Swastikas, Symbols and Art

gr82bart · Nov 4, 2006

copake_ham said:
I do not equate the atrocities of the Russians nor the Chinese with those of the Nazi Germans for a very real reason - the culture of Goethe and Beethoven should never have had to be equated with the depravity that the Nazis created!

Ummm....perhaps you don't realize what you said here. Is it really part of Chinese and Russian culture to commit atrocities then? And who the hell are you to 'prioritize' atrocities as greater than others?

Just asking.

Anyway too much 'symbolism' is placed on 'symbols'. Does that make sense? Plus, I think some people overplay their victimhood <--talk about contraversy! As if they were the only ones. Humans have a disturbing way of victimizing other human beings. They have an even more disturbing way of marketing that victimization.

Regards, Art.

DrPablo · Nov 4, 2006

Blansky,

I don't know why you feel the need to play this rhetorical game of yours, but your reading comprehension skills are clearly not up to the task of this conversation. You're trying to twist my arguments all over the place, portraying me as actively diminishing the importance of anyone else's point of view. Whereas all I'm doing is making a case for how my personal investment in this discussion is far greater than yours, simply because my family was victimized in a way that's nothing more than a matter of statistics to you.

I fully submit that one need not be victimized personally to care strongly about something, and the soldiers, families, and populations victimized by the war all are entitled to strong feelings.

But to accuse me of a 'Jewish vicitmization card' sounds, well, pretty consistent with someone who wants to resurrect the swastika.

You've got to be joking if you're equating losing one's countrymen to having one's entire family killed in front of your eyes. I wonder how your own family would feel about that.

My mom's family was from Poland, where 3 million Jews and 3 million non-Jewish Poles were killed. My dad's family was from Hungary, where about 700,000 Jews were killed. But if you think their grief for their countrymen even approaches the grief for their own family, then you have probably missed out on what it means to be in a family to begin with.

The pain and anger in my family is a hell of a lot more specific than your casualty figures. But you already know that, and I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Because it hurts your championing of the swastika's resurrection if god-forbid people still react sensitively to it. So pardon me if you don't strike me as all that sensitive an ambassador to 'rescuing' the swastika.

By the way, I do put the atrocities of the Japanese in Manchuria / China / Korea and Stalin's atrocities on a similar plane as that of the Nazis. They differ in character, philosophy, and execution, but I think there's a point at which these terrible crimes against whole populations become morally equivalent to a degree that trumps their specifics. One of the ongoing tragedies of WWII is Japan's lack of ownership of its own atrocities.

Claire Senft · Nov 4, 2006

I guess this thread is headed for the dung heap. Perhaps it is already there.

blansky · Nov 4, 2006

copake_ham said:
Michael,

Clearly, you speak of what you do not know.

I am not Jewish - nor do I have a victimization "card" to play. I am a four plus generation American of "mixed" Catholic/Lutheran religious background and a proud agnostic!

My Dad served with the USN in the PTO during WWII. My Granddad served with the US Expeditionary Force in Europe in WWI. My nephew is a USMC lieutenant currently serving as a Ranger Helicopter pilot in Iraq.

I do not equate the atrocities of the Russians nor the Chinese with those of the Nazi Germans for a very real reason - the culture of Goethe and Beethoven should never have had to be equated with the depravity that the Nazis created!

You are an extremely amoral individual and, as such, I would never expect you to admit you are wrong or even capable of being persuaded to accept a change of mind based on the thoughts of others.

And that, sir, is a sad character flaw.

My reply was not directed to you.

Michael

blansky · Nov 4, 2006

DrPablo, let me just say this, then we can agree to disagree.

The reason the morons of the skinhead movements that are floating around Europe and here, have any 'power" whatsoever is because they use the swastika as a symbol of fear. With their limited education, I doubt they have any grasp of history.

As I mentioned before the gay movement neutered the terms "queer" and "dyke" by taking them away from people who used them as terms of fear.

With Jewish money and access to the media, one would think they, if they wanted to, could neuter the skinhead and other groups swastika flags and symbols, very easily by taking them back and educationing people to their original intent. Once that was done, the symbol would lose it's power of fear.

As I said earlier, this could be accomplished in a generation or so. Never again would the swastika symbol carry the fear impact it does now.

The only reason that I can see that this is not being done is because there is too much mileage being gained by perpetuating the victimhood aspect of the symbol.

Michael

Markok765 · Nov 4, 2006

DrPablo said:
the soldiers, families, and populations victimized by the war all are entitled to strong feelings.

But to accuse me of a 'Jewish vicitmization card' sounds, well, pretty consistent with someone who wants to resurrect the swastika.

You've got to be joking if you're equating losing one's countrymen to having one's entire family killed in front of your eyes. I wonder how your own family would feel about that.

.

Not this again! A old member, Gnashings, was banned for this..

DrPablo · Nov 4, 2006

blansky said:
As I said earlier, this could be accomplished in a generation or so. Never again would the swastika symbol carry the fear impact it does now.

The only reason that I can see that this is not being done is because there is too much mileage being gained by perpetuating the victimhood aspect of the symbol.

I can basically agree with you here.

I'd just submit that the key from my point of view is that remembrance and respect are more important than the swastika. And with good reason the swastika (and the Nazis in general) symbolize the absolute worst level to which humanity can descend.

I wouldn't be in such a hurry to neutralize the symbol. If you watch Triumph of the Will you'll see how central it was to Nazi imagery. Symbols like the cross and the star of david have been with us for millenia. WWII was a milestone for every place and population involved -- it's the singular consequential event of the 20th century (unless you want to argue as some do that WWI-WWII were a continuum but fundamentally a single event). So it and its symbols will be with us for a very long time.

I don't think it will be so easy to divest the swastika of this most painful association, and I certainly wouldn't expect it to happen for a long time in the American (let alone the Jewish) community. I don't know why we'd want it to happen.

DrPablo · Nov 4, 2006

Markok765 said:
Not this again! A old member, Gnashings, was banned for this..

He was banned from another site that I use as well.

blansky · Nov 4, 2006

DrPablo said:
I I don't know why we'd want it to happen.

To remove it's negative power.

Please don't think I lack sensitivity. But there are other points of view out there.

I appreciate the discussion.

Michael

davetravis · Nov 4, 2006

After reading most of this, one thing is clear in my mind.
We've made it seriously hard for Sean to determine a ratings system!
Or if we really need one...
DT

catem · Nov 4, 2006

blansky said:
To remove it's negative power.
Michael

And yet symbols in this context don't only have 'negative' power.

There is a positive kind of power in being able to hold up the swastika as something encompassing all that we need to be wary of in the future (because could it really NOT happen again?). And being in control of that.

I'm not sure about this 'reclaiming' business. Better in this specific case perhaps to have the two (or more) culturally different symbols side by side, in full knowledge of the differences.

I think we need to keep something that symbolises all that atrocity. Not for any sense of 'victimhood' (I don't see that it's necessary to talk of that); but so that we never forget.

Cate

DrPablo · Nov 4, 2006

blansky said:
To remove it's negative power.

Please don't think I lack sensitivity. But there are other points of view out there.

I appreciate the discussion.

I appreciate it too.

I don't think the swastika has negative power. It has a negative association. Because the association is so strong, so negative, so visible, and so recent, I don't think that association will ever be broken in Western culture. But it will perhaps soften in time such that we won't ask the question that opened this thread.

But if you've ever been to a seder for Passover, you'll realize how long memories can last -- it's a holiday that uses symbols (bitter herbs, matzo, etc) to remember the Egyptian slavery that happened about 3500 years ago.

So I think that association will never go away. What will go away is the proximity to the event. My grandparents are 80 and 83 now. I feel very strongly about this, but will my children? Will their children? Some friends of my family converted to Christianity after leaving Europe, and their kids (who are my age) don't see any kind of connection between themselves and the Holocaust, even though they have the exact same story that I do. So I think the memory will be softened and diluted. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just reality.

But the sharpness of the symbolism is still so acute and the events sufficiently recent that you have to expect people to react strongly to it, and to wonder what if any message lies beneath a simple photo that shows Nazi paraphrenalia.

bjorke · Nov 4, 2006

You see them on maps in Asia all the time. Here's a yahoo listing for "Gallery Kingyo":

http://map.yahoo.co.jp/print?nl=35.43.05.87&el=139.45.59.21&la=1&fi=1&sc=1

in India there are a few synagogues decorated with large numbers of swastikas -- both historic and recent, and mostly of surprise value to western tourists.

----

Appropriation of symbols can be both powerful and corrosive. Witness the seizure, deliberate and planned over the past two decades, of the Stars and Stripes by the Republican Party (this is not my opinion, it was a part of a long-term PR campaign hatched in the 1970's and well-documented). This, along with deliberate associations with surrounding language, has given the party a real PR edge in elections since Reagan. Within the scope of campaigning the Rove crowd can feel they own the flag as surely as Coke owns red. Powerful.

Dead Link Removed

But corrosive to the entire country when everyone (foreign AND domestic) starts to associate that symbol more with the failed policies and mistakes of a particular administration than with the symbol's initial purpose.

Andy K · Nov 4, 2006

DrPablo said:
Can you say this about yourself? Are you so invested in this subject that you can claim equality with my perspective? I think not.

I will stipulate that we all have unique perspectives for the simple fact that we are unique humans.

But at the same time I say with full sincerity that I care about the memory, legacy, facts, implications, symbols, and representations of the Holocaust a hell of a lot more than you do.

Interesting point of view. I wonder if the families of the 20,000,000 Russians killed by the Nazis share it? Or the hundreds of thousands of Londoners, residents of Coventry, Newcastle, Birmingham etc. who sat under the Luftwaffe's bombs night after night, year after year, seeing family, friends and neighbours blown to pieces while their men were in Europe being killed fighting the Nazis.

Do not assume you care more than any other who lived through WW2, you do NOT.

DrPablo · Nov 4, 2006

Andy K said:
Do not assume you care more than any other who lived through WW2, you do NOT.

Andy, try some reading comprehension lessons before you crassly twist my words.

I didn't make any statement of comparison to other victims of the Nazi regime. In fact, I didn't live through the war myself, so I don't even compare myself to my own grandparents.

In response to a statement that in your rhetorical fervor you've conveniently NOT quoted, I counterposed my own investment in the issue against what seemed to me a dilettante who cared more about the swastika itself than the people who suffered under it -- be they Jews or Poles or Russians or WWII vets.

If your attention to detail matched your sanctimony, maybe you'd realize that I actually agree with you.

Andy K · Nov 4, 2006

DrPablo said:
Can you say this about yourself? Are you so invested in this subject that you can claim equality with my perspective? I think not.

<snip>

But at the same time I say with full sincerity that I care about the memory, legacy, facts, implications, symbols, and representations of the Holocaust a hell of a lot more than you do.

So no, I'm not "superior" (your word, not mine) in this debate or in any other context by virtue of my family history. But damned if you have anything that resembles my perspective on this subject.

I think there are a great many people in the world today who have something that very much resembles your perspective. So please get off your martyr's soapbox.

davetravis · Nov 4, 2006

On the assumption that this is still being discussed from a censorship point of view, and what Sean should or should not do, I will admit that no-one ever accused me of being very bright.
For me it boils down to this question:
"Do the Sensibilities of the Few, outweigh the Artistic Freedom of the Many, or the One?"
OK, beat me up.
DT

Andy K · Nov 4, 2006

Going back to the original post, I personally see nothing wrong with such images. To not show them means we forget the past. Forget the past and you are doomed to repeat it.
I agree with Blansky, take back the swastika from the inadequates.

Papa Tango · Nov 5, 2006

blansky said:
Dave, I'm having a hard time understanding how the soldiers on the Confederation helped save the Union. I'm well aware that the Civil War had very little to do with slavery per se, and that the North later used the slavery issue as a justification, when in reality it had to do with the concept of federal power vs states power, but I'm missing why you'd feel the need to honor the confederacy.

Michael, you have proven your assertion that things will be forgotten and circumstances mired in different interpretations. The American Civil War certainly was primarily fueled by the institution of slavery. This debate had been going on since the time of Jefferson. I will remind readers of the Missouri Comprimise of 1820 and the 30-30 line. What we see primarily is a conflict that was not so much a moral debate, as an economic one. The agrarian "south" provided raw materials through an exploitative plantation economy to fuel the industrial engines of the north. Without the south, the great textile mills of New England could not function. Likewise, the later machinery produced by the north which enabled steam powered transport were essential to the escalating modes of production of both regions. Britain and France benefitted tremendously from this arrangement, and for that reason it was necessary to negotiate an exclusion of them from participating once the hostilities began.

This debate continued to rage through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the failed Crittenden Comprimise. We might truly state that the K-N Act was the final catalyst for the split. Economics, and the rule of emerging wealth through mode of production were the overriding forces that required the strong stance of northern resistance; the "house divided against itself" threatened not only economics but social control. The corrolary to Europe has some credence, and would have had more effect on western expansion had the division between the states stood.

So as a symbol, the "confederate flag" in any form is little more than a statement of systematic oppression, murder, enslavement, and torture of a peoples for economic gain, and the celebration of the plantation economy and mindset. It does not represent anything noble or genteel. It is the banner of a people who had become arrogant, self-righteous, and possessed with a sense of superiority no different than any despot or regime. The fact that the system would have collapsed under its own weight and mechanization within a decade is immaterial. We still experience discrimination and disenfranchisement due to attitudes perpetrated and social conditioning inculcated in an oppressed people today. We could whistle "Dixie" too; you know the lines--"Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton, where old times are not forgotten..."

bjorke · Nov 5, 2006

(I notice that unconfirmed sources.com has blocked my ref to their pic of CHeney)

Now as to those OTHER oppressive symbol-swiping martinets....

blansky · Nov 5, 2006

bjorke said:
(I notice that unconfirmed sources.com has blocked my ref to their pic of CHeney)

Now as to those OTHER oppressive symbol-swiping martinets....

Joseph Goebbles would be so proud.

It's sad that he isn't around to day to see what a masterful job Fox News has done.

Michael

Tony Egan · Nov 6, 2006

blansky said:
Joseph Goebbles would be so proud. It's sad that he isn't around to day to see what a masterful job Fox News has done.
Michael

It's just one of those simple misunderstandings... to Australian ears "Fox News" said with a particular American accent sounds like "Fucks News". When Rupert first laid eyes on this advertising channel masquerading as journalism that's exactly what he set out to do!

davetravis · Nov 7, 2006

Pragmatist said:
Michael, you have proven your assertion that things will be forgotten and circumstances mired in different interpretations. The American Civil War certainly was primarily fueled by the institution of slavery. This debate had been going on since the time of Jefferson. I will remind readers of the Missouri Comprimise of 1820 and the 30-30 line. What we see primarily is a conflict that was not so much a moral debate, as an economic one. The agrarian "south" provided raw materials through an exploitative plantation economy to fuel the industrial engines of the north. Without the south, the great textile mills of New England could not function. Likewise, the later machinery produced by the north which enabled steam powered transport were essential to the escalating modes of production of both regions. Britain and France benefitted tremendously from this arrangement, and for that reason it was necessary to negotiate an exclusion of them from participating once the hostilities began.

This debate continued to rage through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the failed Crittenden Comprimise. We might truly state that the K-N Act was the final catalyst for the split. Economics, and the rule of emerging wealth through mode of production were the overriding forces that required the strong stance of northern resistance; the "house divided against itself" threatened not only economics but social control. The corrolary to Europe has some credence, and would have had more effect on western expansion had the division between the states stood.

So as a symbol, the "confederate flag" in any form is little more than a statement of systematic oppression, murder, enslavement, and torture of a peoples for economic gain, and the celebration of the plantation economy and mindset. It does not represent anything noble or genteel. It is the banner of a people who had become arrogant, self-righteous, and possessed with a sense of superiority no different than any despot or regime. The fact that the system would have collapsed under its own weight and mechanization within a decade is immaterial. We still experience discrimination and disenfranchisement due to attitudes perpetrated and social conditioning inculcated in an oppressed people today. We could whistle "Dixie" too; you know the lines--"Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton, where old times are not forgotten..."

Your recitation of civil war history is impressive.
But concerning your attitude towards the confederate flag, would you now support the removal of it from all public property, state flags, county seals, historical documents, school books?
Just curious.
DT

blansky · Nov 7, 2006

Being a foreigner and not having the right to any real say in the matter, my take on it is that the flag had no real history much before the conflict and probably should have been discouraged after the war.

But after the war it was a sign of defiance and now it's sort of an in your face snub at blacks, insinuating that things were better when you were slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Michael

bjorke · Nov 7, 2006

davetravis said:
...would you now support the removal of it from all public property, state flags, county seals, historical documents, school books?

Of course, except in circumstances where the oppresion it symbolized is clear (say, in a schoolbook it would appear as "the navy jack of the confederacy," not as a symbol representing in any way the authority of current government). My tax dollars should have no part in upholding such a symbol (and that includes my federal tax dollars that support and subsidize state revenues in the south).

You can put any doggoned thing you like on the side of your garage - confederate flags, swastikas, painted flying saucers beaming down jesus, but it's wrong and un-American to be spending public funds on it.

Swastikas, Symbols and Art

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency