I hear you, Denny. Respectful disagreement is just fine. I think these are, after all, things that reasonable people can disagree about.
I enjoy the discussion for its own sake.
Donnchadh;55890 wrote:
So, while I was in error on the English being there, they are not in the top 3 as Nick said they were and when one considers the numbers of the others like Spanish, German, Irish, etc, they are hardly in position to assert "dominant" cultural influence.
Ah, as a Euro-American of predominantly English ancestry, I am pleased that I am now officially a minority in the United States. 
We must inform the politicians and new media immediately.
/Charles
I’m reminded of a song called Rockin’ the Suburbs by Ben Folds:
Quote:
In a haze these days
I pull up to the stoplight
I can feel that something’s not right
I can feel that someone’s blasting me with hate and bass
Sending dirty vibes my way
Cause my great great great great grandad
Made someone’s great great great great grandaddy slaves
It wasn’t my idea
It wasn’t my idea
It never was my idea
I just drove to the store for some Preparation H
Ya’ll don’t know what it’s like being male, middle class and white
Jonathan R. Baker;55905 wrote:
I’m reminded of a song called Rockin’ the Suburbs by Ben Folds:
Right on, man.
Donnchadh;55890 wrote:
Respectfully, I can not disagree more. I can not for the life of me see that Quebec is an offshoot of England in any manner whatsoever – I doubt very seriously that those people in Quebec do either, as they seem to me to be very outwardly French.
Francophones are only 1/4 or so of Canada’s population. And Anglophones are pretty clearly influenced mostly by Great Britain. And GB’s population is roughly 80%-90% English.
Donnchadh;55890 wrote:
Here’s the stats on the Mexican-Americans who are at +28 million with the Irish being second and ahead of them as seen in the one above at 36 million, so I don’t see how the English are 3rd, but I may be missing it.
3rd among white ethnic groups. I usually consider Latinos a racial group. But it’s all semantics anyway.
They’re 4th in terms of heraldic heritage—African culture has many wonderful elements, but heraldry isn’t one of them. Besides, figuring out which African tradition counts for African-Americans is nigh impossible. It’s not like the slave-owners kept detailed records of their slaves African origins.
Donnchadh;55890 wrote:
So, while I was in error on the English being there, they are not in the top 3 as Nick said they were and when one considers the numbers of the others like Spanish, German, Irish, etc, they are hardly in position to assert "dominant" cultural influence. Historical? Probably given it was brave Englishmen and mostly Scots-Irish who made the Revolution a reality, but outside of that it is confined to the original 13 and almost non-existant in the western USA.
We’re typing in English. English-English. It’s true the dialect we’re using is American, but it’s pretty clear that almost all those immigrant groups dropped a lot of their cultural heritage in favor of English-based American culture that was already here.
In some cases that included drastic changes to naming customs—Germans, for example, frequently have several personal names, and are usually not known by the first one. IIRC German women didn’t take their husband’s names until relatively recently, but I don’t know if most of the Germans who came to the US did so before or after the change.
That’s the difficulty with European history. 1600 is relatively recent, because European recorded history starts with the Greeks.
Donnchadh;55890 wrote:
Still, I think that American heraldry is clearly influenced by English heraldry, but it need not be the only, or even the prime source…especially for those of us whose ancestry is not English, but is Spanish, Irish, German, French, etc.
Finally, I will say that my opinion is that American heraldry should be fiercely, decidely American in character and not a step-child of English, or any other group.
The question is:
What makes American heraldry American?
Nick
Fred, I agree with everything you said in your last post.
Quote:
African culture has many wonderful elements, but heraldry isn’t one of them. Besides, figuring out which African tradition counts for African-Americans is nigh impossible. It’s not like the slave-owners kept detailed records of their slaves African origins.
What Nick? Have you not seen the African heraldic works out there even those from Nenad before? Is it as much a part of their culture as say a Euro-centric culture? No, probably not. However, it is there none-the-less.
In fact, one of my favorite pieces I did for a client was for an African-American who is the varsity basketball coach at my old parochial school stomping grounds. He wanted it to be African in appearance, charges, and colors. We did so and it turned out excellent. It wasn’t hard to figure out what African “style” to go with at all. I don’t know where that comes from frankly.
A viewing of NBA games and NFL games will reveal a fairly good size group of African-Americans who have tattoos of coats of arms. Undoubtedly bucket-shop stuff, but at least the interest is there. So, I do not buy the idea that heraldry isn’t one of the elements of African culture – either in the USA or in Africa itself.
Quote:
We’re typing in English. English-English. It’s true the dialect we’re using is American, but it’s pretty clear that almost all those immigrant groups dropped a lot of their cultural heritage in favor of English-based American culture that was already here.
No, respectfully, it is not “clear” at all. I know several German-Americans whose fathers/grandfathers were beaten by school officials for speaking in German at school. So, it was not just “dropped” ... I’d say it might have been beaten out of them in a good many cases. We Irish had lost our tongue due to similar forced use of English in Ireland itself. To be dropped implies voluntarilly done so. That doesn’t seem to always be the case. Now, semantics aside English language is very much the main, if not only, aspect of English culture that endures and I for one, despite my name and ethnic identity, hope to God it remains so! I do not want to see a nation of a zillion different languages where no one can understand each other.
Also, for the record, American log-cabins, the earliest pioneers of the plains and the west (outside of the Spanish and French) themselves, the fighting spirit of the American frontiersmen, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc were all gifts of the Ulster-Irish, which means they were Scotsmen, not Englishmen, and there is a difference in those cultures as well ... enough to undermine the notion that American culture is “Anglo-centric” even amongst English speaking people. So the idea of English-based American culture is in many parts of the USA, IMO, not entirely accurate as it would be more accurate to say Scots-American culture seeing as it was primarily those people who settled the American west followed by the Irish and Germans.
Quote:
The question is:
What makes American heraldry American?
Exactly the million dollar question IMO. One to which I can not say I have a totally wrapped my own head around. But, I know that there are clear American symbols that could be encouraged to be used (we had an old thread on that from a couple of years ago IIRC). That is a great place to start. Another would be as the guidelines here have done in making room for equal display of arms by men and women (only recently an English practice IINM). The whole name follows the arms debate we had on the other thread (again one I can’t say I have a complete grasp of even though I have definite opinions) is another. Those would be good starting places IMO. Certainly no matter what comes up I think that it should be based, rooted in some basics, but flexible enough for growth/change as that is quintessentially American.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
So, I do not buy the idea that heraldry isn’t one of the elements of African culture – either in the USA or in Africa itself.
Well, amigo, I have to disagree. Let’s not forget that African culture is hardly monolithic. Also, I’m afraid Nick is correct in noting that pegging the descendants of slaves to any particular African culture is all but impossible, so that whatever devices you came up with for your black client can only have been conjectural, if not—please forgive me for saying so—sheer fantasy on somebody’s part.
If we’re willing to overlook illegitimacy, then it is just conceivable that one or two of the athletes you mention might actually be entitled to the bucket shop arms they sport on their biceps, but in all likelihood, they’re making an even sadder, more ignorant mistake than is involved in such presumption by whites.
If heraldry is now part of any particular, sub-Saharan African culture, it is only because it was imported by or adopted from the former European colonial power. Heraldry is no part of indigenous African culture. None. Show me one pre-colonial coat of arms from sub-Saharan Africa.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
I know several German-Americans whose fathers/grandfathers were beaten by school officials for speaking in German at school. So, it was not just “dropped” . . .
With all due respect, Denny, you’re confusing unrelated phenomena and basing your argument here on anecdotes that have an ex post facto meaning imposed on them. First, I’m not sure what "beating" is supposed to refer to, but corporal punishment was a standard response to all kinds of trivial, innocent nonconformity in American schools until very recently. Even in the early 1980s, I was paddled in my elementary school for "infractions" like daydreaming and slurping my milk. The U.S. has never had an official language, believe it or not, but the lingua franca has always been English, and learning English has always been essential to survival here, so motivating immigrant children to speak English in school was (and is) entirely appropriate, even if the 19th century way of motivating them fell well short of current pedagogical norms. Moreover, we could be talking about situations in which the teacher herself understood German, and overheard the kids insulting her, or something like that.
A further key point is that the fact of an immigrant resorting to using his native language to meet his communicative needs does not necessarily mean that he is resisting assimilation. It may simply mean that he hasn’t succeeded in assimilating. Remember, though we are witnessing a broad trend towards the cultivation of dual- or multi-national identities today, immigrants for most of U.S. history truly did want to leave the old country behind and become American (the characteristics of which were once much more susceptible of generalization than they are now). After all, if the old country was so great, they would not have left. In most cases, the old country was downright miserable and all people really intentionally held onto was the religion, the cuisine, and memories of persecution and poverty. They sure didn’t go on wearing national costumes, etc. in everyday life. Nostalgia for the old country was probably tied most often to disappointment in the relative difficulty of social mobility in the land of opportunity and other forms of culture shock.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
Also, for the record, American log-cabins, the earliest pioneers of the plains and the west (outside of the Spanish and French) themselves, the fighting spirit of the American frontiersmen, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc were all gifts of the Ulster-Irish.
Definitely an overgeneralization, and connected to the expansion of the country, not the founding of it. But I should point out that a lot of pioneer families that have often been described as Scotch-Irish (like Andrew Jackson’s) were actually British borderers—English families who were not of Celtic ancestry but lived in the Scottish border area (cf., Albion’s Seed: Four English Folkways in America by David Hackett Fisher). So it is not at all safe to claim the frontier ethos for the Ulster Scots alone (much as I would like to, as I have heaps of Ulster Scots ancestry). When we get to the Upper Midwest, the Germans and the Scandinavians deserve plenty of credit, too.
In any case, the founding of the country was overwhelmingly the work of relatively high-caste English expats who tried everything they could think of to avoid breaking with England and did so only when the pressure became absolutely intolerable. Plenty of common and eminent people in England sympathized with them, too, so the sense in which the Revolution signified a total cultural rift was not necessarily as profound as we might be tempted to think. Recall that the "father" of our country, George Washington’s main but thwarted ambition in life was to get a regular commission in the British Army, that he fought for England in the French and Indian War (which he was actually personally responsible for touching off), and that he wasted no time getting in touch with the College of Arms the minute the war was over so he could verify his English ancestry and his right to an English coat of arms. Recall, too, the great influx Royalists into Virginia, especially, during the English Civil War, and of Jacobites into the colonies after the various rebellions. If the Stuarts had remained the de facto English monarchs, history might have turned out quite differently for the colonies.
In addition to the evidence Nick has marshalled, I would note that the enduring power of English institutions in American life can be seen, among other things, in the fact that until the last two decades or so, the confession of the establishment in this country was understood by all to be the Episcopal Church (i.e., the Church of England). I would also note that for at least the first several decades of our post-colonial history, trends in art, architecture, and other forms of material culture in this country were led by English tastes, not Continental ones. If something foreign was in vogue here, often it was because it played well or was manifested in England first (e.g., Classical Revival, Gothic Revival, the Arts and Crafts Movement). Early on, there were Francophiles about, like Jefferson and Franklin, but both because of the language barrier, the fact that France was mainly Catholic, and the fact that France was frequently a total mess for the better part of the 19th century, Americans tended to be suspicious of things French if the Brits didn’t go for them first.
And let’s not forget that in American universities, American literature was not often regarded as having any place in the canon until the 20th century. Rather, students were given to understand that their national literature was ENGLISH literature.
What I’m driving at is that when we try to identify a point of departure for the development of this truly "American" heraldic idiom that keeps eluding us, the only one that makes sense in England’s heraldic tradition. All the other traditions that might inform ours may be relevant, but are clearly secondary. There’s just no way around this that holds water, as far as I can see.
Quote:
Well, amigo, I have to disagree. Let’s not forget that African culture is hardly monolithic. Also, I’m afraid Nick is correct in noting that pegging the descendants of slaves to any particular African culture is all but impossible, so that whatever devices you came up with for your black client can only have been conjectural, if not—please forgive me for saying so—sheer fantasy on somebody’s part.
Well, amigo , you are wrong because you assumed something not in fact. Coach Carl HAS had genealogical work done and has a better understanding of where his ancestors came from than most people of European ancestry I know.
Further, I never said in this thread what our process was in coming up with a decidedly African coat of arms did I? Did you take the time to reference the thread I mentioned about it before saying this? You couldn’t have, as I laid out there what he wanted and why and, indeed, it did not correspond to where his ancestors came from according to his own genealogical work, but on two specific African masks, from Nigeria IIRC, that were very important to him. Now there’s a novel heraldic idea for African-Americans…doing what we Euro-Americans do and make it personal, eh amigo?
Quote:
If we’re willing to overlook illegitimacy, then it is just conceivable that one or two of the athletes you mention might actually be entitled to the bucket shop arms they sport on their biceps, but in all likelihood, they’re making an even sadder, more ignorant mistake than is involved in such presumption by whites.
You’re kidding, right? There are so many things here that I want to comment on, but won’t in honor of the day it is and my undoubted lack of understanding of your intent as I don’t want to ascribe something to you that is not there.
Quote:
If heraldry is now part of any particular, sub-Saharan African culture, it is only because it was imported by or adopted from the former European colonial power.
As it was to the Angles, Saxons, Scotts, and Irish by the Normans? Heraldry has always been an evolving art and science and is seen and practiced very differently in many place in Europe. So, are the English, the Scottish and the Irish less steeped in heraldry because of this fact? I think not. How can you assert this then, for Africans?
Quote:
Heraldry is no part of indigenous African culture. None. Show me one pre-colonial coat of arms from sub-Saharan Africa.
Of course I will give examples of “heraldic” practice in the loosest terms for Africans –read Neubecker! It was not as exact as we have it, but shields with designs important to the tribes for religious, or genealogical reasons, were common place before the Europeans. I will also ask my good friend Mike Oette who resides in South Africa and is decidedly more versed in African heraldry than either you or I, if he can share with me some of his insights again and then I will be happy to share them with you.
Quote:
With all due respect, Denny, you’re confusing unrelated phenomena and basing your argument here on anecdotes that have an ex post facto meaning imposed on them. First, I’m not sure what "beating" is supposed to refer to, but corporal punishment was a standard response to all kinds of trivial, innocent nonconformity in American schools until very recently. Even in the early 1980s, I was paddled in my elementary school for "infractions" like daydreaming and slurping my milk. The U.S. has never had an official language, believe it or not, but the lingua franca has always been English, and learning English has always been essential to survival here, so motivating immigrant children to speak English in school was (and is) entirely appropriate, even if the 19th century way of motivating them fell well short of current pedagogical norms. Moreover, we could be talking about situations in which the teacher herself understood German, and overheard the kids insulting her, or something like that.
Let’s see … my client Kersnick of Colorado talked with me of how his dad and granddad had beatings (more than one lashing with a belt) for using German at the school they attended when growing up in a farming community in Kansas and eastern Colorado. My client Bauer of Colorado told me that her father lamented that he had German beaten out of him at school also for using German in Colorado; the only thing this WWII vet had ever regretted about his life and something to which his daughter whished she had access to from childhood according to her. So, I have two practical examples of “beatings” that were used in a school to stop these German-American kids from using the German language. To simply “drop” an aspect of one’s identity, or culture, for the adoption of another implies a willing release of it not under duress. That is not the case here in these real-life examples of an all to common phenomenon of early 20th century American school systems.
Quote:
Remember, though we are witnessing a broad trend towards the cultivation of dual- or multi-national identities today,…
Um, Fred, amigo, we’ve always had this. I am not a history expert, outside of art-history and event hen not an expert, but even I recall learning of the German-American, Irish-American and Italo-American communities retaining their identities while melting them with their new, adopted county identity beginning back in the 1840s. For crying out loud, my good friend, the work of the Know Nothings helped cement those old-world cultural identities in these newly arrived people, as these ignorant people (Know Nothings) thought America was only for “Americans,” which really meat for Protestant Englishmen and Scotsmen and not for foul, dirty papist Germans, Irish and Italians. I know that in the Irish and Italian communities such connections with the old sod have never gone away despite these people being decidedly American. Of course, I am getting the impression that you can not understand how a group of people, or an individual, could do this, which for me is easy and I will try to sum up for you: Irish by blood, American by birth, my blood bleeds Irish, but for America. This is, I believe, how many so-called “dual-identity” Americans live. It is how all the Italian-Americans at my parish and the Irish-Americans I know, live with and socialize with see things. Plurality in one’s identity does not mean one is divided. Rather, it is a recognition of the true wonder that is in each of us.
Quote:
Definitely an overgeneralization, and connected to the expansion of the country, not the founding of it.
No, it is not either. It is a reality, not over-exaggeration (a simple viewing of American history on History channel and History International every July, or even a good American history book, will attest tot his) and it is indeed connected to the expansion of the country and the founding. I do not recall the statistics, but more Scots-Irish and regular Irish made up officers in the American army and navy of George Washington. Why? Because more were here and were willing to fight the English than English here who held, generally speaking, more loyalty to England and their king. Indeed they fought for the reason of a new nation free from the English monarchy and aristocracy precisely because they had been forced to leave their native land in search of opportunity and freedom by such Englishmen. I really wish I could remember the names of those shows on HIST and HINT every July so I could direct you to them, but they are there…chalk full of real historians using real facts. The backbone of the revolution was the Scots-Irish, as was expansion of the country, which, living in Califas you must know is a far cry different from, say, Massachusetts, or RI, or New Hamphsire, or parts of the south excluding Louisiana, Texas and Missouri where a strong French and Mexican and Texican heritage prevails. I can see many parts of the original 13 where a very strong, and rightfully proud, Anglo-centric culture exists, but that is not the same for the remainder of the 50.
IINM there were roughly a third of the signers of the Decloration who had either Scots-Irish or Irish ancestry, which is not strictly English expats. So it was not a full-on expat English movement from the get go and the war was executed by and large by non-English citizens.
Quote:
In addition to the evidence Nick has marshalled, I would note that the enduring power of English institutions in American life can be seen, among other things, in the fact that until the last two decades or so, the confession of the establishment in this country was understood by all to be the Episcopal Church (i.e., the Church of England).
By “establishment” I presume you mean the elite minority, not the real establishment, who are the people, for the “people” have not been “understood by all” to be Anglican/Episcopalian. Certainly the religion of many of the presidents has not been Anglican/Episcopalian, so your assertion here seems to me to be pure fantasy. In those same programs mentioned above there was talk of how it was the Baptists who were the largest propagators of the separation of Church and State precisely as a result of the actions of the minority-supremacy of the Anglicans/Episcopalians and were joined by the Reformed/Calvanist churches relatively quickly, again for the same reason. So, this does not wash cleanly Fred according to the doctors of history on those shows.
Quote:
I would also note that for at least the first several decades of our post-colonial history, trends in art, architecture, and other forms of material culture in this country were led by English tastes, not Continental ones. If something foreign was in vogue here, often it was because it played well or was manifested in England first (e.g., Classical Revival, Gothic Revival, the Arts and Crafts Movement). Early on, there were Francophiles about, like Jefferson and Franklin, but both because of the language barrier, the fact that France was mainly Catholic, and the fact that France was frequently a total mess for the better part of the 19th century, Americans tended to be suspicious of things French if the Brits didn’t go for them first.
I don’t do this often, ‘cuz I think it can be bad form amongst friends, but as an art history man and until recently an interior design/interior architecture student as well, this does not bear out by the facts as presented in my collegial education. So, please furnish the facts for this statement. You won’t be able to, mind you, but I have to call you on this one, for in reality there has always been a very, very large affinity with both high and country French tastes in everything from fashion to pictorial art to cultural art and to a lesser extent to architectural art, where a more Greko-Italo-centric design is preferred, which is in fact the base of many, many of the great Georgian structures in both Britain and the USA. The same can be said of the art of music, which again is dominated by Germanic and Italian people. The one place I will concede this is likely to be literature, with the possible exception of the Greek classics, though I do not know enough about those arts to say for certain.
Quote:
All the other traditions that might inform ours may be relevant, but are clearly secondary. There’s just no way around this that holds water, as far as I can see.
Good, we are back on heraldry now, and I must disagree. Mark Olivo, IIRC, had some pics of Spanish arms in the Americas, including the American west, that pre-date English influence. I do not know specifically about the French in Louisiana, but I suspect it can be found there as well. So, while I agree that English heraldic tradition has its place and that it is a strong one, perhaps first in the class, I refuse the notion that it is the dominant, or only, one especially for places where English culture is a ‘Johny-come-lately’ compared to previous cultures or where it no longer exists as it once did.
Besides, as I said before, IMO only, American Heraldry should be decidedly American and I have already given ideas on how I think that could start IMO and stated I have no hold on how this debate ultimately turns out as I hold no scholarly, or moral, high ground. But, I’d be ‘danged’ if I ever agreed that a Spanish-influenced area should surrender its first main culture in favor of a new comer under the premise of the new comer being more valid. Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree there Fred.
P.S. I have missed these sorts of spirited debate and this one has been nice and friendly Fred. If I could I’d buy you a pint of your favorite lager, ale or stout. Oh well maybe one day when I visit California.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
So, while I agree that English heraldic tradition has its place and that it is a strong one, perhaps first in the class, I refuse the notion that it is the dominant, or only, one especially for places where English culture is a ‘Johny-come-lately’ compared to previous cultures or where it no longer exists as it once did.
Isn’t "first in the class" the rationale I’ve advanced for using English heraldry as the starting point? As for previous cultures in now-American territories, at the end of the day, the dominant culture there is the one that spread West from the original 13 states. The lingua franca is English, etc. We are one nation under God, correct? Are you suggesting we should have regional laws of arms?
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
P.S. I have missed these sorts of spirited debate and this one has been nice and friendly Fred. If I could I’d buy you a pint of your favorite lager, ale or stout. Oh well maybe one day when I visit California.
Sure thing. One of these days.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
Coach Carl HAS had genealogical work done and has a better understanding of where his ancestors came from than most people of European ancestry I know.
Then he is a rare exception—but please try to respond to what I actually said. I didn’t say it is never possible for descendants of slaves to identify their pedigree, only that it impossible for all but a very few, which is true. I mean, I guess with the advent of DNA tests, some broad inferences about region of origin, etc. are possible, but in terms of reconstructing specific tribal and family traditions, I don’t think so.
Anyway, if I misunderstood the basis for Coach Carl’s COA design, my apologies, but it sounded to me like you were implying that it derived from his ancestry.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
You’re kidding, right? There are so many things here that I want to comment on, but won’t in honor of the day it is and my undoubted lack of understanding of your intent as I don’t want to ascribe something to you that is not there.
Go ahead and comment. I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with, but I doubt that Jesus will mind your bringing it up on Easter.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
As it was to the Angles, Saxons, Scotts, and Irish by the Normans? Heraldry has always been an evolving art and science and is seen and practiced very differently in many place in Europe. So, are the English, the Scottish and the Irish less steeped in heraldry because of this fact? I think not. How can you assert this then, for Africans?
The foregoing passage makes no sense to me. Can you clarify?
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
Of course I will give examples of “heraldic” practice in the loosest terms for Africans –read Neubecker! It was not as exact as we have it, but shields with designs important to the tribes for religious, or genealogical reasons, were common place before the Europeans
Well, you could be referring to any number of things here—wall paintings from Algeria, shields from Congo, etc., but what we call "heraldic compositions" in art history are far from identical with heraldry per se, which came from a very specific medieval European context and was then transported elsewhere.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
So, I have two practical examples of “beatings” that were used in a school to stop these German-American kids from using the German language.
Like I said—anecdotes and hearsay. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just saying this is no basis for the kind of generalization you made.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
. . . but even I recall learning of the German-American, Irish-American and Italo-American communities retaining their identities while melting them with their new, adopted county identity beginning back in the 1840s.
You’re conceding my point, which is that people used to meld the old and the new, but mainly adopt the new, whereas now, they often don’t want to meld anything, but to live in intact miniatures of the old country. And of course I understand how someone can retain an affinity for his ancestral home but be fully invested in American citizenship. But again, that’s not the phenomenon I’m referring to.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
I do not recall the statistics, but more Scots-Irish and regular Irish made up officers in the American army and navy of George Washington.
Again, a lot of people traditionally identified as Scots-Irish were not Celts, though I don’t dispute the importance of the Celts in the evolution of our culture. As for a majority of officers in the Continental Line . . . Well, sorry, I look at muster rolls for Continental units a lot, and that isn’t how it looks to me. And in terms of "regular Irish (by which I assume you mean Irish Catholics)" there were very few here prior to the famine, so that definitely can’t be right.
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
IINM there were roughly a third of the signers of the Decloration who had either Scots-Irish or Irish ancestry, which is not strictly English expats. So it was not a full-on expat English movement from the get go and the war was executed by and large by non-English citizens.
I didn’t say strictly or only. I did say overwhelmingly, and maybe that’s an exaggeration, but it would seem to me that 2/3 of the signers is a pretty solid majority. How do you arrive at the conclusion that the war was "executed by and large by non-English citizens [sic]"?
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
By “establishment” I presume you mean the elite minority, not the real establishment, who are the people
Of course I mean the elite, which is the conventional meaning of the term. The fact that a majority of Presidents haven’t been Episcopalian doesn’t undermine the truth value of what I said and neither does your alternative definition of the word "establishment."
Donnchadh;55964 wrote:
. . . for in reality there has always been a very, very large affinity with both high and country French tastes in everything from fashion to pictorial art to cultural art and to a lesser extent to architectural art, where a more Greko-Italo-centric design is preferred, which is in fact the base of many, many of the great Georgian structures in both Britain and the USA. The same can be said of the art of music, which again is dominated by Germanic and Italian people. The one place I will concede this is likely to be literature, with the possible exception of the Greek classics, though I do not know enough about those arts to say for certain . . .
Denny, there’s nothing for you to call me out on because you’re conceding my point, which is that, generally speaking, all of these tastes hit England first, from whence they came to our shores. Go back and read what I actually said. I didn’t say that only English art, architecture, literature, and music were appreciated by early Americans, but that our tastes in all those categories were largely led by English arbiters, English interpreters, English translators, etc.
BTW, perhaps you can now tell, but it so happens that I’m an old art history man (BA, Goucher College ‘96, summer internship at the Baltimore Museum of Art, teacher of AP Art History now).
Quote:
We are one nation under God, correct? Are you suggesting we should have regional laws of arms?
No. I’ve said for years now I advocate a basic set of guidelines (yours at the AHS is a darn good start and one I point clients seeking a new design to when they get too confused or wonder why they shouldn’t have this or that) but open enough to recognize not all Americans are of English extraction and should not have to submit to English heraldic norms for their assumed arms if they do not want to.
Where I draw the line is when people come out with the ‘English is the best/only way’ sort of stuff, so I usually try and head that off in debate (fair? In debate I think so) from the get go. You’d be surprised how many people I meet in life and on-line who think this is the case because they read a few books on heraldry from the library and those are mostly Anglo-based heraldry books. So, naturally their only connection with heraldry is English heraldry, which is great heraldry, but only a part of the heraldic kaleidoscope.
Quote:
Sure thing. One of these days.
OK. I’ll let you know.
Quote:
Anyway, if I misunderstood the basis for Coach Carl’s COA design, my apologies, but it sounded to me like you were implying that it derived from his ancestry.
OK. He did in as much as it was African and we derive our history from our European ancestors. Not as much from the perspective of the “X” tribe of the “Y” nation and so on.
Quote:
The foregoing passage makes no sense to me. Can you clarify?
Sure. You said it was an introduction to those cultures of Africa. Which it also was to many European nations/peoples from the Normans, like the Angles, Saxons, etc. Heraldry, all forms, has to be introduced at some point where it is usually mingled with native forms of what is best described as proto-heraldry ... Japan comes to mind right off the bat.
Quote:
…whereas now, they often don’t want to meld anything,…
This is where I have a problem too and I think we are on the same page there.
Quote:
Again, a lot of people traditionally identified as Scots-Irish were not Celts, though I don’t dispute the importance of the Celts in the evolution of our culture.
I disagree, for most of the “Scots-Irish” were highlanders who were removed from their ancestral lands, often by the command of their own clan leaders in cooperation with English authorities. As I understand it, and I can be wrong, most lowlanders fared well during English ascendancy in Scotland. Highlanders were, for the most part, Celtic, and indeed cousins of the Irish themselves.
Quote:
And in terms of "regular Irish (by which I assume you mean Irish Catholics)" there were very few here prior to the famine, so that definitely can’t be right.
Regular Irish was used here to differentiate from Scots-Irish. I did not want to use the term Native-Irish, as many Scots-Irish were born in Ireland and therefore native. Not so much Irish Catholics, but native Irish families as opposed to Scots-Irish or Anglo-Irish families. And, again according to a number of the doctors of history on those shows they were here in greater number than people realize. I really wish I had the numbers in my head, as I was surprised myself. But, these people make a living teaching and researching such things and are professionals, whereas I am not.
Quote:
How do you arrive at the conclusion that the war was "executed by and large by non-English citizens [sic]
From what those doctors of history said in those programs on American independence and who made it happen etc. It was a claim repeated often on them. The Scots-Irish were, as one of those guys said, the backbone of the American Revolutionary Army and Navy, which is why I said the same thing. They also said that those citizens of English background did not go all out, or all in, for the fight with the crown out of divided loyalties, whereas the Scots-Irish did not have that loyalty to crown and were, as one said, “looking for a fight with England” to come about. They then commented on the specifics of the Andrew Jackson family, which blows me away…what a crappy early life that man had!
Great! I look forward to more conversations on art with you … specifically a situation that has always bothered me and to which one professor called the anarchist movement within art – making art ugly intentional to disestablish art from its historical benefactors and to prop the goal of art, all art, as the dis-establishment of accepted norms and so on. The Madonna with fesses all over it and the crucifix in urine come to mind, but there are other non-religious oriented art one can point to.
I think those artists are noting more than grandstanders looking for their 15 minutes of fame and fulfilling personal fantasies of being the next radical that future generations of dis-establishment artists and especially modern art critics can look up to as ‘oh so avant-garde’ and worthy of slots at galleries and for “press” and so on.
I find such things in art to be very repugnant, for it makes the art all about the artist and not the art!!! Art should about lifting the observer out of himself towards something better ... to help illustrate the beauty of the world around us in a way that most people don’t see in everyday life ... and without getting too religious to bring man ever closer to His Creators created world and the Creator himself ... you know what I mean? It will be nice taalking to you about such things in the future. Do you have any seminars you video recorded and have available? I’m always looking to broaden my understanding and appreciation of art.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
What Nick? Have you not seen the African heraldic works out there even those from Nenad before? Is it as much a part of their culture as say a Euro-centric culture? No, probably not. However, it is there none-the-less.
In fact, one of my favorite pieces I did for a client was for an African-American who is the varsity basketball coach at my old parochial school stomping grounds. He wanted it to be African in appearance, charges, and colors. We did so and it turned out excellent. It wasn’t hard to figure out what African “style” to go with at all. I don’t know where that comes from frankly.
I’d be really interested in either seeing a pic of this or reading a blazon.
Daniel, I will see if I have it. I lost a good number of my earlier scans when my PC crashed some time ago. However, some of my older clients have been kind enough to send me pics of them (Guy did that a few weeks ago) so I can rebuild my database. If I don’t I will see coach Carl next Monday at the girls volleyball practices and will ask him if he can send a pic to me and then I will post it.
I talked about it here a lot and I might have placed a pic of it on the thread ... but I have left imageshack for photobucket so it might not be there ... but I will check those older threads too. C’ya.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
What Nick? Have you not seen the African heraldic works out there even those from Nenad before? Is it as much a part of their culture as say a Euro-centric culture? No, probably not. However, it is there none-the-less.
I have not seen those works, but they aren’t really relevant to my point on African heraldry. Africa is a very, very diverse continent with literally thousands of ethnic groups. They all probably had proto-heraldry of some sort, but there is way too much diversity there for generalizations about the continent to be meaningful.
For example, the Kongo enthusiasticaly adopted many European practices, including heraldry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kongo_coat_of_arms.JPG
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
In fact, one of my favorite pieces I did for a client was for an African-American who is the varsity basketball coach at my old parochial school stomping grounds. He wanted it to be African in appearance, charges, and colors. We did so and it turned out excellent. It wasn’t hard to figure out what African “style” to go with at all. I don’t know where that comes from frankly.
That style is probably more accurately termed African-American than African. That doesn’t mean it’s not a valid style to use, particularly for African-Americans; but it annoys me that such a huge, diverse continent is so casually pigeonholed by non-Africans.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
A viewing of NBA games and NFL games will reveal a fairly good size group of African-Americans who have tattoos of coats of arms. Undoubtedly bucket-shop stuff, but at least the interest is there. So, I do not buy the idea that heraldry isn’t one of the elements of African culture – either in the USA or in Africa itself.
I’ll have to disagree about the bucket-shop comments. African-Americans know all about slave-names, so I’d be pretty surprised if many of them got their slave-name CoA as a tattoo. Even if there was a significant amount of alcohol involved.
It’s probably a personal design, or something from the family lore. In the latter case they may have a decent claim to the Coat under AHS rules—when your family was enslaved for 200 years odds are at least one master took a liking to one of your female ancestors. Sally Hemmings’ sons were fathered by somebody entitled to the Jefferson arms, even if they weren’t fathered by the great man himself.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
No, respectfully, it is not “clear” at all. I know several German-Americans whose fathers/grandfathers were beaten by school officials for speaking in German at school. So, it was not just “dropped” ... I’d say it might have been beaten out of them in a good many cases. We Irish had lost our tongue due to similar forced use of English in Ireland itself. To be dropped implies voluntarilly done so. That doesn’t seem to always be the case. Now, semantics aside English language is very much the main, if not only, aspect of English culture that endures and I for one, despite my name and ethnic identity, hope to God it remains so! I do not want to see a nation of a zillion different languages where no one can understand each other.
In most cases where a people lose a language they do it because they don’t use it anymore. Just look at the Kurds. The language has been discouraged by the Turkish government ever since before the Ottoman Empire fell, and it’s still going strong.
Intermarriage is probably the most common reason for that happening—my grandmother only used Swedish with her mother because her husband didn’t know Swedish. Your German-American friends only had to speak English at school, if they wanted to have children who spoke German all they had to do was marry fellow Germans.
When governments have been successful at rooting out a language there’s generally been some other catastrophe involved—the Irish stubbornly clung to Gaelic for centuries, until the famine happened and most Gaelic speakers had to flee the country or starve.
Donnchadh;55918 wrote:
Also, for the record, American log-cabins, the earliest pioneers of the plains and the west (outside of the Spanish and French) themselves, the fighting spirit of the American frontiersmen, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc were all gifts of the Ulster-Irish, which means they were Scotsmen, not Englishmen, and there is a difference in those cultures as well ... enough to undermine the notion that American culture is “Anglo-centric” even amongst English speaking people. So the idea of English-based American culture is in many parts of the USA, IMO, not entirely accurate as it would be more accurate to say Scots-American culture seeing as it was primarily those people who settled the American west followed by the Irish and Germans.
What areas are you talking about? My region (Michigan) was settled by English New Yorkers. Go a little further west and everybody’s a Swede or a Norwegian.
Nick
