Offensiveness: Difference between revisions

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


=='''Collected Precedents: Offensive -'''==  
=='''Collected Precedents: Offensive -'''==  
* [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/CompiledNamePrecedents/Offensive.html Name Precedents: Offensive]</span>
* [http://heraldry.sca.org/precedents/CompiledNamePrecedents/Offensive.html Name Precedents: Offensive]
 


==4/2015 - Gypsy offensive:==  
==4/2015 - Gypsy offensive:==  

Revision as of 09:27, 6 June 2020

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference.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):

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(to search the LoARs and Precedents) Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.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 -

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=5888"