Nazi symbols and "immersion": boundaries?

[Rockin Robbins]

Bah! The side issue makes sense and has some connection with the original discussion. I don't have a problem with it. I still say that Naziism was a disease. Germany caught the disease. Germany was cured of the disease. The fact that they had a disease says nothing about the character of Germans.

I don't think there was anything especially German about Naziism. It is interesting that it happened there, but I think we have to be careful about making any conclusions from that.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I don't think there was anything especially German about Naziism. It is interesting that it happened there, but I think we have to be careful about making any conclusions from that.

That's all too true
Many countries have (had) similar nationalist movements that considered their own culture/race/whatever to be highly superior to other cultures/races/whatevers. The Nazi's only differ in that they were pretty successful at the time and that their acts were much more horrendous than most of similar movements.

But IMO nowadays we also have to be careful about making any conclusions about someone being a nazi. I'm a huge fan of metal music, and disgusted by the fact that left-extremist organisations entitle many folk/viking metal bands as nazis, only because they use old Germanic symbology and sing about Germanic mythology.
Similarly if I encounter a swastika in a sig on a WW2-related forum it doesn't mean anything more to me than that that person has some interest in the German military.
Of course this excludes non-ww2 related forums, where I think it does clearly make a statement about ones political alignment.

[Buddahaid]

I brought the translations in to show the roots of French are Latin (with words added as no Latin word was available), and support my earlier post regarding western European languages having diverged from the Latin. You stated French was from Normandy. It is my mistake to have included German and English, but I'll research more. It seems you can make many arguments by picking your time-line. Let's see, Charlemagne's surviving eldest son Louis the Pious had three sons. Charles the Bald ruled the western part, Louis the German the eastern part and, Lothaire the middle area from the northern coast to Italy effectively ending the Kingdom of the Franks and the German Christian state of their Grandfather. These became France, Germany, and the Lorraine area that they fight over so much. Charles and Louis signed a treaty in Verdun(843) to help each other if Lothaire were to try and absorb either, and so we see the modern states emerge. It is also notable that we distinguish between states and ethnic origins.

CORRECTION: It was the Strasbourg Oath(842) between Charles and Louis. The Treaty of Verdun(843) established the brothers realms.

On the prime topic, let's examine another symbol and what it represents. What is the basic distinction between the swastika and the red cross on white field the crusaders used. You can argue the Church endorsed genocide in the holy land, and it's symbol is just as tainted. Should it also be banned? Or is there some statute of limitations that applies, a simple matter of time elapsed.

Buddahaid

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

On the prime topic, let's examine another symbol and what it represents. What is the basic distinction between the swastika and the red cross on white field the crusaders used. You can argue the Church endorsed genocide in the holy land, and it's symbol is just as tainted. Should it also be banned? Or is there some statute of limitations that applies, a simple matter of time elapsed.

A good point. As Armistead well knows, there has been a long-running controversy over the flying of the Confederate 'Stars and Bars' over government buildings in the southern United States (the region commonly just called 'The South'). To part of the population the flag represents a fondly-remembered lost way of life. To another part it represents a legacy of subjugation and slavery. Which is right? When I see someone wearing a t-shirt with that flag it means next to nothing to me. A shirt with a red cross means even less, probably not because the the amount of time itself, but rather because that part of history is beyond immediate memory. No-one remembers that it represents anything, so no-one cares.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A good point. As Armistead well knows, there has been a long-running controversy over the flying of the Confederate 'Stars and Bars' over government buildings in the southern United States (the region commonly just called 'The South'). To part of the population the flag represents a fondly-remembered lost way of life. To another part it represents a legacy of subjugation and slavery. Which is right? When I see someone wearing a t-shirt with that flag it means next to nothing to me. A shirt with a red cross means even less, probably not because the the amount of time itself, but rather because that part of history is beyond immediate memory. No-one remembers that it represents anything, so no-one cares.

Bowing back in......I love Confederate history and the era. We have a Ball to attend this weekend. I love those hoop skirts..

I constantly visit Charleston, SC...some good metal detecting. I don't have a problem with the flag in someones yard, merchants selling, ect. I think it adds to the flavor of the town and the history there. I remember the last big uproar about the flag being flown over government buildings. Every where you went people had confed flags in their yards.

I think it's a silly debate. I know for many it's a heritage concept, but common sense tells us the confederate flag doesn't belong on top of a building that represents taxpayers. The funny thing is every time it comes up, confederate flag sells go up 100% and you can't go anywhere and not see them.

However, like most things it went overboard and people wanted it removed from anything funded by tax dollars. Tourism is the money maker in Charleston. It would be hard to remove the flag from many of the historical buildings that had confederate ties. Many wanted it removed from all public museums, welcome centers, historical sites and even statues.

[Buddahaid]

Someone will always be offended at anything, like me. I'm offended by Barney more than swasikas but I don't have living relatives that were harmed by what it represents, and I think that is the key here. As long as there is living memory of the abuses, it will remain highly controversial.

Buddahaid

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Someone will always be offended at anything, like me. I'm offended by Barney more than swasikas but I don't have living relatives that were harmed by what it represents, and I think that is the key here. As long as there is living memory of the abuses, it will remain highly controversial.

Buddahaid

Yep, if you're going to be totally politically correct you would have to eliminate all flags and symbols. That's why we need to use common sense and seperate reality from fantasy. Look at the damage that was done under the US flag, about every indian could hate it. We treated the Indians as bad as Hitler treated the Jews.

And I wouldn't even want to get into religeous flags or symbols. More people have been killed in the name of religion than all others combined.

Barney offensive......