Interesting story- http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6269627.stm although its interesting that they fail to print anywhere an image of the Non-Nazi Swastika, in any of its many forms.
Could it be the BBC is using sensational images to grace a sensitive story?- surely not.
Although its a disturbing symbol, I think the display of it should be a freedom of speech issue. Same for the confederate flag in the US, I hate people flying it, but they should have the freedom to do so.
What about say WWII museums in Britain or wherever? I know they displayed the swastika at Blenheim Palace - birthplace of Churchill, not for support, but for effect in telling the story.
Although its a disturbing symbol, I think the display of it should be a freedom of speech issue. Same for the confederate flag in the US, I hate people flying it, but they should have the freedom to do so.
What about say WWII museums in Britain or wherever? I know they displayed the swastika at Blenheim Palace - birthplace of Churchill, not for support, but for effect in telling the story.
I agree. I think banning symbols can be entirely counterproductive. Also I think that we should do more to display it in the original context. You can't allow a couple of decades of fascism in Europe to wipe out thousands of years of world history.
I agree. I think banning symbols can be entirely counterproductive. Also I think that we should do more to display it in the original context. You can't allow a couple of decades of fascism in Europe to wipe out thousands of years of world history.
Well said Rob :-) to much talk about banning things theses days .
There's a building in Buffalo, New York, amidst many of the other architecturally splendid buildings in its forgotten, decaying downtown.
When built right at the end of the 19th century, the Elicott Square building was a marvel of its time, with some of the deepest foundations of any office building at the time and with lots of lavish, intricate stone work, gargoyles, sweeping staircases and chandeliers etc. I'm a bit of a fan of Buffalo's old buildings and so I often pop in and look around at this former glory.
http//freenet.buffalo.edu/bah/a/main/295/index.html
If you gaze downwards at the lovely, intricate mosaic when walking around inside, by the elevators, you quickly realise you're looking at dozens of swastikas - invereted from the Nazi version - but unmistakably swastikas nevertheless. I would like to say that it's a tribute to Buffalo that in the most politically correct country on earth, they've stoutly resisted covering them up, but I suspect, like a lot of decrepit downtowns in the U.S northeast I'm sure the real reason is just neglect. (You still see quite a few 1950s signs for fallout shelters too). The swastika clearly, even in the U.S, had an entirely positive symbolism, before Hitler.
It's not just sacred to Hindus, but to Buddhists too and has a history that stretches back to neolithic times. So I agree with the others here. Let's not provincialise history.
It's not dissimilar from the way the flag of St. George has become associated with football hooliganism and the National Front.
It's just a symbol. There are no bad symbols just as there are no bad words -just bad ways to use them. We need to refuse to be offended and to reclaim these things for good purposes, just as people have done with the words gay and black, for example. If we ban such things, we are effectively martyring them, affording a victory to those who use them to represent bad things.
Banned? NO
People should just be re-educated as to the meaning to it. The symbol goes back thousands of years. It was just hijacked by a bunch of arseholes.
As monster said just like the cross of st george being associated with the National Front and alike. Glad the people took it back and proud to fly it again.
Reminds me of a reiki healing symbol, of course it's a mirror image, but i'm with the prior posters. Association with bad things does not taint the symbol only the perception by those who refuse to think.
I'll sound paradoxical or wishy-washy here, but I see two views, both legitimate but both completely opposite.
I agree that the symbol should not be considered to be tainted by those who use it, after all, the cross was used by the KKK, but I understand how the swastika would be inextricably linked with the Nazis in the minds of survivors, and relatives of survivors, of the death camps, as an extreme example.
the swastika would be inextricably linked with the Nazis in the minds of survivors, and relatives of survivors, of the death camps, as an extreme example.
and that's unfortunate, but I doubt that removing the swastika from sight is going to make them feel any better. How to erase it from their memories? Probably better to keep it in view as a cathartic focal point. better out than in wth all that emotion.
But that aside, in what other circumstances would we feel it right for the feelings of a minority to dictate the law for the majority
(Oh wait....)
There are many ways for Hindus and others who wish to display the swastika as a peace symbol. It doesn't have on be in a white circle with a red background. Among my family possessions I have an old piece of cheap costume jewellery. It's a broken brooch in the shape of a swastika. I view it as a curiosity and wonder how someone in my family came by it.
Interestingly, when I was a child at primary school, I distinctly remember doodling swastikas because I could never get the legs going the right way. No-one ever said anything about it, and it was as meaningless a symbol as it could be.
There is no point in banning it, just de-Nazify it for a couple of generations. A hundred years from now there will be no living holocaust survivors to be upset by it. Suppressing it and its history - good and bad - serves no purpose.