http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c8442557-bfb2-49c9-b224-5300d9bb3694&k=38174

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Vancouvercoa.jpg

Quote:

The city report recommends that Vancouver adopt a new logo for most uses, and that it also update its coat of arms.

I think they want to change the supporters because the are emblazoned as caucasian .  Could they just leave the blazon "as is" and emblazon the supporters with two skin colors? Or does the European default tie their hands?

Quote:

On the Shield:

Eight wavy bars alternating with the blue over white.

On the upper part of the Shield, which is coloured gold, there are two dogwood flowers in natural form with white petals, green leaves and orange centres. On the wedge-shaped section coloured green, a gold coloured Thunderbird Totem of Kwakuitl design.

For the Crest:

Rising out of the Mural crown, a stylized ring of masonry, which is coloured gold on the left and blue on the right, a ship’s foreroyal mast (brown) with sail set in natural form (white) carrying a Pennon (green) flying to the left.

 

The Helmet:

The Helmet which faces to the left is an Esquire’s Helmet and is coloured steel blue: It is mantled, blue with white on the underside.

 

The Supporters are:

On the left: A lumberman holding a felling axe (brown handle and steel blue head).

His clothing colours are: Deep blue neckerchief, light blue shirt, brown pants and boots.

 

On the right: A Fisherman holding a salmon net with floats (brown).

 

The Motto:

“BY SEA LAND AND AIR WE PROSPER

http://www.gg.ca/heraldry/pub-reg/project.asp?lang=e&ProjectID=412

If they could change supporters, why not de-anthropomorphize entirely? Their motto "In sea, land and air we prosper" could easily be alluded to: the barry wavy of the shield is the sea. Why not a bear, elk or moose as a supporter for land and an eagle, thunderbird (to relate to the charge), puffin (or even a gull) for air?

The reason for not changing supporters entirely would be that doing so would "require" going back to the Canadian Heraldic Authority for a revised grant ($$$ and time), while simply changing the way they are depicted would be within the bounds of artistic license.

(I put the word "require" in quotation marks because, as I understand it, there is no law in Canada barring Vancouver from assuming or altering its arms however it pleases.)

I wonder though, Mike, do we know for sure that it’s the supporters that are the problem? The other possible issue would be the inclusion of the Kwakiutl thunderbird totem. Some Indian (or, as they call them in Canada, First Nation) groups object to the use of their religious imagery by non-Indian entities, and I think the thunderbird might fall into this category.

Either issue would be easily solved. The thunderbird could simply be deleted, leaving a plain green pile (this, however, would take the city back to the CHA), and the supporters could be either changed in appearance as Mike suggests or simply not shown at all. Nothing says that having supporters requires you to use them.

But there are plenty of first-nation symbols in Canadian arms, both personal and municipal.

[ATTACH]29[/ATTACH]

Council meeting VIDEO:  http://cityofvan-as1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/c/317/1198/200607181345wv150en,009

Report PDF: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20060718/documents/a15.pdf

Here are another article and a letter:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=02bd7504-f89a-4e5b-8ee6-36ae9d38d225

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/letters/story.html?id=84aa818c-1ab2-400a-85a8-f9068851d740

I think they mainly object to the Caucasian males, but they also seem to be anti-heraldry.  The issue is marketing.

Here is a letter to the editor that makes some good points:
Quote:

Letter

Published: Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Re: City staff suggest new coat of arms, July 12

 

This story omitted several important details regarding heraldic practice.

 

A coat of arms, like a logo, is a unique identifying device for the use of a single individual, institution or government. However, unlike a logo, it is not a marketing initiative or sales tool that is regularly redesigned to conform to the current trends (although the artistic style can be updated). The Vancouver coat of arms was designed following heraldic rules and conventions that developed over the last 900 years and its symbols are a record of our history. For example, the caduceus on the 1903 arms is a symbol of commerce and the wavy bars represent Vancouver’s harbour site. The supporters (two Caucasian males) represent the main historical industries.

 

The 1866 version shown is not a coat of arms. The current version from 1969 differs from the 1903 version in more that just visual details; it is a lawful coat of arms granted by the Crown through the College of Arms in London. Today, the city would go to The Canadian Heraldic Authority established 1988 for matters concerning the coat of arms.

 

For more information on Canadian arms: www.heraldry.ca.

 

Allan Ailo

 

New Westminster

It is my understanding that having supporters does not mean one has to use them. I like Joe’s idea to remove the totem, and then to simply use the shield alone. Or, the race of the supporters could be changed with each use, as they are not specified.

It seems however that:

1) they object to "tokenism" BUT

2) they object that other races have not been not included

That is a major contradiction. Perhaps this is how our age’s rampant political correctness will eventually implode… The sooner the better.

Stuart wrote:

It is my understanding that having supporters does not mean one has to use them. I like Joe’s idea to remove the totem, and then to simply use the shield alone. Or, the race of the supporters could be changed with each use, as they are not specified.

It seems however that:

1) they object to "tokenism" BUT

2) they object that other races have not been not included

I think they object to the totem and the supporters.  The main argument seems to be that (a) it is not emblazoned so it is attractive on stationary, (b) the symbolism is racist and (c) there is other symbolism that should be placed in the arms.  The chief herald told them they could use the shield only, but they don’t like the shield.

Someone made a good speech about keeping it for history’s sake, but the silent majority voted for a redesign.

See the video below for more:

http://cityofvan-as1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/c/317/1198/200607181345wv150en,009

Why don’t they simply re-write the entire history of Vancouver?

I will be interested in how the Chief Herald responds to these requests. I don’t think each successive group of elected councillors should be allowed to change the symbols of a municipality at whim to reflect the fashions of the day, but as there is no one to stop them, they will probably do so with or without the consent of Canada’s heraldic authority. And if they design the new arms or symbol by committee, we’ll probably be blessed with a bee-ut-i-ful design!

Incidently, they didn’t seem to mind using a representation of a first-nations’s design for their Olympics’ symbol.

Stuart wrote:

Why don’t they simply re-write the entire history of Vancouver?

The argument goes:  the history is changing, so the arms must change.

Much as I deplore what the Vancouver folks are doing, the episode highlights for me the crucial weakness of a regulated heraldic environment.  When a municipality or a group gets a coat of arms or flag designed and granted by some official authority, even if the design is of very high artistic merit (which it often isn’t, but Vancouver’s is OK), it lacks any resonance in the local community.  You see the flip side of this in the US debates about changing state flags and seals.  A bunch of flag or heraldic enthusiasts starts lobbying to change the seal or flag of, say, New Hampshire or Minnesota (two real cases) and presenting all the arguments all of us would present about clarity and uniqueness and respect for heraldic tradition and all that.  And they get squashed like bugs by the tide of support that immediately arises for "our" symbols—symbols that have a long history, that were democratically adopted in the first place, and with which the people of the state identify.

But when the CHA or some other heraldic body grants a newly devised COA with no history behind it, it’s very nice for a while, but absent a prolonged PR campaign to persuade people to buy into it, it remains simply a sterile piece of commercial art, not a focus of emotional energy.  So when the next transient political movement crops up disliking something or another about it, there is no reservoir of public support for keeping "our" arms.

I think those who advocate the creation of a US heraldic authority ought to give this phenomenon some serious thought.

Quote:

So when the next transient political movement crops up disliking something or another about it, there is no reservoir of public support for keeping "our" arms.

I think those who advocate the creation of a US heraldic authority ought to give this phenomenon some serious thought.

I agree Joe.

Doc, I’m with you on this. The sooner the political correctness movement dies the better we’ll all be.

Hey, I’m an Irishman and I would call myself a nationalist, but I would never want to see things like “The Royal…” this or that dismissed all together and for people to pretend that this sort of thing never existed.

It is a horrible thing to re-write history and in the process to exterminate, historically speaking, whole peoples and/or periods of history in the process; simply disgusting.

If one stops and takes a step back one can find something about everything/everyone that they find a problem with. Once you start down the slippery slope of changing things for the social whims of the day you are in for one heck of a sad ride.

8)

Heres a thought for consideration.  Instead of a "US College of Heraldry", each state could have its own heraldic commission/authority/board.  To my understanding the Constitution provides that the Federal Government regulates interstate commerce and that everything not granted to the Federal

Government is reserved to the states.  To my way of thinking heraldry would not fall under interstate commerce.  I’m sure many people would find that concept belidering, if not confusing.  Under our present system one thing may be legal in one state but not in another.

I agree completely that this is a state matter, and there’s a considerable record of debates on this issue in the old forum, if the archives are ever available again.  (Not carping, I know T.R.‘s otherwise occupied at the moment.)

That said, I’m not sold, as I once was, on the need for official heraldic registration offices.  I think that if some form of legal protection of arms is necessary, it can be secured by less expensive and intrusive means than state heraldic establishments.

Joseph McMillan wrote:

I agree completely that this is a state matter, and there’s a considerable record of debates on this issue in the old forum, if the archives are ever available again.  (Not carping, I know T.R.‘s otherwise occupied at the moment.)

That said, I’m not sold, as I once was, on the need for official heraldic registration offices.  I think that if some form of legal protection of arms is necessary, it can be secured by less expensive and intrusive means than state heraldic establishments.

Hear! Hear! I am, among other things, a professional massage therapist. When the feds started making noises about legislation regarding this profession, the Americam Massage Therapy Association came forward and formed the NCBTMB. The NCBTMB administers certification exams, has a very strict code of ethics, requires continuing education, etc. etc. Many states now require massage therapists to be NCBTMB certified. Fundamentally, we police ourselves so the fed doesn’t have to. Perhaps this organization can become the springboard for something similar?

William, this is OT, but I love the Hawaiian shirt! Very cool.

8)

Donnchadh wrote:

William, this is OT, but I love the Hawaiian shirt! Very cool.

8)

Thanks, I like them a lot and wear them frequently. And the name is Patrick (professionally Padraig). Williams is the surname (probably Welsh, but what can you do?)