Jan 12th, 2016: Whitesboro Seal... again

Whitesboro, NY, is in the news again with their town seal. Amusing Planet says...

The results are in. The towns 3735 residents have replied to the critics. Of the 212 votes cast, 157 voted to retain the current seal.

I think, given the wider historical context,it is an unfortunate image. With the story, it makes sense and does not seem founded on any racism. Without the story, it is very easily misconstrued.

People would rather misconstrue than bother to find out the story.

The ironic thing is that in this case it's the liberals doing it. Just in the last week or two there was a lot lot of conservative bashing by liberals because the Washingtonpost online fact checker closed up shop because conservatives don't care when their guys lie. They simply don't care. This time, it's the liberals who don't care.

And the clickbaiters will jump on any wagon of indignation passing by. That's why a small town seal, which very few people ever see, stirs up a fuss worldwide. Suddenly "public opinion" is measured by reaction of a public it doesn't concern.

I suspect that the satirical murals from the set of "Parks and Rec" may have brought more attention to crappy small-town art than it previously had.

And the kerfuffle over the Confederate battle flag has sent do-gooders and clickbaiters scouring the country for politically incorrect symbolism.

I daresay the Redskins haven't helped matters much.

I totally get why the town wants to keep their symbol. They're steepedin their town history and that symbol, with the story is innocuous. Unfortunately, the town exists in a country in which lots of other historic symbols, statues and mascots, and indeed place names carry rather more negative connotations. I can understand how someone might see that symbol and assume it is one of the latter. I can also understand that they may jump to conclusions because of it, given that they are not steeped in the town's history and they live in a country in which the cultural identity of the indigenous peoples has, over two centuries, been appropriated wholesale by the descendants of the people who all but annihilated them.

It's bound to be a touchy subject.

I wonder what the budget is for a small town of 3,735 to be spending money on designing a new seal, and replacing every last thing in town that bears the seal, just to satisfy a bunch of strangers on the internet who don't know a thing about their town and can't be bothered to learn the story behind their seal?

Yeah, that's not an incidental sum, I'm guessing. .

They shouldn't change it. No more than they should change their rather unfortunate sounding name, which commemorates White, not designates white. But we shouldn't be surprised by the perennial, internet-fuelled outrage.

The Whitesboro name, in combination with the seal, add fuel to the Imaginations of people looking to be offended. You know 3foot lives in the same state, on the same latitude, not far from Whitesboro. Coincidence?

I think 'looking to be offended' is fair for some, but not for others. 'Already offended by a big bucket of offensive shit over a fairly long period of time and therefore primed to see something that looks similar at a surface level to that stuff as the same', might account for some of them.

Time was it'd be something you might mention to your friends - shit, man there's a town with a white settler throttling a native american in full headdress as their symbol and they called themselves Whitesboro. Now it all goes online. Instantly.

The thing is, if you need to have an explanation for why a logo isn't racist, it's a bad logo.

You might think that two bolts of lightning is a good logo for a power company, but if it looks like the SS logo, don't do it.

And the art doesn't do them any favors. The newer logo looks more like a throttling than the older one.

I agree it's a bad logo, but if you are a citizen of that little village and you have potholes all over town because you live in the rustbelt, are you going to vote to spend money fixing a stupid logo just to satisfy a bunch of strangers on the Internet? There are real problems to deal with in small villages. Logos aren't one of them.

If I was mayor, I would start an online fund for donations to change the logo. Those strangers can put up or shut up. Once enough money is raised, I'd use it to hire artists to submit a bunch of logo ideas and then let the town council vote on them. But I wouldn't spend a penny from the town's own coffers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey The thing is, if you need to have an explanation for why a logo isn't racist, it's a bad logo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce I don't buy that, I'd hate to see every symbol/logo homogenized so much nobody could be offended. The sheriff can't use a six pointed star because the Jews had to wear them in Europe. Certainly no snakes could be used. No people unless they represented all colors, ages, plus if they have two legs they snub amputees. No trees unless deciduous and conifers get equal billing. The NFL can't use a football because it offends soccer fans. Where does it end? Maybe commercial interests have to worry about negative reaction from potential customers, but utilities and government agencies, not so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce I don't buy that, I'd hate to see every symbol/logo homogenized so much nobody could be offended. The sheriff can't use a six pointed star because the Jews had to wear them in Europe. Certainly no snakes could be used. No people unless they represented all colors, ages, plus if they have two legs they snub amputees. No trees unless deciduous and conifers get equal billing. The NFL can't use a football because it offends soccer fans. Where does it end? Maybe commercial interests have to worry about negative reaction from potential customers, but utilities and government agencies, not so much.

Then you don't have to explain lightning bolts on an electrical company truck.
I see a lot of them on electrical contractors vans, and in warning signs on lift trucks.

You do if they look like the SS symbol.

so... following your analogy, where's the preexisting symbol of a white man choking a red man, causing this symbol to be associated with .... ??? oppression? atrocities? unchecked state sponsored racism?

Right there, all the symbols we need are right there in your post. As a red man, I'm sooo offended. Hmmph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey You do if they look like the SS symbol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV so... following your analogy, where's the preexisting symbol of a white man choking a red man, causing this symbol to be associated with .... ??? oppression? atrocities? unchecked state sponsored racism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce I haven't seen any that look like SS symbols, but doubt I'd make the connection. But I'm not particularly offended by swastikas either, because I know its history, and if I see it in the news I know it's some asshole pushing buttons... I refuse to let them push mine.

Knowing the backstory, would you be offended? If not, then in saying it would be a terrible city logo you're censoring it based on your opinion of whether others might be offended. In that case we're back to six pointed stars, snakes and trees.

How are we back to that? You still don't have to have a backstory to explain how they aren't racist.

Choosing things that shouldn't be used because they might offend someone, as opposed to saying it's a bad logo because it offends you.

A logo is supposed to communicate something. If the logo draws on a commonly understood visual lexicon that conveys a contrary message from that which is intended, unless the viewer purposely seeks out footnote explanations then it fails in its purpose as a logo.

That's true, and yet how complicated is it - this one has communicated more to us via the thread than any other seal ever. It provoked us to investigate further and forced us to confront our simple notions. If it was art, we would say that is successful.

True enough.

Who is it supposed to convey a message to, a citizen of Whitesboro and vicinity, or some internet surfer who will never see it in person? I think it was designed for local consumption, and considering the turnout/result of the vote, evidently the target audience is happy with it.

They may be changing it after all.

The comments are bizarre, but typical of Gizmodo.