In einer eMail vom 7/23/2005 7:01:47 PM W. Europe Daylight Time schreibt
seanhayes@northwestacademyofarms.com:
In particular, the various forms of the "sport vs classical" debate
seem to consume much discussion time. That's fine. The list should
feel free to discuss whatever it wants, and clearly this is a popular
topic: people should explore their interest in it. But for me, after
a solid decade on this and other lists, it's been exhausted. I have
no complaints about sport fencers or sport fencing to make - I wish
them all well - and I have no further interest in defining classical
fencing as "not sport fencing".
It's a shame Sean's withdrawing, but I can understand where he's coming
from. Defining classical fencing as "not sport fencing" is indeed if not a dead
end, a sign that there are deeper problems. I asked for discussion of a
positive definition, and got only a souped-up Venn diagram decorating chronology
in response.
But in its way it makes sense: I think the idea that classical fencers
should engage sport fencers on the strip is a good one to debate. It forces or
should the kind of definition classical badly needs. At the core of all the
discussion of rules and gizmos is a real vacancy: Just what is it we
represent? Rapier? Smallsword? Singlestick? Dussack? Schlager? Everything from
big switchblades to playing Friar Tuck with quarter staffs? This is what
happens with Romantic quests for anything--they dissolve into whatever one
wants. Gizmos, too. The kung fu syndrome is perhaps worst, since what we call
"fencing" developed within very different social and political contexts from
the Asian, no matter what superficial similarities someone can grab for.
What's left but a "what it's not?"
A more fruitful tack might be to arrive at a consensus for purposes of
organization and standards. Right now--Walter Green's studied this--there's a
real crisis coming in just replacement of the current generation of teachers.
Are there systematic curricula and standards in place we have in common?
Once again, I thank Walter is way ahead of the pack here--we've adapted his here
in Germany for a specifically German context, but they differ only in terms
of how they are pitched, not in substance, and we are arguing soon, in print
and online, for a German organization and their adoption. I am making very
sure that the material is internationally available in bi-lingual text in the
best-fitting translations.
Issues of experts and ignoranti are bothersome, too. There is this
"problem" when among other things folks are all over the map in terms of what's
"classical" and a lack of clarity, of ideas clearly defined, solidly grounded, are
floating around. And what does the issue say about how newcomers, beginning
fencers--who're the future of fencing and the pool from which future teachers
will come--are treated?
This isn't a call for populism, just the opposite. A definition requires
genuine scholarship, with the linguistic and analytical tools professional
training brings. That'd upset a lot of apple carts, but if it ain't recruited and
welcomed and turned full-bore on the whole range of fencing activity, we'll
be stuck.
My best to Sean.
Bill Leckie
_flanconade/soestfechten@aol.com_ (mailto:flanconade/soestfechten@aol.com)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFML is sponsored in part by Purpleheart Armoury, now carrying rapier blunts and leather gorgets. http://www.woodenswords.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/classicalfencing/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
classicalfencing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 |  | |
|
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: Re: [CFML] Resigning from List
Similar Threads
| ||
