Offensiveness

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Revision as of 16:23, 6 June 2020 by Sofya (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logocaption.jpg

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wiki only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation.

Definition:

Names must not be offensive to a modern audience; names are rarely returned for this, as the standards are quite high.

Armory must not be offensive to a modern audience; armory is rarely returned for this, as the standards are quite high. - per "A Submissions Checklist for the New Rules Draft" - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/rfs_checklist.html

See also Restricted Charges.

Rules:

Standards for Evaluation of Names and Armory (SENA):

References:

Precedents:

Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents.html Morsulus Heralds Website - http://www.morsulus.org/ (to search the LoARs and Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.

Collected Precedents: Offensive -

7/2018 From Wreath: Symbols of Hate

The resurgence of white supremacist organizations and other hate groups has been in the news recently, and the SCA has not been immune to its effects. The use of Norse and Saxon symbols by such groups directly affects both submitters and the College of Arms.

Apart from the designs which are instantly recognizable as offensive (e.g., a swastika or a burning cross) it is nearly impossible to make a ruling on the offensiveness of an armorial motif that is objective, useful for consulting heralds, adaptive to the changing tactics of hate groups, and fair to submitters who have no malicious intent and merely seek to register armory. For this reason, the Laurel office has long been averse to making sweeping rulings on offense, preferring adjudication on a case-by-base basis.

Recently, Laurel and Wreath, with the assistance of Drachenwald's heralds, reviewed several European laws and policies to try to determine a path forward in evaluating armory for offense. Going forward, if a symbol is banned as hate speech in all of its forms in a jurisdiction in which the SCA has a substantial presence, that symbol will be unregisterable in the SCA (the swastika, long banned by Laurel precedent, falls into this category). If a symbol is banned as hate speech in some forms, but is exempted for others (especially heraldry), it will not be disallowed immediately in the SCA; however, it will be scrutinized for context.

This approach is not new. SENA A7B4 specifically states that "Some designs are offensive because of individual charges...Others are offensive only in the overall design." There have been several returns for offense over the decades, most recently in the January 2015 LoAR return of Nikolaus Grünenwaldt's device, Gules, in saltire two cubit arms and on a chief argent three crosses formy sable. In that return, Wreath noted:

In this case, both crosses formy and the red, white, and black color scheme were extensively used in German iconography, including during the Nazi era. These motifs are used today by white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups in the United States. Additionally, the motif of two white objects (hammers or grenades) crossed in saltire is used in Neo-Nazi iconography, as is a raised white fist, often depicted with a substantial piece of arm, as found in a cubit arm). While any of these motifs is registerable, the combination of them here rises to the point of an offensive potential reference to white supremacist movements.

We continue to support this ruling. At the risk of establishing a "steps from appropriate practice" measure, we advise submitters and consultants alike that, while a single use of an a symbol or motif may be considered inoffensive, the use of more than one potentially offensive symbol in any piece of armory runs the risk of crossing the line into offense. This risk increases exponentially as a design becomes more complex.

As an example, a gules field, a roundel, and a sable charge are each individually inoffensive and innocuous. A plate on a gules field, or a sable charge on a plate might make people a little uncomfortable, depending on context. However, Gules, on a plate [two long charges] in saltire sable is evocative of the flag of the Nazi Party, despite being technically clear by change of the type and number of tertiary charges. Gules, on a plate a wagon wheel sable would likewise be returned for presumption (only one DC from the Nazi party flag) as well as offense.

This brings us to the subject of Celtic crosses and Norse sun crosses. Both symbols have deep spiritual and cultural positive meanings for people around the world, and both are popular motifs in SCA heraldry. However, both have also been used by white supremacist groups for some time now.

The version of the "Celtic" cross used commonly by white supremacists in the U.S. and Europe is a cross couped conjoined to and surmounted by an annulet. As drawn, it resembles a gunsight. This design is among the more popular designs used by white supremacist groups, similar in ubiquity to the swastika. It was previously ruled unregisterable in the SCA in the January 2010 return of Sadb ingen Chonchobair's device, Argent, on a catamount rampant vert a straight-armed Latinate Celtic cross argent on the ground that the Celtic cross as so drawn is undocumentable; we now rule that this rendering of the Celtic cross, both couped and throughout (the latter also being known as a Cross of Coldharbour) is also offensive and unregisterable in any format regardless of documentation. A more comprehensive discussion about appropriate Celtic crosses may be found in the next section of this Cover Letter.

Norse sun crosses are not offensive in their own right. They are used in several cultures throughout the world. However, the Norse sun cross is also a popular motif among white supremacists, sometimes used as a stand-in for a swastika, and so must be considered with care.

In closing, we advise consulting and submissions heralds to speak to submitters if they feel uncomfortable with a particular design. The ultimate decision of offense rests with Laurel. Kingdoms should not return any armory based on their concerns about offensiveness unless there is already a clear precedent on the issue (e.g., a device with a swastika). However, we do a disservice to submitters by not voicing our concerns about a design which may be registerable under current standards but would cause the bearer to lose face or be less trusted for their use of such symbols and motifs.

https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2018/07/18-07cl.html#1

4/2015 - Gypsy offensive:

  1. 170 Richard the Roma. Name. "Submitted as Richard the Gipsy, this name was pended from the November 2014 Letter of Acceptances and Returns to discuss whether the byname the Gipsy is offensive under PN5B3 of SENA:

> Names which include ethnic, racial, or sexuality-based slurs and references to derogatory stereotypes will not be registered. This is not dependent on the period associations of the usage. It is an issue based on modern understandings of the offensiveness of terms. General references to ethnic, racial, or sexual identities are not offensive and may be registered. Although we have registered forms of the Gypsy in the past, the term Gipsy is considered to be derogatory and a slur by the Roma themselves. The Roma (or Romani) are subject to real-world discrimination and systematic abuse, particularly in Europe. Therefore, gypsy and related terms like the Russian tsigane, Romanian tigani, and German zigeuner are offensive and not registerable. General ethnic bynames of similar derivation, but that don't have the same negative connotation today (like Czygan, a common Hungarian surname not considered to be offensive) will be considered on a case-by-case basis. We note that the lingua Anglica form Gypsy or the Gypsy would not be permitted, even if it is a literal translation of an acceptable ethnic byname like Czygan. The intent is not to ban the ability to recreate Romani culture, just the use of terms that the Roma themselves consider to be offensive. The submitter allowed a change to Richard of the Romany, but the construction of the X (where X is an ethnic term) was not documented. Instead, we have changed the name to Richard the Roma. (The lingua Anglica form Roma is the term preferred by the Council of Europe.) http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2015/04/15-04lar.html#170

3/2012 LoAR - Testicles Offensive:

From Wreath: Testicles This month we were asked to consider two badges which used testicles as a charge. These items generated a great amount of discussion on whether or not the charge runs afoul of our ban on vulgar armory. Testicles are a period charge, used in the arms of Bartolomeo Colleoni (c. 1395/1400-1475). However, we have refused to register some period heraldic charges due to perception of modern offensiveness. As rulings on offensive armory are quite rare, we want to reassure readers that both Wreath and Laurel read the arguments both for and against, and the decision was a joint one. The General Principles section of the Rules for Submissions, I.2 Offense, reads, "No name or armory will be registered that may be offensive to a significant segment of the Society or the general population." Section IX.1, Vulgar Armory, goes further to state, "Pornographic or scatological items or designs will not be registered. Obscene images, sexually explicit material, bathroom or toilet humor, etc. are considered inherently offensive by a large segment of the Society and general population." Commenters argued that we have registered such charges as a woman's breast previously without claims of offense, and this is so. While we do not habitually blazon such details, we do not hesitate to register animals obviously pizzled, either. However, pizzling is typically a subtle, but natural and expected detail on an animal, and the heraldic styling of a single breast is far from offensive, particularly when we also register without hesitation bare-chested mermaids. Commenters argued that most non-heralds would identify this charge as a leaf of some sort, or possibly a heart inverted. This charge was shown, without comment, to several large groupings of non-heralds in the SCA, and the vast majority, if not all, immediately identified it correctly. We must keep in mind that our rules against offensiveness and vulgarity include "the general population". While there is nothing that describes heraldic testicles as being human as opposed to animal, the general population still tends to draw a line at openly displaying anything "south of the border". Members of the SCA may understand that this is a period heraldic charge, but we are inclined to pay attention to the rest of General Principle I.2, which reads "No submission will be registered that is detrimental to the educational purposes or good name of the Society, or the enjoyment of its participants because of offense that may be caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by its use." Until a significant segment of the general population would not be offended by seeing testicles in armory, we will not register this charge. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/03/12-03cl.html

2/1988 LoAR - Sleipnir too religous:

Birgit av Birka. Azure, a horse of eight legs passant to sinister and a chief bevilled Or. "As for the device, the more the issue of the acceptability of the Sleipnir for Society armoury is discussed in the College of Arms, the more the commentors seem to feel doubts about the propriety of the usage. The submittor has provided a substantial amount of evidence for the use of the image on grave art, but all of this supports the conclusion that the beast has too strong a religious/magical connotation. (We ignore here the theories of some scholars that, in a couple of the cases she adduces, the depiction of the horse with eight legs is in fact an attempt to depict a team of two horses!) Additionally, the unusual use of the "bevilled" chief (we could not find a period example) seems designed to give the effect of lightning, thus joining Thor to Odin in the device. " http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1988/02/lar.html


11/1987 LoAR - Sleipnir too religious?:

Valtorr of Oslo. Quarterly Or and argent, a Sleipnir rampant sable within an orle gules. As for the device, the resubmission did not address the issue of the propriety of registering a Sleipnir in the Society. No evidence has been presented in support of the use of this magical creature so closely associated with the Nordic pantheon, even outside of the context of a theophoric name and commentary in the College was even dubious concerning the use of such a unique creature on this occasion than when it was first submitted. Moreover, since any blazon to indicate the tinctures of the submission was omitted, the College could not check properly for conflicts which might have arisen since the original return. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1987/11/lar.html


Collected Precedents:


Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Offensiveness&oldid=5919"