make this assertion…
The only art that should even be taken into consideration for laurel candidacy is that of COSTUMING!!!!!!!
When you think about it, from the very first event, SCA costuming began in its infancy – long before any other art form that we ever considered. When one attends events, there is no expectation for people to do pewter casting, or to dance, or to calligraphy, or to make pottery – but everyone – EVERYONE – is expected to make at least some reasonable attempt at medieval or renaissance dress. Sure, other art forms reflect difficulty, and skill, and research, and passion, and challenge, and complexity, and all those things that seemingly would seem like they should be considered worthy of peerage. But come on, is anything really as important as costuming? I mean, can you really argue that other art forms are as hard as costuming? OK, well maybe you can. But can you really argue that other art forms reflect the skill and discipline and complexity and study and trial and error and practice as costuming? OK, well I guess you probably could make that argument. But what I’m getting at is…
um…
well…
um….
Hmmmm. OK, maybe I don’t really have a good case there. So let me try this another way.
I am also a member of the Order of the Pelican. And in my experience in the nest, I can assure you that while many types of service exist in the SCA, the only one that should REALLY be considered for peerage is that of being an event steward. Think about it folks – right from day one, we needed people to run events. Did we need all the other stuff? Sure, there are many different services out there from running feasts to site clean-up to security to holding office, etc. But seriously, do any of those involve the amount of time, blood, sweat and tears as running an event? OK, well maybe some of them do. But does being an exchequer, for instance, involve as much skill and organizational complexity? Oh wait… bad example. Um, what I mean is…
um…
well…
um…
One of the more controversial topics that has arisen lately in the SCA is the question of whether or not we should create a fourth peerage to recognize rapier. And in all seriousness and sincerity, I have emphatically expressed my opinion on this to the Board and will further express it now.
NO! I do NOT believe there should be a fourth peerage created for rapier. I believe we have a peerage already in existence that should include rapier fighters in their fold. And that order is known as the Order of the Chivalry.
I know there are many different viewpoints on this, but to me it really is pretty simple. Let’s start with a definition, shall we? From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Chivalry” includes many definitions:
“the system of values (such as loyalty and honor) that knights in the Middle Ages were expected to follow” – this addresses peerlike qualities to which we should all aspire, but says nothing about strictly heavy-weapons combat.
“an honorable and polite way of behaving especially toward women” – this also addresses peerlike qualities to which we should all aspire, but says nothing about strictly heavy-weapons combat.
“gallant or distinguished gentlemen” – aside from its misogynistic leanings, this too only addresses peerlike qualities.
“mounted men-at-arms” – Oh interesting. Finally a comment regarding what they should do. So all members of the Order of Chivalry should be masters at horsemanship. Hmmmm… interesting – especially since those individuals who have earned placement into the Order of the Golden Lance cannot currently aspire to elevation for their excellence.
I fully understand and recognize that there are many thoughts and viewpoints on this whole issue (which is why it is controversial). And no, I myself am not a member of the Order of the Chivalry. But just as I do not believe one need be a Laurel to have thoughts and expectations about the arts, or a Pelican to have thoughts and expectations about service; I welcome a mature and respectful discussion on this topic.
From my viewpoint, I believe if the Board were to simply change the corpora definition of the Order of Chivalry; I believe the SCA could only grow and become enriched. Why? Simple. While originally, our SCA forefathers did not have the most perfect crystal ball through which to understand all of the things that the SCA would embrace, we have since learned that there are many different forms and styles of martial activities that we can do within the SCA. We have archery. We have unarmored combat. We have heavy weapons. We have rapier. We have equestrian. We have thrown weapons. Heck, we probably have other things up-and-coming that we haven’t even considered yet! And while each discipline has very different rules and expectations, they are all forms of martial arts – much like both pottery and embroidery, as different as they are, are both fine arts. Is a Mistress of the Laurel for embroidery lessoned whatsoever by the inclusion of a potter into the Order of the Laurel? No! If anything, I believe the Order grows stronger – having included another viewpoint and another expert. Is someone who gained her Pelican for doing lots of work as an Exchequer lessoned whatsoever through the inclusion of a member who is known for running large-scale events? Heck no! Again, the Order only grows stronger, and the Kingdom (and by extension, society), grows stronger by having a new peer to teach, inspire and guide.
So what would be the negative to including people into the Order of Chivalry for their mastery of fencing? (I find the question itself especially ironic given that “The First Tourney” did not involve armor, but rather some really primitive fencing equipment.) And what about Archery? Or Equestrian Activities? Or Unarmored Combat? Or Thrown Weapons? Sure, at first, there might be just a little bit of confusion. 99% of the order would be heavy weapons people with a few who are not. Sure, it may feel really odd for a little while to ask the question, “What is your white belt in?” But is that any more awkward than what we do currently in the modern world with someone who has earned a black belt? Do we naturally assume that a black belt is ONLY for karate when it can be earned in and for many other types of martial disciplines? And heck, that sort of a thing already happens in the other SCA peerages. So what exactly is the concern?
I understand and recognize that some people just don’t want to change. I get that. I too am typically NOT a fan of change – unless change is for the better. And in this case, I do believe change is for the better. Currently, the Order of the Chivalry is the only Order that I can think of that specifically limits itself to one and only one discipline. I understand why that was done back in the day. But as we approach the fiftieth year of the SCA, I think it is time to modernize and to accommodate and to become more inclusive. Heck, the other orders did! People nowadays have received their Pelican for doing all kinds of work on web design or computer-related service. Were we doing that in 1966? Heck, we have laurels nowadays in disciplines that our forefathers probably didn’t even know had existed. As time goes by, and the society grows, we need to evolve with it.
Currently, (at least here in Caid) there are lesser forms of recognition for many of the “other” forms of marshal activities. And to be honest, I find that quite appalling. The SCA award system was created as a way to recognize and incentivize people to try harder, sharpen their skills and learn from history. Yet, because particular groups are disenfranchised from the existing award system (e.g. steps up that can eventually lead to peerage), I cannot help but feel that we are effectively telling them that they just aren’t as important.
I have a lot of respect for the Rapier community. I do. I have seen many people participate in the activity who approach it with love, respect, passion, integrity and yes – chivalry. Yet, they cannot receive a peerage for their art. Do I support the creation of a peerage for them and just them? No! Why? Because I have seen the same passion in the equestrian community, and in the archery community, and in the thrown weapons community, etc. It is the same passion that I have seen in the heavy weapons community. Not lesser. Not greater. The same. All of these communities participate in the martial arts. Yet, they are disenfranchised under the guise of “Tradition” that I consider to be nothing more than a white-washed word for “bad habit that we haven’t yet fixed because we are too complacent”.
The current Corpora definition of “The Chivalry” reads as follows:
The Chivalry consists of two equal parts: Knighthood and Mastery of Arms. No one may belong to both parts of the order at one time. When a member is admitted to the Chivalry by the Sovereign, the choice of which part of the order to join is made by the new member. The candidate must be considered the equal of his or her prospective peers with the basic weapons of tournament combat…”
If the last sentence were changed to read “The candidate must be considered the equal of his or her prospective peers with martial skill and prowess”, the door would be open for each Kingdom to elevate individuals who demonstrate expertise in martial activities other than heavy-weapons. In terms of the rules, it really would be just that simple. But would it be that simple in terms of SCA culture? Based on our own history – yes!
I remember a time when women-fighters were considered SOOOOO controversial that many believed it would ruin the SCA. Some people even quit over it. Did the SCA end? No. It didn’t.
I remember a time when rapier was considered SOOOOO controversial that many believed it would ruin the SCA. It didn’t.
I remember a time when the mere thought of having a same-gender consort would not even be considered. Well, I think you know my thoughts on that by now.
I am but one person. My opinion is just that – mine. I am not speaking for my Barony or for any of the Orders in which I am a member. I am speaking simply and singly for myself. But I would ask that others please give this consideration.
So I ask you, dear reader - is there a good reason to keep the doors shut on people who contribute so much to our society? Because if there is, I just don’t understand what it is.
The only art that should even be taken into consideration for laurel candidacy is that of COSTUMING!!!!!!!
When you think about it, from the very first event, SCA costuming began in its infancy – long before any other art form that we ever considered. When one attends events, there is no expectation for people to do pewter casting, or to dance, or to calligraphy, or to make pottery – but everyone – EVERYONE – is expected to make at least some reasonable attempt at medieval or renaissance dress. Sure, other art forms reflect difficulty, and skill, and research, and passion, and challenge, and complexity, and all those things that seemingly would seem like they should be considered worthy of peerage. But come on, is anything really as important as costuming? I mean, can you really argue that other art forms are as hard as costuming? OK, well maybe you can. But can you really argue that other art forms reflect the skill and discipline and complexity and study and trial and error and practice as costuming? OK, well I guess you probably could make that argument. But what I’m getting at is…
um…
well…
um….
Hmmmm. OK, maybe I don’t really have a good case there. So let me try this another way.
I am also a member of the Order of the Pelican. And in my experience in the nest, I can assure you that while many types of service exist in the SCA, the only one that should REALLY be considered for peerage is that of being an event steward. Think about it folks – right from day one, we needed people to run events. Did we need all the other stuff? Sure, there are many different services out there from running feasts to site clean-up to security to holding office, etc. But seriously, do any of those involve the amount of time, blood, sweat and tears as running an event? OK, well maybe some of them do. But does being an exchequer, for instance, involve as much skill and organizational complexity? Oh wait… bad example. Um, what I mean is…
um…
well…
um…
One of the more controversial topics that has arisen lately in the SCA is the question of whether or not we should create a fourth peerage to recognize rapier. And in all seriousness and sincerity, I have emphatically expressed my opinion on this to the Board and will further express it now.
NO! I do NOT believe there should be a fourth peerage created for rapier. I believe we have a peerage already in existence that should include rapier fighters in their fold. And that order is known as the Order of the Chivalry.
I know there are many different viewpoints on this, but to me it really is pretty simple. Let’s start with a definition, shall we? From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Chivalry” includes many definitions:
“the system of values (such as loyalty and honor) that knights in the Middle Ages were expected to follow” – this addresses peerlike qualities to which we should all aspire, but says nothing about strictly heavy-weapons combat.
“an honorable and polite way of behaving especially toward women” – this also addresses peerlike qualities to which we should all aspire, but says nothing about strictly heavy-weapons combat.
“gallant or distinguished gentlemen” – aside from its misogynistic leanings, this too only addresses peerlike qualities.
“mounted men-at-arms” – Oh interesting. Finally a comment regarding what they should do. So all members of the Order of Chivalry should be masters at horsemanship. Hmmmm… interesting – especially since those individuals who have earned placement into the Order of the Golden Lance cannot currently aspire to elevation for their excellence.
I fully understand and recognize that there are many thoughts and viewpoints on this whole issue (which is why it is controversial). And no, I myself am not a member of the Order of the Chivalry. But just as I do not believe one need be a Laurel to have thoughts and expectations about the arts, or a Pelican to have thoughts and expectations about service; I welcome a mature and respectful discussion on this topic.
From my viewpoint, I believe if the Board were to simply change the corpora definition of the Order of Chivalry; I believe the SCA could only grow and become enriched. Why? Simple. While originally, our SCA forefathers did not have the most perfect crystal ball through which to understand all of the things that the SCA would embrace, we have since learned that there are many different forms and styles of martial activities that we can do within the SCA. We have archery. We have unarmored combat. We have heavy weapons. We have rapier. We have equestrian. We have thrown weapons. Heck, we probably have other things up-and-coming that we haven’t even considered yet! And while each discipline has very different rules and expectations, they are all forms of martial arts – much like both pottery and embroidery, as different as they are, are both fine arts. Is a Mistress of the Laurel for embroidery lessoned whatsoever by the inclusion of a potter into the Order of the Laurel? No! If anything, I believe the Order grows stronger – having included another viewpoint and another expert. Is someone who gained her Pelican for doing lots of work as an Exchequer lessoned whatsoever through the inclusion of a member who is known for running large-scale events? Heck no! Again, the Order only grows stronger, and the Kingdom (and by extension, society), grows stronger by having a new peer to teach, inspire and guide.
So what would be the negative to including people into the Order of Chivalry for their mastery of fencing? (I find the question itself especially ironic given that “The First Tourney” did not involve armor, but rather some really primitive fencing equipment.) And what about Archery? Or Equestrian Activities? Or Unarmored Combat? Or Thrown Weapons? Sure, at first, there might be just a little bit of confusion. 99% of the order would be heavy weapons people with a few who are not. Sure, it may feel really odd for a little while to ask the question, “What is your white belt in?” But is that any more awkward than what we do currently in the modern world with someone who has earned a black belt? Do we naturally assume that a black belt is ONLY for karate when it can be earned in and for many other types of martial disciplines? And heck, that sort of a thing already happens in the other SCA peerages. So what exactly is the concern?
I understand and recognize that some people just don’t want to change. I get that. I too am typically NOT a fan of change – unless change is for the better. And in this case, I do believe change is for the better. Currently, the Order of the Chivalry is the only Order that I can think of that specifically limits itself to one and only one discipline. I understand why that was done back in the day. But as we approach the fiftieth year of the SCA, I think it is time to modernize and to accommodate and to become more inclusive. Heck, the other orders did! People nowadays have received their Pelican for doing all kinds of work on web design or computer-related service. Were we doing that in 1966? Heck, we have laurels nowadays in disciplines that our forefathers probably didn’t even know had existed. As time goes by, and the society grows, we need to evolve with it.
Currently, (at least here in Caid) there are lesser forms of recognition for many of the “other” forms of marshal activities. And to be honest, I find that quite appalling. The SCA award system was created as a way to recognize and incentivize people to try harder, sharpen their skills and learn from history. Yet, because particular groups are disenfranchised from the existing award system (e.g. steps up that can eventually lead to peerage), I cannot help but feel that we are effectively telling them that they just aren’t as important.
I have a lot of respect for the Rapier community. I do. I have seen many people participate in the activity who approach it with love, respect, passion, integrity and yes – chivalry. Yet, they cannot receive a peerage for their art. Do I support the creation of a peerage for them and just them? No! Why? Because I have seen the same passion in the equestrian community, and in the archery community, and in the thrown weapons community, etc. It is the same passion that I have seen in the heavy weapons community. Not lesser. Not greater. The same. All of these communities participate in the martial arts. Yet, they are disenfranchised under the guise of “Tradition” that I consider to be nothing more than a white-washed word for “bad habit that we haven’t yet fixed because we are too complacent”.
The current Corpora definition of “The Chivalry” reads as follows:
The Chivalry consists of two equal parts: Knighthood and Mastery of Arms. No one may belong to both parts of the order at one time. When a member is admitted to the Chivalry by the Sovereign, the choice of which part of the order to join is made by the new member. The candidate must be considered the equal of his or her prospective peers with the basic weapons of tournament combat…”
If the last sentence were changed to read “The candidate must be considered the equal of his or her prospective peers with martial skill and prowess”, the door would be open for each Kingdom to elevate individuals who demonstrate expertise in martial activities other than heavy-weapons. In terms of the rules, it really would be just that simple. But would it be that simple in terms of SCA culture? Based on our own history – yes!
I remember a time when women-fighters were considered SOOOOO controversial that many believed it would ruin the SCA. Some people even quit over it. Did the SCA end? No. It didn’t.
I remember a time when rapier was considered SOOOOO controversial that many believed it would ruin the SCA. It didn’t.
I remember a time when the mere thought of having a same-gender consort would not even be considered. Well, I think you know my thoughts on that by now.
I am but one person. My opinion is just that – mine. I am not speaking for my Barony or for any of the Orders in which I am a member. I am speaking simply and singly for myself. But I would ask that others please give this consideration.
So I ask you, dear reader - is there a good reason to keep the doors shut on people who contribute so much to our society? Because if there is, I just don’t understand what it is.
