The politics of playing cards
Thanks to my relentless ego-surfing, um, I mean my participating in the ongoing conversation that is the Web, I came across a rough draft of a course paper by Devin Dadigan about the racism and sexism implicit in playing cards, — which, apparently are ordered the way they have been since the 14th century. Kings beat queens, and, the black queen is an especially disastrous card in several games.
At first I thought Devin’s hypothesis about race was problematic, because I thought clubs are sometimes taken as the highest suit, even though Devin says that black cards represent labor and slaves. (That link seems incontestable in America where “spade” has been a demeaning — and occasionally hip — term for African-Americans.) Wikipedia, however, says that when suits are ranked, clubs sometimes come first because the ranking is done alphabetically. Ah, the hidden power of alphabetization! Why, it even cures racism!
Fascinating fact: According to the paper, the ascent of the ace as the highest card “was hastened in the late 18th century by the French Revolution, where games began being played ‘ace high’ as a symbol of lower classes rising in power above the royalty.”
Categories: uncat
Suit ranking depends on the game you happen to be playing ( see http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~daf/i-p-c-s.org/faq/suit-ranking.php ):
hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades: Preference, 500, Tysiacha
clubs, spades, hearts, diamonds: Skat, Doppelkopf, Sheepshead
spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds: Big Two (Choi Dai Di, Da Lao Er)
diamonds, hearts, spades, clubs: Pusoy Dos
clubs, hearts, spades, diamonds: Ninety-nine
spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs: Contract Bridge
The author’s thesis “Two things that have not changed however are the racist and sexist undertones of cards that were developed at the time cards were fashioned.” I am sure this claim will be greeted with cries of delight by its intended audience, but the author proves nothing of the kind, devoting himself instead to scattered arguments in the form “cum hoc ergo propter hoc.” Racism and sexism exist, they are VERY BAD THINGS, but there are better ways to confront them than with confused term papers.
Betsy, I’m not seeing that fallacy here. Doesn’t the fact that queens are ranked lower than kings indicate a cultural sexism? What am I missing?
As for the racism of the suits, I do think that that’s a weaker argument, with mixed evidence, although I don’t see the cum hoc etc. fallacy there either.
I think arguing that cards are racist is totally ridiculous. There’s black cards, sure, but ….. red cards? What? Where’s the white cards that trump all the other suits? ;)
The fact that queens are ranked lower then kings could be taken as sexist, or historical. Historically speaking, kings rules countries and queens only ruled if there were no kings available, for the most part. This is a fact that isn’t really in contention, so…. why wouldn’t a king have greater value then a queen? There aren’t really any powerful kings or queens in the world anymore. If cards were intended to be modern, why isn’t there a President card, or maybe a CEO card? They aren’t intended to be modern.
So I say, the fact that a king beats a queen is about as sexist as saying, there used to be slaves in America, is racist. There’s no bias, it’s just how things happened. It’s historical fact. Denying the past isn’t going to resolve racism or sexism.
David, you say you don’t see fallacious reasoning here. Here’s one example, in my opinion.
To quote the paper: “I believe that as more playing card games were invented, a hierarchy began to evolve where black cards were of lower value than red cards. Ultimately, I think this hierarchy directly translates back to French society and the issue of slavery which was going on at that time.”
Presumably, by “that time” he means approximately 1480 when French playing cards introduced the four suits used on modern cards — spades, clubs, diamonds, and hearts. I am unaware of a single historical source that proposes slavery or white-versus-black racism as major “issues” shaping French thought in the fifteenth century. Spades and clubs were derived from the German suits called leaf and acorn.
Furthermore, the author may “believe” that black cards are of lower value than red ones — but this belief is mistaken. The suits are equivalent in most modern games. In Bridge, spades are the highest-ranking suit, although bidding can establish any of the four suits as “trump” suit during a hand, outranking all others. In Casino, the two of spades is the “little casino” worth one extra point to whoever holds it.
The evidence cited for black cards having less value (Old Maid, superstitious poker players, slang usage of “spade” as a racial term) are similarly cherry-picked modern examples that no more prove the low-ranking of black suits than the existence of my Technorati Tshirt and yours proves that such Tshirts are high fashion for Boston geeks.
This is just one example of where the author asserts two questionable “facts” ( A = “The original assignment of playing card suits was based on racism” B = “In modern card games, black playing cards are worth less than red ones”) with the causative connection that A -> B. He offers some spotty evidence for A and B, but do you see evidence here for causation?
jeu pc poker gratuites…
Unefois roulette game como jugar ruleta 7 card stud virtual kasinos casino en ligne…
supprimer casino online…
A www casino gratis holdem poker game apostar portales best internet poker free sms ringtones…