[MR] Peerage questions

[Nicole Spaun]

Sir Salamandra,
> >I find that disturbing.> > You should not. The explanation is quite simple. There is nothing devious> or underhanded about it.> 
But it is very ironic, eh?  Because we're a group of people who were mostly misfits in school so we yearned for the values of chivalry.  And now we come up with cliques and faster recognition for those being in said cliques, creating misfits just as was done to us years ago.  The irony of it is what is disturbing.  And yes, that has everything to do with social dynamics- which doesn't make it right just because it happens ;)  Sometimes I think I'd rather be a dolphin or a cat than a human...
 
> An independent (i.e., not a squire, apprentice or protégé) who is very> personable and very fun to be around will tend to overcome the social> dynamics of getting known more quickly. Ditto for someone whose work is> truly outstanding. They have to work harder.> > Is that wrong? I do not think so. If they have chosen to work towards the> peerages without taking advantage of all the opportunities our society> provides, so be it.> 
 
That last sentence implies that it's right that the independent or politically unallied have to work harder than those who are taking advantage of our system, of the 'opportunities our society provides' in your words.  While I'm sure candidates like Nader would agree that happens in today's world, it certainly doesn't sound very fair or chivalrous to me.
  > And I hope I've explained why. Realistically, would you expect me to notice> someone faster who works with me all the time, or someone I only see at a> few events a year for a few minutes at a time? If you've got a solution for> that problem, please share it!> 
 
The way our society is set up provides no easy solution.  So long as people officially take others under their wing, there will always be the perception of nepotism.  So the peers shouldn't be offended at that perception.  They look after their own, which is as it should be to them in that relationship... but they should understand that to people outside that relationship, to independent or self-motived or unassociated or whatever you want to call them, individuals, well, they don't have to like it and can justifiably say that it disturbs them.  
 
Would it be more fair for peers to seek out their equals however far and advise from afar, rather than being encouraged to take a local friend on to train them to become their equals?  So that the person who is already doing the service or making the art doesn't have to force the peers to notice them/it but that the peers come look for that?  In an ideal world, I say yes because that's what chivalry means to me.  Not rewarding one's chosen folks just because of proximity or how much fun they are to be around, but being willing to cross continents to find that grail, that person toiling away just because _that's what they do_ without the protection of an official associate.  That's my opinion and what I'd do if I were a peer.  While I understand we're emulating a medieval society where there were apprentices and squires, we're also emulating one where crusaders, the ones who went out and about and sought things, were respected more highly than a non-crusading knight who hung back with his buds in Europe.  
 
Before I get toasted, I know that there are many many peers who actively _seek_ out talent _to whatever distance_ and then nurture that talent--- that is a beautiful thing.  That keeps me in the SCA :).  But there are some who turn to their friends and take them under their wing because they're close and fairly good and they can train anyone to be better so that's enough for them.  And then to see those people get into the peerages faster than the unassociated seems a cheat somehow.  So my praises go out to the former peers instead, that's all.       
 
> >So if a person wants to be, say, a Laurel, they almost have to be> >apprenticed to eventually get on the team. > > That is simply not true. They will, all things being equal, probably take> longer, simply because people will get to know them at a somewhat slower> rate.> 
 
Hence the perception that some people do things to get noticed just to get awards while other people do things quietly, simply enjoying the journey itself.  It's a natural thought.
    
 
> I don't know where people get this notion of "politicking" about awarding> the peerages. In my experience spanning almost three decades, it simply> isn't so. Merit is the criteria. > 
I'm not saying merit doesn't enter into it but you said yourself that you have to do many things to get noticed to get the attention of the peerages.  Those things to get one noticed are considered "campaigning" by many.  That's the notion in a nutshell. 
 
 
> While I'm on this topic, there is a big, big difference between these two> statements:> > "They want to be worthy of being a knight (laurel, pelican)."> "They just want to be a knight (laurel, pelican)."> > The first implies the person is actively striving to be considered a person> of fine character and skill, the second implies they want an award for the> sake of the award.> > I strongly support those in the first category. I will strongly postpone> those in the second category until they move to the first category. ;)> 
Lovely statement.  And very true.  
 
Just know that there are some of us who want to be worthy of being a laurel or a pelican... but don't want to be attached to one household or peer or another.  Personally, I really admire pelicans but I like living footloose and politic free (says the chick working for the govt *doh*) so it just doesn't seem fair that I'd be recognized slower because I chose to interact with all households and all peers without grappling onto just one- you'd would expect you get more backing that way but the records and these comments show otherwise.  So it goes, so it goes.
 
With the upmost respect,
~Bianca