As I said. The reason I did my best to avoid this discussion up til now is because I can understand both sides. I wasn't offended by what Crispian said. I don't think he was saying "get over it", I think he was saying "there's another meaning for the symbol and it's a shame it got lost", only it came out, let's say, horribly wrong.

But as I said, I also have motivation to give Crispian some leeway. KS are one of my favourite bands and back in 1997 they were practically my musical messiahs (erm). I wanted and was willing to understand.

But just like Crispian, and Ian, and yourself, while not being Hindu, have the liberty to choose one meaning of the symbol over the other - and every right to do so - so do people have a right to reject that interpretation and only accept the other one, even if they didn't suffer directly under it. And if one says they shouldn't be ignorant to the other interpretation, well, that goes both ways, and the people heralding the acceptance of the swastika as the positive Hindu symbol should not ignore the very negative associations many people have when they see it.

Should they run and call Crispian racist for his choice? A thousand times no. You need more than a controversial symbol to be a racist.

quote:

Unrestricted moral outrage and offence that cuts across objective facts (such as for example, the rich history of the swastika) is understandable in some cases but it doesn't entail that those of us not personally involved need to take up the cross (or indeed should)

Which is in fact something I agree with and exactly what I was trying to say in what started all of this. It's jsut that I draw a line between saying "this is a stupid and insensitive statement" after reading the article back in 97, and continuing a crusade against Crispian 12 years later. The first I find legitimate. The second, no.

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
But Crispian said something else. He said "that was Hitler, don't let him take something like that away from you." That's not objective. That's passing a very clear moral judgement of "why can't you get over it and ignore how people used it 60 years ago".

I do disagree with your interpretation of that quote. He's saying it would be better if what happened 60 years ago wasn't allowed to interfere with the traditional meaning of the symbol. Now that might be ridiculously idealistic, but then again he's that kind of person. I don't see him passing judgement on those who are unable to do that.

quote:

To be really nasty and quote you (sorry for bringing that up, I just remember that example clearly cos back then I was biting my tongue not to comment)...

I don't mind you quoting that and I don't see you as being nasty by doing so; unless that is you think I wish I hadn't said it now But I stand by it. I would like to qualify for anyone who can't be bothered to read the thread linked to that I wasn't referring to holocaust survivors, but to journalists who were writing about a handbag with green swastikas and giraffes on it as if it had "Heil Hitler" written all over it. I do expect as a bare minimum for journalists to be at least as well-informed as I am (which isn't that hard; it's not like I'm an expert on much.) But if they can't even reach that standard then how can they possibly inform me about what's going on in the world? So yeah, I think they're worthy of my contempt and my words reflected that.

quote:

Why would anyone who suffered like this - even if they knew the original meaning of the symbol - care? And what right does anyone, Crispian, you or myself, BTW, have to come and tell them, "I don't care that symbol bothers you, get over it."

Again, I don't think he was saying that. He was saying it would be better if we could get back to the original meaning of the symbol. And again, that's probably unrealistic. This reminds me actually of the kind of discussions that people have over Lennon's "Imagine". Yeah, it's such a wishful song that it's kind of ridiculous. But taken as a view of the world as it should be rather than how it actually is, it makes perfect sense. And sometimes we need people to say "look, things don't have to be this way. There's no sense in how the world is."

quote:

No one's bothered about what the symbol used to represent. No one comes and says "The Hindu culture is anti-semitic, look, they use the swastika" - I hope no one's that ignorant, anyway. It's the expectation that people would just ignore everything that came afterwards.

I dont' see it as an expectation...

quote:

It's a subjective expectation, and one that, at least IMO, is extremely insensitive. That's how I read the people who got offended because of what Crispian said - the ones who actually got what he was talking about. And why he ended up sending a 4-page apology. And that's what he actually said there - he was being insensitive.

Well he was being insensitive, I'm not arguing that. I already said that he knew people would be offended by what he'd said (which is why I don't really see the logic of subsequently apologising for it, other than for purely PR purposes, which I suspect had a lot to do with it.)

quote:

But the fact he originally got criticised for it? Well, yeah, and fucking rightfully so.

People had a right to criticise him for it. I said it was insensitive and I don't have a problem with people calling it insensitive. I do have a problem with people trying to twist it into some kind of nazi-sympathiser angle.

This has to be one of the most interesting, intelligent, sensitively expressed debates I have read in a long time. Considering that people have come to blows over things of far less import, it's astounding, really. Incidentally, I have nothing else to add.

quote:

Originally posted by drykid:
I don't mind you quoting that and I don't see you as being nasty by doing so; unless that is you think I wish I hadn't said it now But I stand by it. I would like to qualify for anyone who can't be bothered to read the thread linked to that I wasn't referring to holocaust survivors, but to journalists who were writing about a handbag with green swastikas and giraffes on it as if it had "Heil Hitler" written all over it. I do expect as a bare minimum for journalists to be at least as well-informed as I am (which isn't that hard; it's not like I'm an expert on much.) But if they can't even reach that standard then how can they possibly inform me about what's going on in the world? So yeah, I think they're worthy of my contempt and my words reflected that.

Nono - what I meant was, the discussion wasn't about you or stuff you said so it can be out of line to bring in that 6 months old example, especially after my point that bringing up ghosts from the past when they're already irrelevant is stupid

As for naivety, well, you're talking to a radical left wing supporter who is also Israeli. We've perfected ridiculous wishfulness Thing is, as I siad in reply to James, I don't think people who refuse to accept the original meaning of the swastika are ignorant, I think they're making a conscious choice knowing the power of symbols. To play devil's advocate here, I'm not sure I want the swastika to be reclaimed, because symbols are a very powerful thing for the human mind, and if tomorrow everyone will recognise the swastika as a sign of peace and love, what's gonna happen in 400 years when people will know this is what the symbol says and that it was the symbol of the Nazis in the first half of the 20th century? As I said before, I don't begrudge people who choose to see the symbol in one way, but I also can't begrudge those who choose to see it the other way - while I do ackwnoledge misinterpretation of someone's intentions and/ or choice in this matter is always wrong.

quote:

This has to be one of the most interesting, intelligent, sensitively expressed debates I have read in a long time. Considering that people have come to blows over things of far less import, it's astounding, really. Incidentally, I have nothing else to add.

Lol, cheers. *starts a group hug*

If a music journo were to write about KS reforming and happened to drag up Crispian's comments from the past about the swastika in a negative way, we'd all be pretty dischuffed about it. Yet here we all are giving those sort of coments credibility in the new KS era. So it looks like its still a big stick to beat Crisp with and a touchy subject with fans even if we try to deny it. Aren't we playing into the antiKS journos' hands?

Not at all - are you suggesting that it shouldn't even be discussed? Frankly, those journalists that write negatively on the subject of KS often demonstrate that they haven't even visted Wikipedia, so it seems unlikely that those same ones would put themselves through the far more arduous task of hunting through hundreds of threads to find titbits on KS history on here!

Thanks to all who contributed above. I found this to be both interesting and informative. I'm taking it as the definitive debate on this subject. Just think, thousands of words have been written on what was obviously an utterance that Crispian had given no previous thought to. Who’d want to be famous? In the “What’s wrong with KS” thread, we seemed to be surprised that they are not achieving/pursuing mega stardom this time around but perhaps KS are happy with their present level of success. It seems to me it is certainly preferable to being public property.

so, next time a kid atg work asks me why it's forbidden to draw swastikas, I'll tell him, well hitler used it etc etc etc, but don't let that keep you from drawing it, since it is actually a hinduistic sign of peace and wotnot... which 99.999999% of all people don't know, and will interpret it the wrong way... but that shouldn't actually keep you from drawing it everywhere, either. help reclaim the swastika.

thing is... it's ridiculous...we don't live in a hindu society... if we did and people got pissed off about like, not being able to use their ancient important sign... okay, that's one thing. But we're talking a bunch of stupid hippies (sorry... i mean it in a bad sense here... which i normally don't) who say it 99% for the sake of it. They don't even have the "right" to wanting to reclaim it, since it has nothing ot do with them really.
also, I'd be the last one to say a hindu community in europe shouldn't be allowed to use it... it's just that it seems the people who complain about it are a bunch of like *spiritually inhanced* *new age* *bla bla bla stupid hippies!!! and they can fuck off!

also, WHY reclaim it for here?? Here, it's a sign under which millions of people WERE KILLED!!! WHY reclaim it in the eye of the european public???????????? the european public who some random hindu peace thing has NO meaning for, who don't even give a fuck, who don't even know what hinduism is! why fucking reclaim it????? The Hitler context is the only relevant one for here. Noone new about the sign before it... so there is nothing to *reclaim*. For the Hindu population, it still has its original meaning, and for the rest, it never did in the first place!

Oh, and don't even bother complaining about my not very formal choice of words. :P

quote:

Originally posted by Vivi:
also, WHY reclaim it for here?? Here, it's a sign under which millions of people WERE KILLED!!! WHY reclaim it in the eye of the european public???????????? the european public who some random hindu peace thing has NO meaning for, who don't even give a fuck, who don't even know what hinduism is! why fucking reclaim it?????

You don't have to be a Hindu to get angry about a seeing a symbol that represents peace and love being corrupted into one that represents hate. It represents a victory of everything that's bestial about humanity over everything that's good about it.

quote:

The Hitler context is the only relevant one for here. Noone new about the sign before it... so there is nothing to *reclaim*. For the Hindu population, it still has its original meaning, and for the rest, it never did in the first place!

Yeah, let's just keep it as a symbol of hate from now on. I'm sure that's what Hitler would have preferred after all. Not only did he steal the symbol, but now you want to give him permanent ownership of it?

Well Crispian isn't some cultural tourist.. that is his life. He's as much a Hindu as one of Asian descent (in or out of Europe).

And I'm not sure Crispian was advocating the wholesale readoption of the swastika along the lines of non-hindus hanging up swastikas all over the place. After all as you say it never had more than a passing-fad type meaning in the West (to non-Hindus) before the Nazis anyway.

The context he was speaking of it in was in using it as part of Kula Shaker's artistic endeavours (I guess like things like the Aum symbol, Krishna references in the lyrics, and so on). So use by a Hindu but in a wider arena (hence the controversy). Maybe in that context it could actually be relevant, worthwhile 'reclaiming' etc, worthwhile of appreciation - in that context - even by an audience that was primarily non-Hindu.

quote:

Originally posted by drykid:

quote:

Originally posted by Vivi:
also, WHY reclaim it for here?? Here, it's a sign under which millions of people WERE KILLED!!! WHY reclaim it in the eye of the european public???????????? the european public who some random hindu peace thing has NO meaning for, who don't even give a fuck, who don't even know what hinduism is! why fucking reclaim it?????

You don't have to be a Hindu to get angry about a seeing a symbol that represents peace and love being corrupted into one that represents hate. It represents a victory of everything that's bestial about humanity over everything that's good about it.

quote:

The Hitler context is the only relevant one for here. Noone new about the sign before it... so there is nothing to *reclaim*. For the Hindu population, it still has its original meaning, and for the rest, it never did in the first place!

Yeah, let's just keep it as a symbol of hate from now on. I'm sure that's what Hitler would have preferred after all. Not only did he steal the symbol, but now you want to give him permanent ownership of it?

Erm. The point I'm getting from Vivi's post is that you guys are looking at it from an academic POV. Which is all nice and pretty, but when you've got various Neo-Nazi and racist groups - especially in Europe, but not just - who are using this symbol in the same meaning Hitler did, not academically and not on an idea level and not wanting to reclaim it but actually do - because, like it or not, its place in the Western society today is exactly the place Hilter gave it - you can't go and draw your own swastikas and then tell the Jews/ blacks/ Asians/ Muslims/ Gypsies/ gays [please circle the requested group] "nonono, this isn't against you guys, it's the other one!"

You can do it in the east - because Hinduism and Hindus recognise this symbol for it originaly was. Which is why it's not support of the Nazis. But in the west? There is, de facto, only one meaning for it.

Your reply treats this question as if it weren't only an academic one. But it is.

quote:

Well Crispian isn't some cultural tourist.. that is his life. He's as much a Hindu as one of Asian descent (in or out of Europe).

As far as I know Crispian isn't a Hindu. He has a lot of respect for the religion and culture and philosophy and is greatly influenced by it, but I don't think he sees himself as a Hindu?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pitry, Queen of Shrooms,

quote:

eah, let's just keep it as a symbol of hate from now on. I'm sure that's what Hitler would have preferred after all. Not only did he steal the symbol, but now you want to give him permanent ownership of it?

We seem to have managed it ok with the VW Beetle. I may be wrong but didn't he have a hand in the design/commissioning of this vehicle?

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
As far as I know Crispian isn't a Hindu. He has a lot of respect for the religion and culture and philosophy and is greatly influenced by it, but I don't think he sees himself as a Hindu?

Uh, he is a follower of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, specifically of the ISKCON variety. Which would make him a Hindu by most definitions. I basically disagree with what you wrote in the quote.

Anyway I have to say the word 'Hindu' is not really here nor there, call him a 'follower of Gaudiya Vaishnavism' if you want and resist the term 'Hindu' (though most people would recognise followers of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a Hindu faith). The swastika is still sacred in Gaudiya Vaishnavan contexts.

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:Actually, if we're to go back to the original quote and - god forbids! - actually look at what he said, the real context was much in line of what Ian just said up there - because you shouldn't ignore the opening part of that statement - "Talking about ruffling feathers and statements in magazines"

He was being mischevious / facetious. Briefly. The only context he ever actually advocated the symbol's specific use was as part of Kula Shaker's stage act, the stage act of a band thoroughly and honestly (artistically) connected to Hinduism, with at least one committed Hindu member.


On the other issue (let's keep them separate)

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
like it or not, its place in the Western society today is exactly the place Hilter gave it

That is exactly the point though, why should it continue to be so. Apart from the Holocaust victims and World War 2 veterans, we all have a genuine choice about how we want to try and see this symbol. Getting whipped up in outrage is always the easiest option.. always...

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
Erm. The point I'm getting from Vivi's post is that you guys are looking at it from an academic POV.

Yeah, I probably am. And I don't feel like I need to apologise for that. As far as I'm concerned Hitler got where he was as much by the power of ideology as by force, and I think the correct way to respond to that is with opposing ideology.

quote:

you can't go and draw your own swastikas and then tell the Jews/ blacks/ Asians/ Muslims/ Gypsies/ gays [please circle the requested group] "nonono, this isn't against you guys, it's the other one!"

I think you patronise all those groups when you say that (including the one(s) you belong to ) No-one is telling anyone to do anything. I'm saying that people shouldn't be afraid to embrace the original positive meaning of the symbol, and that hopefully you can carry other people with you when you do so (even if you can't convince everyone...) It seems to me your argument is at heart based around underestimating people's ability to think for themselves. Whereas mine is possibly based around overestimating their ability. But I'm happy to sit on that side of the fence.

quote:

You can do it in the east - because Hinduism and Hindus recognise this symbol for it originaly was. Which is why it's not support of the Nazis. But in the west? There is, de facto, only one meaning for it.

I think this is a good point to remind people that Hitler didn't just take the symbol, but he embellished it also. There's only one meaning for the red / white / black swastika within a circle, true. No-one would ever deny that. But the original symbol was significantly different. If I show you a photo of a thousand-year old swastika on a Hindu temple, in what way is that about fascism? Yet you're saying I should only accept it as being about facism, because of the last 60 years. That's ridiculous. I'll look at that photo and accept it for what it is, and what was intended by it.

quote:

Originally posted by 2-J:


Uh, he is a follower of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, specifically of the ISKCON variety. Which would make him a Hindu by most definitions. I basically disagree with what you wrote in the quote.

Anyway I have to say the word 'Hindu' is not really here nor there, call him a 'follower of Gaudiya Vaishnavism' if you want and resist the term 'Hindu' (though most people would recognise followers of Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a Hindu faith). The swastika is still sacred in Gaudiya Vaishnavan contexts.

Which is why I put it in a question mark - I was genuinely unsure.

quote:

He was being mischevious / facetious. Briefly. The only context he ever actually advocated the symbol's specific use was as part of Kula Shaker's stage act, the stage act of a band thoroughly and honestly (artistically) connected to Hinduism, with at least one committed Hindu member.

hmm.. well, yeah, I did ended up editing that last bit out of my post, cos I re considered it. Damn you for noticing it before
I agree he was facetious. I only claim he was abuot the entire sentence. You can't really ignore the fact that out of the very large pantheon of Hindu symbols, he "artistically" chose to express his beliefs by the swastika. He knew it was loaded, and he chose to challenge it.
Fair enough, but such a challenge does represent an understanding this is an academic POV rather than real life one, because had he been serious about wanting to have a Hindu sign of peace and love on stage he could have chosen any of a very large inventory.