Michael F. McCartney;105885 wrote:

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.

I must respectfully observe that, unless I am radically misunderstanding what you wrote, it is difficult for me to comprehend a respectful disagreement in which the overwhelming majority of my points were never addressed.

The idea of heraldry ever being only "a fantasy exercise among aficionados" is puzzling indeed. It is a concern that would simply not be had over any other subject. Is geometry a "fantasy exercise"? Is biology? Is physics or hydraulics? No, and geometry in particular is inarguably governed by rules solely created by humans and not corresponding to or derived from the external or observation thereof. It is no different with a science such as heraldry, and while it has clearly evolved, the notion that it should be updated not because of the demands of the science, its clarity within itself or its improvement but merely to be dumbed down is incomprehensible. The fact that it was created centuries ago, which perhaps some would bring up here, is irrelevant. So was algebra, and few outside a former Minnesota governor might consider junking or altering it for this reason.

The idea of being a "subset" defies all logic and reason, to my mind. Any subject is studied by people, probably, who are alive, and understand it in the context of their experiences, but to go farther than this for heraldry to me seems as if it might be close to apologising for its existence, not liking it, or, particularly, not taking it as appropriately seriously as would be any other science with technical rules. Of course, please forgive me if there is another interpretation I am overlooking.

Now, society having a blemished record is practically beyond dispute.  However, the concept of "armorial blackface" is completely mystifying, and with regards to the fylfot, it is simply not a swastika, and there could be uses outside of expressing inexcusable support for a terrible National-Socialist regime and its flagitious—-for example, a connexion with the Finnish Air Force. Of course, should never be adopted or granted with the purpose of promoting racism or the like, as neither should they for the purpose purely of attempting to make a provocation to the innocent, but heraldic charges should also be understood within the context of heraldry. To go beyond this is to advocate that heraldry be altered in order to support and promote ignorance. Of course, from the killing of a monster that murdered infants with

poisonous breath to recent travels into outer space, heraldry has always reflected external history, but to go further in this direction is to damage the science by potentially emptying it of content and the beauty and integrity of its principles. No, ignorance is not the equal of knowledge, and I would argue that the "clueless nerd" is in this context just someone with knowledge. Although I might be forgiven for taking this argument personally, I would also believe it if completely disinterested.

Not all Sciences are crested equal.  Geometry, algebra, chemistry, biology etc. all study an external reality that for the most part predates those sciences, or for that matter humanity itself.  Heraldry, to the degree that it is a science, is essentially a social science, studying and documenting human activity and our identities within our various societies; it is not a study of any immutable reality, only an attractive approach to expressing the identity - really the self-image - of persons, families, and other human entities.  As such, heraldry can no more hide behind the label of science above human sensibilities than literature, art, architecture, or cuisine.

For better or worse, we are to a degree shackled by the history, values, successes and failures of our various societies.  We might wish it were different, that we are free to "say" heraldically things we wouldn’t say in words or print, and that our little closed world of heraldry insulates us from criticism of what in other social mediums would clearly be inappropriate.

Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from.  Sorry if I stated it too crudely before, for which I apologize - FWIW it wasn’t aimed at you personally; but it was aimed at a view of heraldry and it’s place in society which I’ve heard many times from many others, with which I strongly disagree.

Michael F. McCartney;105917 wrote:

Not all Sciences are crested equal.  Geometry, algebra, chemistry, biology etc. all study an external reality that for the most part predates those sciences, or for that matter humanity itself.  Heraldry, to the degree that it is a science, is essentially a social science, studying and documenting human activity and our identities within our various societies; it is not a study of any immutable reality, only an attractive approach to expressing the identity - really the self-image - of persons, families, and other human entities.  As such, heraldry can no more hide behind the label of science above human sensibilities than literature, art, architecture, or cuisine.

For better or worse, we are to a degree shackled by the history, values, successes and failures of our various societies.  We might wish it were different, that we are free to "say" heraldically things we wouldn’t say in words or print, and that our little closed world of heraldry insulates us from criticism of what in other social mediums would clearly be inappropriate.

 

Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from.  Sorry if I stated it too crudely before, for which I apologize - FWIW it wasn’t aimed at you personally; but it was aimed at a view of heraldry and it’s place in society which I’ve heard many times from many others, with which I strongly disagree.

Mike, you didn’t do a bad job of describing heraldry’s place within our society and within the arts and sciences on the first time around - but this second pass at it hits the mark quite clearly and completely.  Well stated, and thanks!

When it comes to a "moor’s head" in heraldry I would have no trouble using such a charge if it were inherited or even if new but based on historic arms of my home town, province, corporation, etc.. such as Pope Benedict’s.  On the other hand, I would not assume or accept a grant or certification of new arms with a black moor’s head unless I had a very important reason to do so (such as the recent Pope’s arms) as I largely agree with Mike about the social message being sent out to viewers of the arms.

Luis - thanks!

I should admit that at several periods decades back, I would quite likely have reacted much more favorably to Daniel’s arguments, though whether for the same or different underlying reasons I can’t say because I don’t really know him in any other context than heraldry, and as far as I can recall never involving the issues here.

In my case FWIW it was during my initial learning curve in the armorial candy store of the University library; later while attending an Army language school, with time on my hands and needing a non-threatening escape before shipping out for SVN; and after returning, a welcome diversion while decompressing (polite term for PTSD ).  For differing reasons, in each of those periods a view of heraldry as an exotic world apart was, in retrospect, what I needed at the time.  I was also deep into the Innes school of Scottish heraldry, which I still like, but without the large grain of salt I later learned was necessary.

But that was forty-plus years ago; and I’ve learned, not always easily, to put my love for heraldry in perspective.  And as noted earlier, my personal and familial experiences in real life have for better or worse shaped my own perspective on life generally, and thus my views regarding heraldry.

Of course none of this may apply to others who see it differently; but having fueled the controversy and likely caused offense, I thought this might be appropriate.

Michael F. McCartney;105924 wrote:

Luis - thanks!

I should admit that at several periods decades back, I would quite likely have reacted much more favorably to Daniel’s arguments, though whether for the same or different underlying reasons I can’t say because I don’t really know him in any other context than heraldry, and as far as I can recall never involving the issues here.

 

In my case FWIW it was during my initial learning curve in the armorial candy store of the University library; later while attending an Army language school, with time on my hands and needing a non-threatening escape before shipping out for SVN; and after returning, a welcome diversion while decompressing (polite term for PTSD ).  For differing reasons, in each of those periods a view of heraldry as an exotic world apart was, in retrospect, what I needed at the time.  I was also deep into the Innes school of Scottish heraldry, which I still like, but without the large grain of salt I later learned was necessary.

 

But that was forty-plus years ago; and I’ve learned, not always easily, to put my love for heraldry in perspective.  And as noted earlier, my personal and familial experiences in real life have for better or worse shaped my own perspective on life generally, and thus my views regarding heraldry.

 

Of course none of this may apply to others who see it differently; but having fueled the controversy and likely caused offense, I thought this might be appropriate.

My underlying reasons for thinking as I do about this don’t really have anything to do with my interest in heraldry, how I first started learning about it in Grade Five, or the evolution of my attitude towards it. In fact, it doesn’t really have anything to do with heraldry at all. It has to do with the integrity of subjects, and I would believe this, and I do believe this, just as strongly for subjects I don’t like, such as algebra, as for ones I do, such as heraldry or art.

The belief that any subject should be altered so that it may be better understood by those ignorant of that subject, not because of what is best for the subject within its own context, is practically the belief that the integrity of the subject should be reduced. Once the process begins, a process that will gradually empty the subject of content by artificially simplifying it, by shaving away the curlicues and fine details, there is essentially no choice but for the process to escalate, and when a subject is understood primarily outside itself there will be little choice but for the subject to wither, with whatever value or beauty it once had shrinking to the point it is no longer worthwhile.

I don’t think any subject, or a person’s love for it, should be "put in perspective". If someone cares about a subject, or if for some reason it is better for him to study it, he should intend to understand that subject as well as possible, but in any case there is no perspective necessary other than that of the subject itself. This is true of geometry and it is true of heraldry. I do not view it as less important than biology, geometry or any other subject.

Our experiences almost without question colour our understandings of any given subject, but in my view this is something unhelpful to be guarded against.

I appreciate your giving this background.

It is not really a question of offence; my only concern along these lines in this discussion is that I am not being unreasonably prejudiced because of my own crest, but in any case I believe in integrity, I am against dumbing down subjects and I will never believe that ignorance should be supported and advanced over knowledge.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, which I can respect even when we differ.  I had forgotten what your arms looked like (actually I was thinking of another fellow with your same initials ) so I did a bit of looking online, but not until just before my last couple of posts, so my earlier remarks about heraldic blackface weren’t in response to your crest, which I actually rather like - the Moor or whatever he’s called in the blazon is nicely dressed and carrying a cup IIRC - a dignified image - not just the plain or severed head or nearly naked black in chains that I find so painfully offensive.

While there are many general similarities, every nation and culture has it’s own heraldic idiosyncrasies; heraldry has never been the same in all times and places, unlike the hard sciences such as algebra and physics.  In that regard, it’s like language; every culture has one, there are often similarities between some, but not others; and while one can study and analyze them looking for underlying truths, those truths won’t help you much in day to day communication.  And heraldry, whatever else it is (e.g. a beautiful art form) is in effect a kind of language, whose main practical purpose and function is to communicate meaning and sometimes attitudes and emotions. And like any other language, it’s just not enough to say "I speak perfect English" or whatever, and expect others who don’t speak that language as well, or at all, to understand.  The speaker or writer - or herald - is responsible not only for what he says in a technical sense, but also for how his written or spoken - or emblazoned - expression is likely to be understood or misunderstood by the reader, listener, or viewer.  To my mind that’s as true for heraldry as for literature, public speaking, art, or music.  One doesn’t need to "dumb down" one’s message, but one is in the end responsible for expressing it in a way that doesn’t create unintended offense or pain.  Lord knows I’ve said, written, and sang enough things I now regret!

Thanks for sharing your perspective, which I can respect even when we differ.  I had forgotten what your arms looked like (actually I was thinking of another fellow with your same initials ) so I did a bit of looking online, but not until just before my last couple of posts, so my earlier remarks about heraldic blackface weren’t in response to your crest, which I actually rather like - the Moor or whatever he’s called in the blazon is nicely dressed and carrying a cup IIRC - a dignified image - not just the plain or severed head or nearly naked black in chains that I find so painfully offensive.

While there are many general similarities, every nation and culture has it’s own heraldic idiosyncrasies; heraldry has never been the same in all times and places, unlike the hard sciences such as algebra and physics.  In that regard, it’s like language; every culture has one, there are often similarities between some, but not others; and while one can study and analyze them looking for underlying truths, those truths won’t help you much in day to day communication.  And heraldry, whatever else it is (e.g. a beautiful art form) is in effect a kind of language, whose main practical purpose and function is to communicate meaning and sometimes attitudes and emotions. And like any other language, it’s just not enough to say "I speak perfect English" or whatever, and expect others who don’t speak that language as well, or at all, to understand.  The speaker or writer - or herald - is responsible not only for what he says in a technical sense, but also for how his written or spoken - or emblazoned - expression is likely to be understood or misunderstood by the reader, listener, or viewer.  To my mind that’s as true for heraldry as for literature, public speaking, art, or music.  One doesn’t need to "dumb down" one’s message, but one is in the end responsible for expressing it in a way that doesn’t create unintended offense or pain.  Lord knows I’ve said, written, and sang enough things I now regret!

Daniel C. Boyer;105925 wrote:

It is not really a question of offence; my only concern along these lines in this discussion is that I am not being unreasonably prejudiced because of my own crest, but in any case I believe in integrity, I am against dumbing down subjects and I will never believe that ignorance should be supported and advanced over knowledge.

Daniel, what is your crest?

JJB;105928 wrote:

Daniel, what is your crest?

"A demi-moor Sable, habited Azure, holding a bowl of the last, there-upon a dove rizant Argent."

Luis Cid;105923 wrote:

When it comes to a "moor’s head" in heraldry I would have no trouble using such a charge if it were inherited or even if new but based on historic arms of my home town, province, corporation, etc.. such as Pope Benedict’s.  On the other hand, I would not assume or accept a grant or certification of new arms with a black moor’s head unless I had a very important reason to do so (such as the recent Pope’s arms) as I largely agree with Mike about the social message being sent out to viewers of the arms.

In terms of "the social message being sent"... Any assessment of the use of Moors’ heads of other heads that are specifically ethnic or religious must take into account two things: the context, and the intention of the herald or designer. But in heraldry the context must be assessed as that of the gentle science, not an unheraldic or extra-heraldic perspective. The assessment of charges should be as it would be in heraldry, not the assessment of those ignorant of heraldry.

Obviously it is possible that new arms could be granted with Moors’ or other heads with the motive behind the charges being racism or religious prejudice, and if that is the case, it should be roundly condemned. However, with respect to the other point, there are certain points that should not be ignored.

Some of the ethnic heads, at least in some circumstances, should not be interpreted as what they are blazoned, as I have argued above. They are merely codes for being clean-shaven, for hair and beard colour.

In my opinion, too much has been made of the stereotyping of representations of the Moors’ and some other heads. If it exists at all, any racist impulse behind this must be decidedly secondary. To show the Moor’s head as a sensitive and subtle portrait, or realistically, is not only somewhat degenerate, from the perspective of heraldic art, but carries much greater risks than a depiction of a naturalistic lion. With very few exceptions, any charge can be any tincture, and as we cannot count on the Moor being sable or proper, and he could be argent or vert and even has been carnation, as I have written earlier, the Moor, or his head, not shown in a stereotyped way runs a great risk of being confused for another man. Charges simply must be identifiable by outline.

There is also a point I should have brought up long before in this discussion. Technically "couped" is a type of severing, and undoubtedly in some cases men’s heads in arms were granted for this reason and are intended to be so understood. However, in other cases the couping should probably be no more understood as severing than coins should be seen as depicting the decapitated heads of kings or presidents, although they are blazoned "couped". It is that there really is no other way to create this.

Whether the inclusion of Moors’ heads in new arms stems from or projects from inexcusable racism or for another reason or reasons should be looked at in several ways, but what should be completely ignored are unheraldic misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the ignorant.

What of demi-savages?  Is that charge above reproach because it is rendered as a Caucasian?

David Pope;105935 wrote:

What of demi-savages?  Is that charge above reproach because it is rendered as a Caucasian?

I’m not sure I understand the question as fully as I should. Is there any sense in the first place, and from what people, that the savage is an offensive charge, and, if so, for what reason or reasons? I don’t really have a sense or impression of this as I do with some people’s feelings about the moor, so I’m not sure how the representation of the savage as Caucasian would ameliorate any concerns. Could you please elaborate?

Daniel C. Boyer;105936 wrote:

I’m not sure I understand the question as fully as I should. Is there any sense in the first place, and from what people, that the savage is an offensive charge, and, if so, for what reason or reasons? I don’t really have a sense or impression of this as I do with some people’s feelings about the moor, so I’m not sure how the representation of the savage as Caucasian would ameliorate any concerns. Could you please elaborate?

My understanding of the opposition to moors as charges is that it is in some way disrespectful to people of color (of Moorish descent?).  I’m not sure whether the disrespect is inherent in the charge (moors should be off-limits as charges) or whether the critique is due to the particular depiction (emblazonments which might evoke images of blackface?)

Either way, it seems that savages ought to be discussed as well, since the depiction isn’t typically complementary (mostly nude, shaggy hair and beard, bearing a club, etc.).  Since savages are almost always depicted as Caucasian, though, it would help to discern whether the issue with moors as charges is tied to their ethnic/racial identity or tied to the particular depiction.

I think moors, moor heads, etc. are acceptable as charges, so I’m trying to better understand the other side’s view.

In a similar way, should we refrain from using partridges as charges, since these (at one time, at least) indicated homosexuality? When does a historic charge become unacceptable due to changing cultural norms?

I can see the objection to rendering Moors’ heads in such a way that they’re made to resemble minstrels’ heads, but I can’t see the objection to them per se.

Imagine the initial bearer of a coat of arms as someone who feels he has been defined by his experiences in one phase or another of the War on Terror. Wouldn’t it make all the sense in the world for him to allude to that with the very traditional charge of the Moor’s head? The most highly visible Moors/Saracens of our age seem, themselves, to enjoy the symbolism of decapitated heads (literal ones, mind you, not cartoons). On what grounds would anyone object to our doing the same, and in the purely graphic way that we do? Why should any of us feel self-conscious about it?