Hypothetical Scenario

[Kralizec]

Merkel IIRC tried to push for a EU swatsika ban recently (haven't been following the news very well as of late)
The effort stranded, among other reasons, because the swatsika is a religious symbol for Hindus. It's not all bad.

What I'm bothered more about is the double standard - swatsikas, unless in a Hindu or pre-1900 context are considered an evil symbol, while there are plenty of morons who go around wearing T-shirts with the hammer and sickle.

[Vuk]

I don't know why WIKI doesn't have it, but it was also a religious symbol of some American Indians. The Europeans were trying to market Indian rugs, but the Indian designs were not selling nearly as well as the ones from the Orient and Europe, so the Westeners introduced to the Indians the symbols that they are now associated with. One of those being a swastika. The Indians then incorparated those symbols into their culture and religion. It is funny, because all the "Indian" designs you see come from either the Orient or Europe. Those were not the design that Indians originally made on the stuff, but ones introduced by westerners to increase the value of their trade goods. Found that rather funny. :P

[Papewaio]

And Buddhists... a lot of Vegetarian Buddhist restaurants have that symbol here... hardly a banned item.

In a particular configuration it is a brand mark for a hate group. Companies have exclusive rights to their brand logos too... you can brand letters/words in a colour combination... for instance a large M in yellow belongs to a particular group.

To deny that a symbol in a particular configuration has a particular meaning is to deny language.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Isn't the religious swastika arranged so that the arms are at 12, 3, 6 and 9, while the Nazi one is slanted? So you could ban one and not the other.

Better not to disallow either, of course. I hope our government would tell the EU where to go if they proposed a general ban.

[ShadeHonestus]

Try living in the states where Christopher Columbus personally killed millions of natives and the confederate flag itself runs the streets trying to enslave people.

[Strike For The South]

Try living in the states where Christopher Columbus personally killed millions of natives and the confederate flag itself runs the streets trying to enslave people.

Not the dumbest thing I've ever heard but damn close

[ShadeHonestus]

Not the dumbest thing I've ever heard but damn close

What? You've never heard the rhetoric laying the fate of all native americans at CC's doorstep? Even calling for Columbus day to be excommunicated? Don't get me started on the issue of the confederate flag. You can't even talk about it or the south in the Civil War without being held in suspicions of racism.

[Strike For The South]

What? You've never heard the rhetoric laying the fate of all native americans at CC's doorstep? Even calling for Columbus day to be excommunicated? Don't get me started on the issue of the confederate flag. You can't even talk about it or the south in the Civil War without being held in suspicions of racism.

People attack CC and the Confedracy becuase they are small minded and believe everything the history channel tells them. The Indians died en masse due to an immune system that couldnt cope with European diease thats hardly CC fault. The Indians got a raw deal. As for the flag I really dont care I like it its nifty. I would also like to point every flag flying today has blood on it so to pin all the confedrates as teh racists is retarded at best. The stuff you posted is used by bleeding hearts to get into peoples checkbooks and its stupid.

[KukriKhan]

So the question is: when can a symbol, co-opted by some "evil" (read: war-losing) group, be safely used in the general population again, in art, literature, and common display?

10 years?
30 years?
a Generation?
2 generations?

Let's keep the discussion to that, please.

For example, would anyone get offended see ing these:

on their dinner plates?

Out side the UK, definately not. Inside the UK, probably not also. Yet a mere 500 years ago, people died under those banners.

[AntiochusIII]

I don't know why WIKI doesn't have it, but it was also a religious symbol of some American Indians. The Europeans were trying to market Indian rugs, but the Indian designs were not selling nearly as well as the ones from the Orient and Europe, so the Westeners introduced to the Indians the symbols that they are now associated with. One of those being a swastika. The Indians then incorparated those symbols into their culture and religion. It is funny, because all the "Indian" designs you see come from either the Orient or Europe. Those were not the design that Indians originally made on the stuff, but ones introduced by westerners to increase the value of their trade goods. Found that rather funny. :P

The HELL!?

You are claiming the Indians put the swastika pattern in their culture to impress the Europeans and frickin' sell their rugs, yeah...

Sorry, but I don't think it's a very strong claim.

I think the issue with some symbols is their resurrection by the young who don't know, or don't care, about the evil done under that banner. Symbols are incredibly powerful, and time does not necessarily diminish that power. It is dangerous to overlook that power and its hold on the unimaginative. Symbols represent ideas, and ideas are the most powerful things on earth.

If you mean the skinheads who think wearing the Nazi swastika, tattoo it, etc., are cool; well...

They don't exactly make people shine with rebellious pride, or disturbed beyond reason of the heralding return of the Nazi regime; but they aren't very pleasant either. I'm afraid of them, though; they could beat the **** out of me.

The best way to destroy a symbol's power -- which I agree with you exists -- is to break the taboo associated with it. Destroy the symbolism, and the lines on the board will become what they really are: the lines on the board.

The question remains on when is the precise time where the taboo should be broken. It's a delicate question, with factors ranging from the intensity of the conflicts and ideology associated with the symbol to the lifespan of the participants, among many other things, down to pure guesswork; but I think, for the case of the swastika, that a generation is enough. The ban in Europe overstays its uses in my opinion. There ought to be a balance between delicate sensibilities and principles of freedom somewhere.

[Vuk]

The HELL!?

You are claiming the Indians put the swastika pattern in their culture to impress the Europeans and frickin' sell their rugs, yeah...

What people think of as "Indian" designs are not. They are mostly Oriental, Indian, (note the distinction) and European. (Almost ALL Oriental and Indian)
I think you have seen a little to many 90's Westerns...

[ShadeHonestus]

I have to back Anti up on this one a little bit from my study of Native American cultures. Many of the designs in culturally distinctive NA weavings actually have their source in the language. You can look at the Dakota language as a sound color language and their decorations on everything as an extension of that. The SW Native Americans who are recognized the most for their weaving has its foundation in their religion, language and culture with nothing borrowed outside of its Native trade structures. The swastika as found in Native American art has been traced to a very old pre-contact independent emergence. The type of thing we see with pyramid building and other forms of architecture and art that appears at different stages of cultural development but independent of contact between these cultures.

[Vuk]

I have to back Anti up on this one a little bit from my study of Native American cultures. Many of the designs in culturally distinctive NA weavings actually have their source in the language. You can look at the Dakota language as a sound color language and their decorations on everything as an extension of that. The SW Native Americans who are recognized the most for their weaving has its foundation in their religion, language and culture with nothing borrowed outside of its Native trade structures. The swastika as found in Native American art has been traced to a very old pre-contact independent emergence. The type of thing we see with pyramid building and other forms of architecture and art that appears at different stages of cultural development but independent of contact between these cultures.

I never said ALL of what we consider Indian, I said MOST. You say you study Native American culture? Then you should be able to confirm that. Almost all of Native American commercial "cultural items" was thrown upon them by Westerners. Of course they had their own culture...it just wasn't marketable. For that reason, much of what is thought of as Indian today is not Indian at all.

P.S. The course I took on it said that the SW was introduced to them, not invented by them.

[ShadeHonestus]

I never said ALL of what we consider Indian, I said MOST.

What you consider and what I consider may be vastly different and indeed most of the people that I know that work in the field of archeology and anthropology focusing on NAs would differ.

You say you study Native American culture?

Yes, on my way to doing what I do now, I took the obvious shortcut of a degree in anthropology and on the way to that I was majoring in History (specifically the history of America pre-1900, when i became enamored with Indian cultures)....okay, obviously not a shortcut.

P.S. The course I took on it said that the SW was introduced to them, not invented by them.

Then you should be able to confirm that. Almost all of Native American commercial "cultural items" was thrown upon them by Westerners. Of course they had their own culture...it just wasn't marketable.

Not sure what you are referring to as commercial cultural items. The NA's had a vast trade network dating back thousands of years before Christopher or that Viking guy set foot and much of what they traded was cultural.

P.S. The course I took on it said that the SW was introduced to them, not invented by them.

The art of finger weaving was not introduced to them, it was there long before the Spanish arrived. They originally used cotton and other fibers. The only thing that was introduced was the availability of wool via the Spanish introduction of sheep. So if you want to say wool is not theirs, then thats fine, but the artistic depiction goes beyond the design in their significance and the act of finger weaving, which is at the center of the craft, is not a borrowed art form.

The one thing that is sometimes considered "Indian" is quilting, like their star quilts etc, however that is purely European aside from its cultural significance to the artist.

For that reason, much of what is thought of as Indian today is not Indian at all.

As Joseph Marshall once told me this is a huge problem when interpreting Native American history. There has been so much that has been written incorrectly in the past, either by accident or design, that much of what is taught or written today is completely false because the cultural perspective is off. This is evidenced in great degree by European cultural attempts to reclaim an influence on NA culture that it never had to begin with and only through resemblance and the recognition of trade, can they claim these things.

Of course there are things that can be claimed as commercially tailored items by NA's for the market Europeans created, but even the tiny fraction of these items speak more to NA culture than European influence.

[edit]
Items such as the swatiska variation, which this discussion was about, as stated above was pre-contact and independent in origin.