Michael F. McCartney;104399 wrote:
Two observations on rereading my rant—another American value is freedom of speech, which is reflected in the Guidelines by the term "best practices" rather than "thou shalt not" even when some (me anyway) might prefer something stronger. That same value makes it possible for us to debate and express our own differing views on particular points, as we’re doing here. No disrespect intended, just deep difference of opinions.
Second observation is that we touched on similar concerns last month re: what is or isn’t OK re: use of indigenous (Native American) imagery by those not ourselves of that background, though that thread soon meandered down other paths.
I hope you will understand that I meant no disrespect either in my perhaps too-sharply-worded reply.
Mike, I guess you also wouldn’t approve of a modern grant similar to that of John Smith (and not on the basis of a tincture violation)...
David first (nice to have more folks in the debate)—how would I react to a modern grant from, say, Garter & co. (the source of the excellent library painting in your post) featuring three severed heads, both visually stereotyped and presumably blazoned, to be those of citizens of a fellow NATO ally and candidate for EU membership? ... hmmm ... I can hear the likely words of HM (drafted of course by her Ministers) "I am not amused…"
...and maybe the tabloids running the new grant just below the latest ISIS photo and story… or maybe in the ISIS photo itself?
Would I see that new grant as a good idea, let alone a "best practice"? Would you?
Back to reality. I’ve long thought it’s a bit unfair to hold historical individuals accountable for actions that were socially or legally acceptable in their time and place, just because current norms and values are different. Think "ex post facto."
But the flip side is that behavior unacceptable by modern standards doesn’t get a free pass just because it wouldn’t have bothered anyone X years or centuries ago. History is history, and of educational value if presented as such; but not a free pass for similar present or future behavior.
Ditto heraldry old and new, whether a stereotyped severed head or a fylfot or whatever else was considered innocent or acceptable then but not now.
Others may see it differently - it’s a free country - but for the life of me I can’t see how. (Though I expect someone will try 
)
Now to Daniel—where to start?
First, no disrespect from my side either. As they say in church, "Hate the sin, love the sinner" Hopefully in your church too!
The most surprising part of your post is suggesting that I’d be OK with the black heads if they were blazoned as Negroes or African-Americans. First, fine-tuning the fine print, which most casual observers will never see, isn’t IMO sufficient to absolve a visually objectionable charge. Second, the changes you suggest would at best only change which minority would be offended by the stereotype.
As to a few of your following points noting possible favorable uses of this charge, and that some armigers or heralds may in fact be non-white. The thrust of my objection is the use of stereotypical representations of a particular racial, ethnic or religious group by persons who are not members of that group. If an African-American wants to include visual references to his race, or a Muslim a visual reference to his religion, to express pride and identity, that’s their business and more power to them! Ditto an African-American or Muslim educational, religious or social organization. But for e.g. a white Christian to do so, absent some exceptional reason (such as the patron saint of a parish), is to me at best thoughtless and likely to cause offense, whatever the fine print (the blazon that few will ever see) may or may not say. The fact that the image is on a shield rather than spray-painted on a subway stop won’t make it less offensive to those who see one more example of a visual rip-off of their identity by those with no claim to it.
This is more than mere political correctness by limousine liberals (which describes neither my philosophy nor my ride). Those with no non-white family or community connections, or who have never had to relocate a minority employee whose family was threatened and their home vandalized, or live in a town where no one has been killed because of their religion, may not see the same reality. Those are all part of my reality; and absolutely trump any merely heraldic quibbles.
Again, no disrespect to those whose life experience leads them to different conclusions; but after 70 years and the long-ago loss of innocence, this is how I see the world and our little heraldic subset of it.
Oh, before I forget—feel free to use heads of whatever non-human complexion you like, with FWIW my blessings; but when the Technicolor aliens arrive to settle accounts, don’t be surprised if they’re p….d!
Quote:
I have to say that I have become particularly interested in heraldry in the Americas from 1492 to 1821. I don’t suppose someone can recommend a book on the subject
Here is another title: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/12773517
Seb—clicked on your link—looks fascinating! Now if I could just find some sympathetic librarian who could arrange an interlibrary loan…
(Joe - you might find it interesting if you haven’t seen it. Of course not having read it yet, can’t say how good it is, but the title suggests it should be relevant, and Seb’s link says there’s a microform copy in the Rockefeller Library at Williamsburg)
I have to get down to Williamsburg for a research trip in the next few months, for the book I’m working on, and will be sure to look at this.
I found something interesting regarding the heads as charges that I did not know. Apparently the Hazelriggs of Noseley in Leicestershire have a Scot’s Head as their crest. There isn’t any ambiguity either as it is asserted that it was in commemoration of the family’s taking part in Edward III’s incursions into Scotland.
And supposedly the Tudor family originally adopted as shield charges the three Englishmen’s heads that appeared on the shield of the Welsh chieftain Edynfed Vychan. These heads commemorated the chieftain’s 13th Century attack on an English force that resulted in the deaths of three principal commanders under Ranulph, Earl of Chester. Once the Tudors eventually found themselves at the English court, the story goes that they changed the three Englishmen’s heads on their shield into three helmets. Naturally, I wanted to look and see if the O’Kennedy three-helmeted shield had any similar story, but that seems to have been a canting of arms. The etymological origin of the surname means “helmet” or something like it.
It is difficult to say what I would do if I inherited a 700 or 600-year-old shield that had charges that might certainly offend an entire country or culture. Would my displaying it give a false impression about who I am and what I believe? I suspect if I inherited arms with heads of Moors, Ottomans, Welshmen or anyone else I would probably find a way to have the design slightly altered to something neutral, like the Tudors had done.
Quote:
Jeffry J Bouldin wrote: I have to say that I have become particularly interested in heraldry in the Americas from 1492 to 1821. I don’t suppose someone can recommend a book on the subject
Quote:Sebastian Nelson wrote: Here is another title: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/12773517
Quote:Joseph McMillan wrote: I have to get down to Williamsburg for a research trip in the next few months, for the book I’m working on, and will be sure to look at this.
Hi Joe,
Did you ever get a chance to review this work? If so, how was it?
No, the only chance I got to drop by Williamsburg since this post was at the tail end of a long day when everything was closing up; just a few minutes to double check a tombstone at Bruton Parish Church, shop for a tartan scarf for a cousin, and hit the road for home.
Michael F. McCartney;104404 wrote:
Now to Daniel—where to start?
First, no disrespect from my side either. As they say in church, "Hate the sin, love the sinner"
The most surprising part of your post is suggesting that I’d be OK with the black heads if they were blazoned as Negroes or African-Americans. First, fine-tuning the fine print, which most casual observers will never see, isn’t IMO sufficient to absolve a visually objectionable charge. Second, the changes you suggest would at best only change which minority would be offended by the stereotype.
As to a few of your following points noting possible favorable uses of this charge, and that some armigers or heralds may in fact be non-white. The thrust of my objection is the use of stereotypical representations of a particular racial, ethnic or religious group by persons who are not members of that group. If an African-American wants to include visual references to his race, or a Muslim a visual reference to his religion, to express pride and identity, that’s their business and more power to them! Ditto an African-American or Muslim educational, religious or social organization. But for e.g. a white Christian to do so, absent some exceptional reason (such as the patron saint of a parish), is to me at best thoughtless and likely to cause offense, whatever the fine print (the blazon that few will ever see) may or may not say. The fact that the image is on a shield rather than spray-painted on a subway stop won’t make it less offensive to those who see one more example of a visual rip-off of their identity by those with no claim to it.
This is more than mere political correctness by limousine liberals (which describes neither my philosophy nor my ride). Those with no non-white family or community connections, or who have never had to relocate a minority employee whose family was threatened and their home vandalized, or live in a town where no one has been killed because of their religion, may not see the same reality. Those are all part of my reality; and absolutely trump any merely heraldic quibbles.
Again, no disrespect to those whose life experience leads them to different conclusions; but after 70 years and the long-ago loss of innocence, this is how I see the world and our little heraldic subset of it.
Oh, before I forget—feel free to use heads of whatever non-human complexion you like, with FWIW my blessings; but when the Technicolor aliens arrive to settle accounts, don’t be surprised if they’re p….d!
There is much about this that is extremely troubling. The ideas that blazon is a type of "fine print" rather than the primary aspect or feature of the science of heraldry is akin to calling the scientific method the "fine print" of science. Blazon is primary, period. The ideas that there is any relevance to most casual observers never seeing the blazon is also very troubling and confusing. The notion that a specialised and complex science, or indeed any subject requiring anything beyond a trivial amount of learning should be geared to or somehow modified or altered to satisfy the ignorance of these people (not to look down on them, as we were all there once) is akin to the belief that ignorance is an important principle that should be not only catered to but actually promoted and nurtured not just in general but actually within the subject, and this can have no other effect than its gradual emptying of content and complexity. This approach would never be suggested in advanced calculus, would never be suggested in biology, and should not be in heraldry.
In heraldry, everything is represented stereotypically, or it should be in order for the very system to work effectively.
As to the spraypainting on a subway station, if this is done in a straightforward way, this is inexcusable, but obviously the context is far different from heraldry.
The underlying argument, about "heraldic quibbles," seems to suggest an attitude that heraldry is a relatively unimportant hobby rather than an independent and very significant science that is a vital part of culture. I do not view it as a tiny corner of the world any more than I so view painting.
But of course blazon is fine print. The picture comes first, then the description. Historically, there were coats of arms before there were blazons, and I can’t imagine anyone designing arms by writing something out in words and only then considering what it looks like.
That doesn’t mean we never have to explain what the picture means to those who misunderstand it, but the idea that the words have primacy leads to all kinds of anti-heraldic outcomes, such as the idea that a "Azure a buck couchant Silver" is a different coat of arms than "Azure a stag lodged Argent."
Ditto Joe in the context of the armorial cognoscenti.
In the broader context of society generally, where we live and work, I must respectfully disagree with Daniel. Heraldry, if it is more to be more than a fantasy exercise among affecionados, is and must be merely a subset of the broader society in which we live and work and have our being , reflecting the general social norms and relationships between real people. That’s why our Guidelines accommodate American laws and evolving attitudes re: gender equality, adoption and primogeniture, and discourage displays suggesting nobility, even where our approach is an outlier in the global heraldic community.
And for better or worse, our society has a blemished record in some areas, and especially racial relations and attitudes. Trying to ignore that social context in our choices of visual identifiers, e.g. by choosing armorial blackface or the heraldic fylfot because "that’s not what I meant" makes us look, at best, like clueless nerds, and at worst, like insensitive bigots. That’s the path to dooming our heraldry to the dustbin of history (which phrase I would footnote if I knew who I’m plagiarising).
Sorry to be so blunt; I must admit to wishing the reality was different; but that wish plus a nickel is worth five pennies change.
Michael F. McCartney;105885 wrote:
... the dustbin of history (which phrase I would footnote if I knew who I’m plagiarising).
Trotsky. Who’s next, Bukharin and Mao?
Maybe Mao? "Let a thousand flowers bloom!" ... and then mow down the ones he didn’t like…
