|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
The meaning of symbols tends to be fluent. take language for example. The origin of the word fuck meant something harmless along the lines of moving things from a to b. Everyone using it like that now would be called an idiot though, unless it's in the context of language studies. The meaning of symbols is fluent, it keeps changing and changing and changing. In the Swastika case for the worse. That's life. Artificially changing it back is against the natural flux of symbols and their meaning. _________________________ You know it will always just be me. |
|||
|
Okay, let's keep 'em seperated,
James said:
Because people do not live in a vacuum. Because it's not just the Holocaust survivoers and WW2 veterans - it's their relatives and their relatives' relatives, and the friends of those and the people from the community and people like our very own extremely inteligent and able to think for herself - if to refer to Ian's post I'm about to continue to in a second - German people who are being taught what that symbol used to mean in the history of their own country. That's quite a large groupe. And sorry to shred Ian's post to parts but the middle part fits more here -
I'm not patronising anyone. As a matter of fact, I think I give slightly more repsect to their intelligence and ability to think for themselves than you do  Because I accept the duality you guys refuse to accept. This isn't an either or situation. And you're not telling me to accept it for what it used to be rather than what it is now? You've been doing that for the past two pages, and on several earlier discussions! You've just done it with Vivi's post - a very intellignt, capable of thinking for herself German who has been taught to look at this symbol at a very specific way and for a damn good reason. Perhaps this is not what you meant, but that's the way it's come out.
I didn't mean "academic" as in "ideology". I talked about academic as in, what you're talking about is an abstract. You can talk about reclaiming the swastika fromw 12 years ago or 40 years ago When George Harrison did the same thing til kingdom come - it's not gonna change the fact that the chances of actually succeeding in reclaiming the swastika are about zero. Because people make the conscious decision I mentioned earlier.
And here's the best example for my saying you're looking at it from an academic POC rather than a pragmatic one. Because when racist/ neo nazi/ bored kids go and trash cemetaries tombstones and then draw a swastika on them, they don't much notice the direction in whcih the swastika is drawn, let alone bother with colouring or circling. Gods have no one to pray to. |
||||
|
excellent point - jsut that last line I'd jump in and say y9ou can artificially change the emaning of a symbol, but you need the agreement of the community in order to do so. Which is where the pragmatic part I was talking about comes into play - because on a KS forum, for example, you can get a consensus of referrign to the swastika as the Hindu sign, but that doesn't apply to the real world. Gods have no one to pray to. |
||||
|
 |
Prity, you are right!
Because when racist/ neo nazi/ bored kids go and trash cemetaries tombstones and then draw a swastika on them, they don't much notice the direction in whcih the swastika is drawn, let alone bother with colouring or circling. In the case of bored kids, IMO they do so, because it rebels against the established social norms. I think Crispian was probably exposed to the Hindu meaning of the symbol before the western meaning became apparent. Maybe I’m naïve. So, following this discussion I’m of the opinion that we in the West should retain our interpretation of the symbol. It transcends language and (most) cultural barriers and when WW2 is distant history, it will represent the horrors of the holocaust. We should never forget this and revulsion of the swastika may go some way to preventing such atrocities happening again. |
|||
|
 |
I do think we can make sense of the notion of justified moral outrage and unjustified moral outrage. Maybe we might disagree on the boundaries as to who is entitled to be absolutely outraged and unreasonable about a particular event, and who isn't, but I think everyone agrees a line has to be (theoretically) somewhere. Even if there are 'hazy' borderline cases. In general as drykid says, priority to reason is a strong moral imperative. It's what we share as human beings and it's how we can come together to reach a common ground on moral issues. When someone experiences an event that means they can't reason about something, that should be seen as a tragedy and a very serious thing. I do believe that people who genuinely have no choice about trying to reason through things, about trying to change the way they feel about things, are only a relatively small class. In the case of the murdered children, the class includes their relatives and friends. It doesn't, and shouldn't, include - for example - the reader of a right wing newspaper who, reading the story of the childrens' death, works themselves up into a frenzy to the point where all they can think about the issue is that the perpetrators should be killed. So as I said, there are objective lines to be drawn over this issue, although we might argue over where precisely they should be drawn. But to include, for example, a whole nation for now and 'till forever - that is way, way over the mark. You cannot possibly argue whole new generations have no real choice about attempting to reason through the meanings of certain symbols. It just doesn't stand up to the facts. __________________________________________________________________ I'm an A1 major-league sociopath http://www.gorillaz-unofficial.com http://www.myspace.com/gorillaz http://www.kulashaker.net |
|||
|
Here's the problem, though. You rightfulyl argue this point about moral outrage - even though you've actually already won the arguement, I believed I agreed with both you and Ian on that point about 24 hours ago - but you don't mention the other side of my arguement. Perhaps it's my fault. Skye up there (cheers, mate!) has put it in a much more eloquent way than I did before, but she got where I was going, including the question I asked a while ago of "and what's gonna happen in 400 years."The question here isn't whether I'm allowed to be morally outraged. The fact is, I'm not. I started this whole thing saying I understand and have way too much sympathy for both sides. I also think we would both agree that if we expend the borders of those who have the moral right to be outraged (I think you put it in a more coherent way), the "next people in line" are probably people like me. But I'm not arguing here for my freedom to be moraly outraged or be on the high horse or generally be a holier than thou bitch. I can do thopse thigns without discussion I'm arguing here for a differnet angle both you and Ian refuse to accept. The one that teaches us that these things end in re-writing history. I'm not saying a whole new generation has no choice. I'm saying the smart thing to do would be what is actualy happening - a well thought-of choice in the direction that makes Crispian and the people who agree with him unhappy. And since I already crossed one line I didn't mean to by starting this discussion and mentioning my family connectino which is something I don't usually do, I'm gonna try and explain it by crossing an even bigger line in emotinoal manipulation (and BTW, feel free to not keep back and being civil when replying, like you basically should have 24 hours ago already, you're starting to scare me  ) - as I said. I know I'm deliberately attempting manipulation on you guys, but I'm sorry, you jsut don't seem to get it.I'm talking about stuff like the post that was deleted here at some pioint between 17:24 nad 18:01 which can be seen through the replies, and the posts here by PunkPrincess adn Temple of Everlasting Light. And the reason it took me about 5 mintues to retrieve these despite the 2 years that have passed is because this place is like a virtual home to me and I'm generally unused to feel like a minority so when these thigns do happen, rarely, they hit hard. And the reason this blatant emotinoal blackmail, if you will, is relevant - and trust me that just like I didn't reply those posts when they were made I thought several times before bringing it up now - is because you guys are talking about rewriting history. And that starts a chain reaction with the exact result of someone coming and saying "I support anti semitism because of x/y/z" like in the first example. This is not an academic discussion, it's reality, and I could have given a dozen different examples where you actually see this process in action from my own life in Israel - which is one of the reasons ISraeli society has become so blatantly rigth winged in the last decade and a half or so - but it would still remain academic for you. This, I hope, isn't. "Reclaiming" the swastika in Western society means blurring the lines. You guys said - at least Ian, I'm nto sure if you said that or not - that you don't think returning to the Hindu meanign of the swastika means expecting people to ignroe what it's meant - and still means to this very day - in the west after WW2. Well, I'm sorry. It does. Because a symbol of peace and love cannot coexist a the same time with a symbol of hatred and murder. Which is what resulted in my example using my lingusitics studies that Ian called patronising - referring to it as "swastika #1" adn "swastika #2"... You're asking poeple to blur these lines. And there is an expectation in that to put aside what that symbol has been representing for the past 75 years. And it's going to take along with it a blurring of what happened those 75 years ago. Not immediately. But it's a process that does happen. And once that starts, you've no way of telling where it stops. Apologies for length. Gods have no one to pray to. |
||||
|
Sure all sorts of things change over time. Doesn't mean that they change for the better. Do you think Hitler adopting the swastika in the first place was part of the "natural flux"? Christ, you could probably argue the existence of Hitler himself was part of the natural flux if you want to take that kind of thinking to its logical extreme (and if you were sufficiently stupid enough..) "I have waited to be here Now I feel you, feel you near Take me home" |
||||
|
Thanks for the second link, if only for reminding me that Vivi was the one who called me an "idiot" last time around. Ho hum...
OK, having read this twice, I agree with it. Although I read it the opposite way originally. Yeah, you can still use the symbol in its original context and not be asking people to ignore the horrors of WWII.
No, you're the one who's blurring things. You're saying that the old meaning of the swastika can no longer exist as a separate entity because of Hitler. I'm saying that the two co-exist, and that people shouldn't be afraid to refer to one meaning just out of fear that it might be mistaken for the other one. I'm asking for greater clarity, it seems to me. "I have waited to be here Now I feel you, feel you near Take me home" |
||||
|
|
|
Pitry I do appreciate this post. I do admire you for being able to discuss these issues, which, I must admit, touch closer to some of your cultural ties than mine, so freely and fairly. I fear my reply may appear patronisingly small. I would simply argue this (to the last part of your post). Is it necessary "rewrite history" to reclaim the swastika? That is the essence of what you're arguing but I'm not sure it's true. Aren't the following (hypothetical) sentences consistent? 1. The Nazis committed the worst atrocities ever perpetrated by any society and the jews were the cultural group most directly affected by those atrocities. 2. The Nazis used the swastika symbol very prominently. 3. Children in every school across the world learn about the true nature and extent of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, and as cultures we also ensure that the memory of those events is not forgotten. 4. Nowadays the swastika is not associated with the Nazis. It seems to me that fairly obviously all of 1-4 could be held to be true. So keeping the swastika associated with the Nazis is not necessarily tantamount to 'rewriting history'. __________________________________________________________________ I'm an A1 major-league sociopath http://www.gorillaz-unofficial.com http://www.myspace.com/gorillaz http://www.kulashaker.net |
|||
|
That was not the intention . Vivi doesn't bother over explaining her point in the most diplomatic way possible as I do on these issues. Look at it as a challenge - an opportunity to practice seeing past the form and into content. 
Really? A greater clarity? Youi might think again I'm being patronising - maybe in this case I actually am - btu a part of the reason I've reached so far in this discussion is my attempts to avoid reading my psychology articles. But I usually do read them in the end. All these article that show you black on white, again and again and again, the kidn of shortcuts people do, the kind of shortcuts people don't even realise they're doing, the kind of immediate effect certain things have. And when people would see a swastika, the context is all that matters. So yes, in India, in thigns that are clearly of the Hindu culture, when someone sees a swastika it's obviuos which one of the two symbols it is. When it's in Europe, on a random and not necessarily clearly Hindu context, much like you can find these days the universally accepted Hindu-originated "hippie" peace sign, and with all of the European context of that symbol, then no. There's no clarity at all. Not at first. And that "not at first" has so much effect it's frigthening. And if we go back to Vivi, the reason her immediate response to the kid in her group is "never draw that symbol again" isn't because Germany's ashamed of its past, it's because they know they can't afford seeing it happening again. Gods have no one to pray to. |
||||
|
I don't think it's patronising.. (irrelevant comment - To be perfectly honest, maybe it's a defence mechanism, maybe it's because that living where I am right now, as I mentioned earlier, I don't feel like I'm a minority, or maybe it's because my endless feeling of living in a cultural ghetto but I do feel the need to stress this didn't happen to just the groups I happen to be a part of but to more..) I just disagree with the natural leap you have between 3 and 4. Children across the world learn of these atrocities. Not just by stories and not just by text. In fact, if you really want to shock people and let the message sink you show them movies and pictures. It's not surprising that the Israeli board of education and Jewish organisations around the world sponser teenagers' trips to concentration camps. Seeing is the best way of understanding. And on the vast majority of those pictures, and those films, and in those museums and memorials, the swastika is there. The Nazis had several other signs. Which are much less dealt with and are far rarily mentioned. The reason the swastika hasn't been delegated to history and is the sign that is mentioned by both groups is exactly its prominence. Expecting the swastika not to associated with them is jsut not a realistic claim. Much like Crispian, much like you guys, much like mentions of Indian people who use this symbol and find themselves explaining to the western eyes, it's always "yes, but...". There's no dissociation here, but a very clear association, even by those who aren't happy about it. Gods have no one to pray to. |
||||
|
I didn't feel patronised. But then maybe I'm too stupid to even notice
What about the context of the stage set of a band known chiefly for it's Indian influenced musical stylings?
I realise that. What I feel strongly about though is that it's her mentality that helps maintain the status of the swastika as the ultimate symbol of fascism, and therefore I see it as completely counter-productive. How do you feel about gay men taking the word "queer" (which was traditionally used as a homophobic insult) and using it to describe themselves? To me that's a positive thing, and it's not that far removed from what I'm talking about here. It's about reclaiming something from people who can only feel hate, and turning it into something about pride. And you could even say that to a degree it's been successful. So anything is possible... "I have waited to be here Now I feel you, feel you near Take me home" |
||||
|
 |
I still fail to see what use the swastika will be to people once 'reclaimed.'
 This debate is like the serpant swallowing its tail. People who use it for evil can be easily identified by their trail of this symbol. Thats kind of usefull in a way for the people who are victims of such. Just a logical thought. Maybe (no doubt) Crispians intentions were good but I dont see that this situation will change no matter how much debate is offered. This is ten years post remark and will be as such in ten years from now.... Serenity prayers for all. Nor this moment re-lived |
|||
|
Sorry Ian, as much as this discussion has been a pleasure - which it has - I realised last night slightly too late I'm too much out of my comfort zone on this.
So, better late than never they say, I'm bowing down here. Cheers, though Gods have no one to pray to. |
||||
|
 |
You truly honestly want to know why it should continue to be seen as a Nazi symbol?! I mean, you really MEAN this?? Well, as Pitry and Vivi already very well explained: You can probably print it on the cover of every paper in Europe: "The swastika is a holy Indian symbol which stands for love and peace. The Nazis just stole it - forget about this now. Because it's holy in India!" And still, NOONE would accept it. They'll always think about the negative meaning stucked to it. I'm sure you have no idea what kind of feeling it is, when you see Neo Nazis demonstrating in German streets NOW, when you hear about Neo Nazis setting turkish temples on fire NOW and when you see them wearing the swastika on their clothes, on stickers, painting it on walls NOW. It doesn't matter at all if it actually had another meaning, and if it was stolen to misuse it, it will ALWAYS have a negative meaning everywhere except in the far east. And I'm not very happy with the thought that Kula Shaker might have had burning swastikas on stage, even though they use it because it is a holy Indian symbol. You'll never be able to change people's minds about this. Everyone, even if they don't have Holocaust victims and World War II veterans in their families (which is pretty unlikely anyhow) will feel offended or shocked when they see the swastika. Because, if they ever listened during their History lessons, they will know about what happened in World War II, what the Nazis did and which was THEIR sign. It is certainly a very sad coincidence that the Nazis used this holy symbol for their purposes. But noone will ever be able to convince people in the west that it actually has a most beautiful meaning. ________________________________________ Kula Shaker Fanzine STRANGE FOLK http://www.myspace.com/kulafanzine http://www.myspace.com/raagygirl |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Kula Shaker | ||
| Servlet | eve2da018 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Strangefolk" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
|