[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Response to Proposed IAC Banishment Change

On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Stephanie Malone Thorson wrote:

> As I understand it, one of the many causes of that turbulence was 
> political factionalism.  It's my experience that there's quite enough 
> politicking in the SCA as it is, and I am loathe to add more.
  So I hear tell. I'm not certain that an elected regional executive 
would add any more tension than elected barons or other local officers 
and might resolve some of the politics about kingdom level offices.'
> Perhaps you're right, but somehow I think the prevalence of fairy-tale 
> costuming, nylon dome tents and soda cans presents a more immediate 
> threat to the historical nature of SCA activity, and thus to the 
> non-profit ed. org. status of the Society as a whole.

  The costumes are a problem, but they are not official actions by the 
corporate organization. And as I gather, there is an informal pressure 
for more accurate stuff. The nylond dome tents and soda cans are likewise 
actions by participants allowed primarily for cost. Again, there is often 
unofficial pressure to hide the obvious modern stuff and sometimes even 
segregated "enchanted ground" campsites.
  The problem for the exemption (NOT the non-porfit status, that's a 
purely California state law standard) is mostly official actions and 
> abolishing it would impact the Society as a whole - not just Atlantia.  
  True. But the question is whether tradition, cherished or no, should 
fall to historical accuracy or should we chuck the apparently equally 
cherished 501(c)(3) status on the grounds that we don't care to enforce 
historical standards. I really don't see much middle ground.

> > concept that reminds me too much of how modern civil servants view 
> > political appointees.
> Well, perhaps the medieval sovereign didn't need to cope with an 
> independent bureaucracy per se, but almost all of our kingdom-level 
> officers are derived from medieval royal administration.  And the 
> individuals who made up the royal administrations in the Middle Ages were 
> uniformly drawn from the landed nobility of the kingdom

 Demonstrably untrue. Take as but one example Jacques Coeur (15C France) 
who rose to great prominance and was but a mere merchant. The situation 
is even more stark in Norman Sicily (tho. Italy is an exception to nearly 
every medieval generality)

> offices were also hereditary, and jealously guarded by the landed 
> families who held them.

  The offices were _at times_ considered hereditary rights, but the major 
royal reformers including Philippe II Auguste and St. Louis rooted out 
those who did not do their jobs and made it a point to keep people from 
getting too comfortable (and thus too corrupt) in one post.