Wilfred Leblanc;105938 wrote:

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?

I can’t say I would advise this to anyone unless they could assign multiple meanings to the symbolism of the heads.

If someone inherited old arms like this, then that’s one thing. In that case, we would be seeing the carrying on of the history of a particular ancestor of a barbarous era when values were different and superstition prevailed. To boast about collecting heads of “Saracens” in one’s newly assumed arms today wouldn’t be reflective of contemporary western values at all. People who receive knighthoods today are recognized for their public service, humanitarian efforts, contributions to art and culture or industry and science. Our professional soldiers aren’t brutish retainers, vassals or independent adventurers who show prowess through taking heads and looting.

I agree with JJB.

Heads (severed or couped) clearly reflecting a whole ethnic or religious group is to my mind, doubly inappropriate in most cases - both offensive to that whole group, when only a small % are actually our enemies; and not really much of an indicator of the identity of the armiger unless he/she happens to be a member of that same ethnic or religious group.

Now if the heads were those of actual terrorists, wearing their signature black head covering and mask, and therefore not visibly representing any particular ethnic group (which is sadly the case in real life) then I probably wouldn’t feel the same way, so long as the bearer of the arms had some particular reason for the charge relevant to his/her own identity…

JJB;105943 wrote:

Our professional soldiers aren’t brutish retainers, vassals or independent adventurers who show prowess through taking heads and looting.

No, of course they are not, but any use of heraldry involves antiquated symbols (the helm, crest, and shield for starters) that can only be read with a bit of irony in the 21st century, so why would Moors’ heads be out of place?

Michael F. McCartney;105946 wrote:

Now if the heads were those of actual terrorists, wearing their signature black head covering and mask, and therefore not visibly representing any particular ethnic group (which is sadly the case in real life) then I probably wouldn’t feel the same way, so long as the bearer of the arms had some particular reason for the charge relevant to his/her own identity…

Heads with the ISIS balaclava or whatever would be more accurate, but at the same time too literal, and therefore wouldn’t fit a medium of identification that’s at its best—by my lights—when it communicates with a bit of subtlety. Perhaps the use of Moors’ heads as charges was as far from subtle as could be in the first instances. Still, I think they leave some room for the imagination. I also think the Crusades get a bad rap and that identifying the War on Terror with them is perhaps flattering to the latter, but not altogether misguided.

Wilfred Leblanc;105947 wrote:

No, of course they are not, but any use of heraldry involves antiquated symbols (the helm, crest, and shield for starters) that can only be read with a bit of irony in the 21st century, so why would Moors’ heads be out of place?

The helms and shields doesn’t say anything by themselves. Severed heads of Blackmoors or Saracens are pejorative or antiquated and they can tell a story.

Michael F. McCartney;105946 wrote:

I agree with JJB.

Heads (severed or couped) clearly reflecting a whole ethnic or religious group is to my mind, doubly inappropriate in most cases - both offensive to that whole group, when only a small % are actually our enemies; and not really much of an indicator of the identity of the armiger unless he/she happens to be a member of that same ethnic or religious group.

 

Now if the heads were those of actual terrorists, wearing their signature black head covering and mask, and therefore not visibly representing any particular ethnic group (which is sadly the case in real life) then I probably wouldn’t feel the same way, so long as the bearer of the arms had some particular reason for the charge relevant to his/her own identity…

I agree with some of this and strongly disagree with some of the rest.

What you wrote seems to be either making a contrast between severed and couped, which would make no sense, as "severed" does not exist in blazon, to my knowledge, separately from "couped," or equating the two, which is an oversimplification, as, while couped is technically severed, the head, as I have argued above, might be intended to be so interpreted and it might not. For example, it might be intended to be no more than a convenient way of showing a head, and the heads should be no more so so interpreted than are the heads of kings or presidents on coins.

Suggesting that entire religions or ethnicities are terrorists or enemies is or at least should be indeed inaccurate and inappropriate and even potentially racist. But if the idea is that a head in arms would necessarily reflect the ethnicity of the grantee flat-out does not make sense (of course, what you wrote could possibly be susceptible of some other interpretations).

The black mask and head covering, if it could be dealt with appropriately and unambiguously in terms of blazon, would be very interesting, for armigers with some appropriate history.

As for the ethnic nature of the heads, again, as I have written above, sometimes this should be taken as code. However, unless the heads with regards to your suggestion, which I really like, are blazoned simply as men’s heads, they will have to be somehow ethnic.

Again, all of the above should be interpreted in the context of heraldry, not of unheraldic or extra-heraldic ignorance.

With the Crusades comment, I won’t argue this since Fred and others probably know something I don’t know about it. I think of the indiscriminate slaughter of everyone in Jerusalem, which included all Moslems, Eastern Christians and Jews. The 1090s to my mind had hordes of illiterate post-Norman-settlement Franks pouring into a civilization and destroying it. Maybe the mention of the Crusades having a bad rap refers to some of the Crusades that came later, some Crusades being better than others or the positive effect the Crusades had on Western European culture. I’m not an expert on the Crusades, but I’m not afraid to raise my hand.

And I realize my own hypocrisy when warfare today is in some ways more brutal (ISIS decapitates non-combatants and we bomb people with flying robots). The larger point I’m making is that the severed heads doesn’t work today. A dentist lost his job and received death threats for killing a lion in Africa on Safari. People are trying to change the logo for Harvard Law because it features a 17th-century slaveholder’s coat of arms with garbs of wheat on it. John Calhoun’s name is getting removed from College dormitories and Andrew Jackson is getting removed from currency. And this talk of severed Moors’ heads in the middle of Black Lives Matter and so many police killings? I get all of the points of view here, but I’m saying it won’t work as the baby is getting thrown out with the bathwater right now.

If we’re out to get heraldry labeled racist and anti-Semitic and effectively demoted from a semi-retired high art form (maybe akin to the symphony or literature) cultivated by enthusiasts into a symbol effectively banned in society (Confederate flag) then this is a good start.

The balaclava’d head, however, might work in certain cases with high profile targets like Zarqara, Osama Bin Laden, etc. Nevertheless there are a few problems with no-name or lesser-known insurgents or terrorists. First, half the time the average soldier doesn’t know if he actually killed a terrorist or a civilian. And sometimes innocents die in the bombing of one target. Second, at least one terrorist target killed in a foreign country was a highly-educated American citizen born in the US. Should he have died?—probably. But the fact that there wasn’t due process for a US Citizen lends the situation to controversy to many people. Generally the whole War on Terror business is a little messy I think and it’s probably best to stick to more abstract references of it.

Daniel Boyer’s crest doesn’t sound at all controversial. I don’t know what it means and I don’t really need to. But to me it’s pretty benign and shouldn’t require excuses or explanation.

Wilfred Leblanc;105947 wrote:

No, of course they are not, but any use of heraldry involves antiquated symbols (the helm, crest, and shield for starters) that can only be read with a bit of irony in the 21st century, so why would Moors’ heads be out of place?

I’m sorry, but I believe there is no sense of irony in the reading, any more than there is a sense of irony in looking at paintings because painting was started in the times of cavemen. Heraldry may have started in medieval times but it is contemporary, and its heyday was probably in the 21st century.

I don’t agree with Fred that any use of arms nowadays is necessarily ironic, nor with Daniel that there is no sense of Irony (probably overstating both views, but hey, straw men are just part of the debating game - witness the Presidential debates… I think the one following my wisecrack about heads in hijabs or balaclavas or whatever they are called, was somehow missed.  Maybe that was irony..?

And apologies for confusion re: severed or couped—my fault—my intent was similar to "Azure or blue" etc., not clearly expressed.

Daniel, Michael,

Any heartburn with Gules three savages’ heads couped proper?

David Pope;105955 wrote:

Daniel, Michael,

Any heartburn with Gules three savages’ heads couped proper?

No; in at least many, although by no means all, of these cases, I think the issue with the heads is more in the area of a misinterpretation of people ignorant of heraldry, and it is my view that ignorance should be taught or at least discouraged rather than being nourished and promoted. The coat, if it is not infringing, is simple and potentially elegant. The savage lobby may not share this view, but without any further legitimate problem within the context of heraldry my inclination would be to say it is irrelevant.

How is one to interpret "savages"? If we use couped heads of frat boys, will that be OK?

"Savages’ heads Proper" is pretty vague, or at least imprecise, as a blazon, unless there is a recognized default.

What sort of savages? That is, color of face, hair, beard if any etc.?  In other words, who is likely to say, "Get! - that looks like me/my people!"

And then, why? If it’s the same ethnicity as the family bearing the arms, no problem; but if not, how & why does it serve to identify or symbolize the family?

And what sort of message does it convey to the reasonable viewer?

As to frat boy heads, are you a Brother, or at least a "legacy" or collatetal descendant of a Brother?

[note the smiley]

On a more serious note, I’d like to take issue with the notion or implication that being sensitive of potentially offensive racial, ethnic or religious connotations in our choice of heraldic images is "dumbing down" to cater to those ignorant of heraldry; and that the appropriate and sufficient response is to educate the ignorant, so they will recognize the innocence of our motives and no longer be offended.  (Again, I may be overstating the argument, but not all that much.)

The objections to that approach raised in this forum, while based in part on the likely perceptions of those with little or no understanding or appreciation of heraldry, are also the personal reactions of individuals with a long-standing and deep love and appreciation of the subject; but who also perceive that heraldry, like any other subject, doesn’t - cannot, and shouldn’t - exist in a vacuum.  I’ve been studying and appreciating, and practicing when the opportunity allows, for well over 50 years; and while certainly not the all-knowing expert, hardly ignorant of the subject - but in the context of the rest of life.  While that standing alone doesn’t make me an armorial Einstein, or prove that I’m right, it does I think entitle my arguments to be considered as better than dumbing down to placate the ignorant.

More later; gotta get ready for a Cinco de Mayo party!

Michael F. McCartney;105960 wrote:

On a more serious note, I’d like to take issue with the notion or implication that being sensitive of potentially offensive racial, ethnic or religious connotations in our choice of heraldic images is "dumbing down" to cater to those ignorant of heraldry; and that the appropriate and sufficient response is to educate the ignorant, so they will recognize the innocence of our motives and no longer be offended.  (Again, I may be overstating the argument, but not all that much.)

The objections to that approach raised in this forum, while based in part on the likely perceptions of those with little or no understanding or appreciation of heraldry, are also the personal reactions of individuals with a long-standing and deep love and appreciation of the subject; but who also perceive that heraldry, like any other subject, doesn’t - cannot, and shouldn’t - exist in a vacuum.  I’ve been studying and appreciating, and practicing when the opportunity allows, for well over 50 years; and while certainly not the all-knowing expert, hardly ignorant of the subject - but in the context of the rest of life.  While that standing alone doesn’t make me an armorial Einstein, or prove that I’m right, it does I think entitle my arguments to be considered as better than dumbing down to placate the ignorant.

 

More later; gotta get ready for a Cinco de Mayo party!

If a charge is intended to communicate a racist message and is granted in new arms for that reason, this is something to criticise.

However, if it is neither the intention of those involved in the initial design of arms nor part of the conception or understanding of a charge as it is treated in the context of a particular coat or crest within the rules or any tradition of heraldry that it is racist, the fact that it may be misunderstood by those ignorant of heraldry, at least to some degree, is something for designers to ignore. Where no attack on anyone’s dignity was intended, something I would not tend to support, and none can be said to be conveyed by the rules of heraldry, this should be the end of it. To argue otherwise is to support a pet peeve of mine, the shaping of subjects to make the ignorant feel more comfortable, and there is no other way this can be understood than "dumbing down."

(It should also be considered that the history of National-Socialist attacks on the Moors’ and Jews’ heads of German and Austrian civic heraldry suggests the reverse of your arguments may sometimes be true.)

Connotation has to be considered, but the connotation is the connotation of heraldry.

Consider a parallel and actual situation in the field of language: the ridiculous protests that have sometimes attended the use of the word "niggardly." Of course, it has nothing to do with a very offensive racial slur, and neither intention nor etymology can ascribe any racism to its use. But if we avoid the use of the word to avoid discomfort for the ignorant, I think we would have to say that we have "dumbed down" our vocabulary. Some would argue that the dumbing down should have been done, but I would argue against it, particularly since what I have noticed about dumbing down in any subject is that it tends to escalate year after year, emptying it of more and more and more content.

The answer to ignorance in any subject, whether heraldry, podiatry, pastry-making, trigonometry, chemistry or entopic graphomania, is education, and I’m confused about how it could be otherwise. I would even suggest, with all due respect, and with my apology if I am misunderstanding, that another approach could be negative in its effects.

While I do not question your or anyone’s knowledge or appreciation of heraldry, I respect your study and experience and can certainly understand your feelings, I disagree in that I think any science does essentially have to exist in a vacuum in that its rules should not be modified either to mollify the ignorant or, more generally, with reference to subjects irrelevant to it.

Neither do I think that any subject needs to be understood or considered in the context of the rest of life. I am not completely sure what the argument or implication is, but what I would argue is that all this approach does is potentially compromise our ability to understand a subject. Many of us, myself included, have things we are emotional about, and as I wrote previously, this isn’t a bad thing, but I would argue that this can actually harm our ability to understand subjects. (Feelings, for example, can make people believe that "Sable a lion rampant Pean" somehow violates the rule of tincture, where a dispassionate approach would lead them to see that this is clearly not the case.)

I have studied heraldry on my own for decades, and it is my interest in it, but, more, it is my interest in the integrity of subjects in general that leads me to advance these arguments. And, again with respect, I would like to observe that many points I have repeatedly made to support my arguments have never been addressed. I would have an interest in seeing this.

I hope from what I have written here I have expressed myself more clearly and I am going to respond more fully to some other points in the relevant place.