We're Watching the Long Overdue Death of the Confederate Flag Happen Before Our Eyes

[Rayne]

Smark, we've dropped the whole KKK thing. No one was prepared to make the case that the KKK was more influential in Western society than the Christian Church, so the point was discarded as the ridiculous comparison that it is. If you are prepared to make that case, you may continue, but otherwise it's not worth bothering over.

So that's what it's about? Influence? You are viewing the Swastika in a negative light but not the Cross(not that I'm asking you to), just because the cross has had a bigger influence?

Yes, and this is exactly why I'm accurately accusing you of a failure to read my arguments. This has been the central theme of everything I've written in this thread; that a more powerful group can change the meaning of a symbol within the area of their influence, yet in all your quote wars bullshit, you managed to completely ignore it. You're trying to have a debate about daylight while ignoring arguments concerning the sun. This leaves two possibilities; one, that you're deliberately ignoring the central theme of my arguments for the sake of being an ass; or two, that you haven't read it, skimmed it, and thought you got the point. No, copy+pasting a quote one sentence at a time doesn't qualify as 'reading' for our purposes, although I should perhaps be using the word 'comprehending'.

You're arguing semantics (let me help you out there- substitute "relatively" for "very") while ignoring the meat of the argument. If this is going to be a semantic bullshit thread, I shall leave you to it. If it's your intention to focus on details insignificant to the argument like how many Indians are currently working at NASA (whose creation owes far, far, far more to Germany), I don't have time for that. If you'd like to discuss the cultural meaning of symbols and their tendency to shift over time based upon power dynamics, let's talk.

Swastika and other symbols. None of these should be viewed as symbols of negative things, because of the acts committed by evil people... especially when these symbols have much older and better meanings.

We should detach it from the negative acts, rather than adding to that negative view, or simply not bothering. When you open a door to a dark room, the light enters that room, the darkness from that room doesn't enter the lighted one.

Ahhhhh. This is just some hippie feel-good shit. It's not about the power dynamics of the influential group, it's about whether they were 'bad' or 'good' and how you like the symbol being used. Nevermind, then.

 

[Rayne]

Case in point while reading the news this morning; quite a few Greeks today are either totally confused over the meaning of a symbol, or a dramatic social and cultural event took place some decades ago which changed the meaning of that symbol for those people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33505622

Please leave the 'should be' behind your keyboard, we aren't dealing in wishes today.

 

[Reflection]

Smark, we've dropped the whole KKK thing. No one was prepared to make the case that the KKK was more influential in Western society than the Christian Church, so the point was discarded as the ridiculous comparison that it is. If you are prepared to make that case, you may continue, but otherwise it's not worth bothering over.

The point of the comparison was clear all along, it's just that you have chosen to dodge it.

Yes, and this is exactly why I'm accurately accusing you of a failure to read my arguments.

I think it's irritating yet funny at the same time that you accuse me of doing the very things that you've been doing.

This has been the central theme of everything I've written in this thread; that a more powerful group can change the meaning of a symbol within the area of their influence, yet in all your quote wars bullshit, you managed to completely ignore it.

And it has been one of the many points from my previous post, that you should not judge two (or more) cases in completely different light, just because of their popularity and influence. If the're bad, then all are bad. If they're good, then all are good. For instance, a murderer celebrity and a murderer beggar are both bad. In this case too, you either have to classify both as good or both as bad. However, if you choose the latter, you are being ignorant, for they both represent positive things; and if you judge one as good and another as bad, only based on their influence, then you are both ignorant and a hypocrite.

You're trying to have a debate about daylight while ignoring arguments concerning the sun.

And you are blaming the sun for children getting stomach pain from eating that brand of biscuits.

This leaves two possibilities; one, that you're deliberately ignoring the central theme of my arguments for the sake of being an ass; or two, that you haven't read it, skimmed it, and thought you got the point.

Likewise, either you've been trolling me all along by deliberately posting foolish arguments (in which case I should congratulate you), or you really are foolish (in which case, I should congratulate you even more, for maintaining the cover of an intelligent man all this while).

No, copy+pasting a quote one sentence at a time doesn't qualify as 'reading' for our purposes, although I should perhaps be using the word 'comprehending'.

Really? I thought quoting people line-by-line was the It-thing to do here. Too bad, for I was having so much correcting your statements one by one. Oh well... it was enjoyable while it lasted.

You're arguing semantics (let me help you out there- substitute "relatively" for "very") while ignoring the meat of the argument. If this is going to be a semantic bullshit thread, I shall leave you to it. If it's your intention to focus on details insignificant to the argument like how many Indians are currently working at NASA (whose creation owes far, far, far more to Germany), I don't have time for that.

It's funny you say that... If I remember correctly, you were the one who made that false claim about Indians' role in the west in recent times being restricted to export of tea shipments and quotes by MK Gandhi. When I proved with statistics just how far you were from reality, suddenly you don't have the time for that. I guess you still have time for Ice Cream and T-Shirt challenges though.

If you'd like to discuss the cultural meaning of symbols and their tendency to shift over time based upon power dynamics, let's talk.

I've already done a lot of talking on the Swastika- its origin, meaning, worldwide usage, theft and misuse, redemption etc. There is nothing left to be explained from my end. And I quote, "But you aren't fucking reading." Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrn.

Ahhhhh. This is just some hippie feel-good shit. It's not about the power dynamics of the influential group, it's about whether they were 'bad' or 'good' and how you like the symbol being used. Nevermind, then.

Nahhhhh. It's simply some stop-blaming-the-sign-for-what-the-man-did shit. "It's not about the power dynamics of the influential group," yet some people base their judgments on the symbols concerned, based on the influence of the said groups. Ahem...

it's about whether they were 'bad' or 'good' and how you like the symbol being used.

*Interpreted is perhaps, the more appropriate word... But yes, it's the first thing you have said that I agree with. The main reason why I engage myself in discussions about the swastika is because I believe in the positivity that it represents, for me, for my culture, and for many cultures across the world, and I want people that don't, to view it in a broader light... Sometimes my responses are angry and rude (as against IDR), at other times I'm calm (against you)... But if it is being projected in a negative light or being misinterpreted, especially with incorrect statistics, then I will definitely fight for it.

Nevermind, then

See ya.

Case in point while reading the news this morning; quite a few Greeks today are either totally confused over the meaning of a symbol, or a dramatic social and cultural event took place some decades ago which changed the meaning of that symbol for those people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33505622

Of course, a bunch of tweets by a section of "confused" people. Bravo! There are confused people believing in all kinds of stuff. Their tweets don't mean anything.
Conversely, here is a post by an actual Jew (that learned about it and accepted it) with a stable mind, that you might want to read: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1411

Please leave the 'should be' behind your keyboard, we aren't dealing in wishes today.

I disagree. This will sound cliched, but there is darkness (ignorance) only as long as there is absence of light (knowledge). You teach an unaware person the true meaning of the swastika, they will accept it... unless they are consciously ignorant, in which case, we'll have to keep reading their tweets on News websites, and/or stubborn, in which case we shall find them right here on WZ Forums.
So long, Rayne!

 

[Reflection]

Ignorance is a problem but when in your half of the world you are far more likely to see it used to represent support for racism, reclaiming an eastern symbol with an amorphous rather that structured meaning falls by the wayside in favour of challenging the racism is it used to represent. Just forgetting that association is not at all straightforward, especially when educating yourself about one side is largely detrimental to the other.

And educating people on the dangers and horrors of ultra nationalism is far more important than reclaiming the swastika as a symbol of peace.

I don't think Hitler ever looked to associate the swastika with anti-Semitism itself - he used it as a symbol of Aryanism, which it has already begun to be associated with in the early 20th century, but as the most infamous of Nazi policies it has come to be associated with anti-Semitism since.

I would say that plenty of ignorant people across the world associate the shahada with religious extremism and that number will continue to rise as the like of IS slaughter their way through various populations.

Again, we are not saying that the swastika should be seen as a symbol of hate, but it most definitely is seen that way. And again detaching it from two of the worst things ever to happen in human history, particularly when the swastika's original meaning is largely abstract, even decorative.

The sheer weight of horrors perpetrated under banners festooned with it (continue to be) was essentially washed away any original connotation of the swastika in the west. There is almost nothing to reclaim here.

How is it detrimental to another? What harm can come from reminding our children that the swastika or the shahada or cross (or whatever) are not really evil? "They are just used by evil people to try and show that they are right" is a simple and straightforward explanation for a kid... instead of all the "See this thing? It's called a swastika. It represents murder and hate etc."

Educating people about ultra nationalism or neo nazism doesn't have to be about the symbol. They are terrorists, they are extremists, they are bad guys- that's their identity. Not the logo, not their slogan, not their religion, colour, ethnicity.

And now would be a good time to move on from that negative notion. Look at the negative side too... The "education" that is being provided about neo-nationalists, is resulting in more misunderstanding and conflict between the people that have only learnt half of the history, and those that consider it sacred. The first category thinks the second category is supporting something which they really aren't, in fact, far from it.
Idiot punks spray-painting the swastika on temples- that's a result of this half-education... which leads them to believe something that is just not true. On a greater scale, the consequences of such mis-information can be much more severe.

Yes, and there are Muslims that think that the Om is a sign of Hindu nationalism... One word is common in all these cases and beliefs- ignorance. Which is why, I contend that this ignorance has to be eliminated with much more seriousness than educating our young ones about which rebel group uses which symbol.

For The sake of complete knowledge, the goodness that it represents, and most importantly, for peaceful coexistence among people from different cultures residing in the west, it has to be stopped being associated with, or blamed for, the atrocities committed during that time. If a country like India continued to hold the Cross responsible for the centuries of slavery, oppression, decades of famines, millions of deaths (only spread over a larger period of time), or the Shahada responsible for all the terrorist attacks that have happened, it would become impossible for people from those communities to worship and hoist their symbols freely.

The west has to move ahead from the negative view of the swastika. By willfully refusing to move on from its negative perception even after 70 years, irrespective of the magnitude (we feel for the victims too; moreover, our own countrymen fought for the Allies and died in WW2), one would be contributing to lighting the spark for a massive communal conflict between residents against immigrants, that may arise in the future. The message is clear- move ahead. It's up to you now which path you want to choose.

 

[Барбоса]

We are starting to go around in circles.

Educating people about the Nazis does not involve overtly saying that the swastika is a sign of hate but that education will always have the potential to be detrimental to the swastika. Here is Hitler and here is the garbage he is spewing. Oh, and what is that flying all around him and his armies, intimately linked with the regime of hate?

And again, while Hitler might have been defeated 70 years ago, but neo-Nazism is still alive rearing its ugly head with a banner emblazoned with the swastika. If you walked down the street in the western world with a shirt emblazoned with the swastika, people do not think you are supporting something that is in the past; they think you are supporting something around right now.

In the long run and in an ideal world, the older artistic and peaceful meanings might reassert themselves in the west (not that they were ever that prominent in the first place), but whether you like it or not, the swastika is associated with neo-Nazism, a current and ongoing threat, and will not be disassociated from it until neo-Nazism is irradiated.

Educating people about the original meaning is almost completely useless until then. It would require an extremely large pair of cajones for someone to reclaim the swastika in any way right now as the backlash would be drastic.

I can tell you that when I was at school, I was told right away that the swastika was an eastern symbol of peace and I would say that I am pretty well educated yet when I see the swastika my initial reaction is negative.

 

[Con T.]

Guys, we all really know Smark really has no intention on having a discussion about this, and that he's really only concerned about being right. We're basically talking to a wall, which is basically why I gave up with trying. I realized the minute he basically tried to sidestep the murder of six million Jews by saying that Jews aren't the only ones oppressed, that he really doesn't have any intention on learning, or reading, for that matter.

So here's the challenge I'm throwing out to you, Smark. If you feel so strongly about the swastika, then place it in your sig for two weeks. I mean, if the problem is ignorance, than show that you can educate us all (which is fucking stupid, by the way. We've all proven that we know the symbolism of the swastika, and yet we all still agree on you being wrong). And if you have the swastika up for more than two weeks...hell, I dunno, I'll leave me forums for a month or two. Seems fair enough, donit?

So yeah, ball's in your court, friendo

 

[Rayne]

Eh, the argument lost its steam for me when you demonstrated my point for me by suggesting I go for a walk in ISIS-land with a cross on my chest. Apparently that symbol means different things in different places based upon cultural power dynamics, hrm?

If you'd like to have an argument that doesn't involve you setting up strawmen with repeated big bold letters, come back around. There isn't much point in me putting any real effort into this until you address the central theme of my arguments with a little bit more than "well everyone who disagrees with me must be confused."

EDIT: Eagerly waiting for the swastika signature challenge dodge, or a fairly entertaining two weeks on these boards.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

The Confederate flag is the symbol of an armed insurrection against your government, and is obviously a symbol of racism. The fact that it was ever flown on government land is hilarious. It literally stands for treason and slavery. Bold letters means I'm right.

Holy fuck I'm glad I live in Canada.