[MR] Re: In defense of inauthenticity

[David Wendelken]

Here is a quotation from the governing documents of the SCA, which can
be found at <http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf>.
Page numbers in the PDF file and on the printed pages differ, I'll quote
the pages in the PDF file only.

Page 7, 2nd paragraph, under the heading "A Brief Introduction to the
Society for Creative Anachronism"

"As a living history group, the Society provides an environment in which
members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of
the period, as well as doing more traditional historical research...."

This sentence would appear to support both Duke Logan's and Master
Herveus's assertions!

1) The SCA has described itself in its governing documents as a living
history group.

2) The SCA provides an environment where members can recreate "various
aspects" of the culture and technology of the period.  The use of the
word "various" implies "some" and NOT "all" aspects of culture and
technology.  One could argue that medieval footware or armor are some of
the various aspects some fighters might choose NOT to recreate.

Here is the SCA-wide policy for participants at SCA events:

Page 13:

"B. Requirements for Participants at Society events

Anyone may attend Society events provided he or she wears an attempt at
pre-17th century clothing, conforms to the provisions in Corpora, and
complies with any other requirements (such as site fees or waivers)
which may be imposed.  At business meetings and informal classes, the
requirement to wear pre-17th century dress may be waived.  All
participants are expected to behave as ladies or gentlemen."

I like that last sentence.  Behaving like a lady or gentleman is
definitely "a good thing".

Do note that we get our choice, too.  Any of you strapping lads out
there that have a hankering to can act like a lady and still be allowed
to attend.  Or vice-versa.  That provision came in handy for a fellow
who joined my old barony many years ago - he was a female impersonator
by profession.  I'm not really digressing here for humor's sake, I'm
pointing out how much flexibility is in that very short paragraph.

The quoted paragraph supports the assertion that the SCA does not
require authentic gear AT ALL.  Not even a "reasonable attempt."  Just
an "attempt".  My wife is a college professor.  Some of her students
"attempt" her exams and get a zero for their score.  One could argue the
same principle applies here.

This is from the By-Laws of the SCA (in the same pdf file).  Page 39.

"III. Objectives and Purposes

The SCA shall be dedicated primarily to the promotion of research and
re-creation in the field of pre-17th-century Western culture, as stated
in greater detail in Article II of the SCA's Articles of Incorporation."

That doesn't support either position.  Here are the relevant portions of
Article II (page 52):

"II. ...
The purposes for which this corporation is formed include:
(a) Research and education in the field of pre-17th-Century Western
Culture.

(b) Generally, to engage in research, publish material of relevance and
interest to the field of pre-17th-Century Western Culture; to present
activities and events which re-create the environment of said era, such
as, but not limited to, tournaments, jousts, fairs, dances, classes, et
cetera; to acquire authentic or reproduced replicas of chattles
representative of said era; and to collect a library. ..."

Clearly, one of the main purposes for which the SCA has been formed is
to acquire authentic stuff or reproduced replicas of stuff from our era
of study.  

But I don't think that has ever been in dispute!

I believe that the governing documents of the SCA support the current
law on covering non-period looking armour only in that it is a properly
written law, duly published and announced according to established law
and custom.  That still makes it the law in Atlantia.
Like it or not.

I think that Their Graces Logan, Isabel, Cuan and Padraigin did Atlantia
a great service by putting this issue so clearly in the public eye.  We
do need to improve our level of "visibly apparent" authenticity, which
is what the legislation in question is designed to achieve.

Personally, I don't like the law.  

Not because it's "too hard to comply".  It's not very hard to comply
with the new law, it was **designed** to be easy to comply with it.  It
shouldn't cost any fighter more than a few dollars to comply and
requires only the simplest of skills.   Some fabric and glue will cover
up any plastic.  Boots can be cheaply covered, too.  Frankly, if a
fighter can master being safe on the field, they can master gluing
fabric to plastic or sewing a cheap surcoat to cover it.

I just prefer the carrot to the stick on these type of issues.
And, like others, I am concerned that a precedent has been set that may
not serve us well in the future.  We cannot count on wisdom in all
monarchs in the future, so its possible that future "extensions" of this
concept may be far more disruptive and, in fact, ill-advised.

So, like others, I have entered the debate in order to add whatever
useful advice I can to the subject immediately at hand, and to help
prevent future ill-advised extensions to this legislative concept.

I would prefer to see each of us volunteer to help each other improve
our levels of authenticity.  Ask yourself what you can do in the next
three months to improve your own level of authenticity, have fun doing
so, and help others to do the same.  Then do it!

Yours in service,

Andras