nazi symbols controversy

Boggle

Sorry Skeptic - it should have read germans but forgot to corect it.

What I meant to get at was that the Swastika was the symbol under which the germans united and under which they believed they were justified in doing moral wrongs. I was then saying that this is comparable to what is happening in the US at the moment. (blind patriotism at its worst)
(Sorry about that)

Hitler successfully tapped a long tradition of German anti-Semitism. I recommend you read this

Obviously not going to order the book - but I can hazard a guess that it is mentioning economic resentment (the jews had the money and wouldn't share it essentially while the germans were broke and recovering from WW1) along with other traditional tensions towards them as being the causes of the anti-semitism.
My point was that hitler seized upon this resentment boiled it to pure hatred and united all people under him with something in common to hate. While they were busy hating the jews they neglected to watch their leader as he took total control and reduced their rights. This is akin to what is happening in the states at the minute.

toiletduck

im interested to know what rights you mean (as in what rights of the German people Hitler took). Before Hitler became Chancellor he repeatedly stated his objection to democracy and it was no secret that if the Nazis gained power, Germany would become a dictatorship. So the Germans knew they would lose their democracy, freedom of speech etc. I just dont see how it can be compared to the curret situation in the States. If the Americans dont like the way things are going, they'll have a chance to change the leadership at the next election.
However i do agree that the al-Quida threat has united the Americans but then this is nothing new. Previously they were united against the threats posed by the Soviets, Nazis, Japanese.... The notion of using fear of an enemy to unite a country is a common theme around the world.

Boggle

So the Germans knew they would lose their democracy, freedom of speech etc.

You would really have to ask if they really understood what was going on at the time and they ealised the implications of what was happening and what they were allowing to happen - but then again, from any doc's I've seen, they seemed totally besotted with this leader... Look at how easy the patriot act slipped into present day America - question it and you are, effectively, a traitor.

If the Americans dont like the way things are going, they'll have a chance to change the leadership at the next election.

Like the last election? One moron or the next! (at least here we can choose from a bunch of morons)

The notion of using fear of an enemy to unite a country is a common theme around the world.

Have you noticed that the Americans do seem to have trouble getting by without an enemy to battle... Wonder what would happen if the American people were allowed to stop worrying about their enemies and focus on domestic affairs - guess they'd have to sort out healthcare 'n stuff!

Gordon

When the European Swastika book burnings come into effect I'll be the first up to the pyre with my Father Ted DVD of Series 2 part 2. Less of these Un-European thoughts.

Careful now.

the nazis are condemned because they deliberatly set out to exterminate an entire race and built death camps to that end. Abu Gharaib isnt comparable to Auschwitz at all. Auschwitz = a death camp, Abu Gharaib = a prision where Iraqi, Syrian etc. terrorists, insurgents whatever were held, interrogated and where necessary tortured.

Point of fact in regards to this. Hitler was intent on the destruction of all inferior races. That included gypsies, Poles, the uneducated, the overly-educated, the aristocracy etc etc. People sieze on the Jewish issue because so much has been made of it, but there was as many non-jewish german, french, and Polish people killed in the death camps as any other segment of society/religion.

part of the relationship between the Bush Admin and Hitlers Admin is that bush has highlighted the Arab people as being a threat to the Soverignity of the US. Somewhat like what Hitler declared on the jews and other undesirables. There are some comparisons, but Bush has not called for the extermination of entire segments of society....

pickarooney

Anyone else think the Germans are just trying to get rid of it for their own sakes, sweeping nazism and their involvement under the carpet?

swiss

Down with this sort of thing!

On a more relevant note, I sense a macabre kind of irony when I see groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris publicly vilify Prince Harry and condemn Ireland for remaining neutral during the war. Yes, it was insensitive of him to wear the uniform. Yes, he should have known better. However the manner in which he has been hounded is reminiscent of a witch hunt. Now various forces are trying to guilt trip him into some kind of 'penance', such as visiting Auschwitz and publicly apologising (he has already apologised to his father).

Why? What is the purpose of trying to make people feel guilty about something over which they had no participation or control? Is it to perpetuate a 'victim' complex? Or is it a reminder to people that not only have they to not condone the actions of the Nazi regime, they have to be publicly seen to condemn them? In both cases, I see this kind of pressure as counter productive. It only reinforces the stereotype that white, Christian people are oppressors, perpetuating an oppression to which all kinds of minorities are subject, irrespective of whether this oppression is actually present or not.

Devoid of these connotations, the Princes gaffe is simply that - a failure to see how inappropriate it is for a figure of authority (of any kind) to brand Nazi symbols. A tut-tut and a slap on the wrist is probably in order. However this was a private fancy dress party, the Prince is a 20 year old lad probably more interested in going out and having a good time than thinking about the potential political ramifications of his choice of costume. If it were not for his station, I don't think anyone would have given him a second look. Except for the partygoers of course - I agree with DadaKopf, he obviously didn't work very hard on his costume.

Anyone else think the Germans are just trying to get rid of it for their own sakes, sweeping nazism and their involvement under the carpet?

Why not? they still have a genuine problem with certain groups within the German population that aspire to the Nazi way of life. Also they've managed to make a success of the nation without resorting to invading another nation.. Makes sense that they don't want to dwell on the embarrassment and shame many feel about their grandparents actions..

there is the aspect that they're still getting blamed for their country's actions when they themselves weren't actually born.

pickarooney

Deleted User wrote:

Why not? they still have a genuine problem with certain groups within the German population that aspire to the Nazi way of life. Also they've managed to make a success of the nation without resorting to invading another nation.. Makes sense that they don't want to dwell on the embarrassment and shame many feel about their grandparents actions..

there is the aspect that they're still getting blamed for their country's actions when they themselves weren't actually born.

Yeah, I actually totally agree with this. I just think it's a bit sly all the same

On a more relevant note, I sense a macabre kind of irony when I see groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris publicly vilify Prince Harry and condemn Ireland for remaining neutral during the war

I've always found it strange that these groups don't call out "for shame" that the nations of Europe didn't involve themselves in German affairs from 1933 - 1939 during which many of the round-ups of "German undersirables" occurred. I suppose its kinda hard to criticise the nations that defeated Germany in 1945.... especially since its unlikely that these Governments didn't know that the Concentration Camps were in use...

I wonder will he cry out "for shame" against Switzerland for remaining Neutral while being surrounded by Axis territories and processing Nazi profits from the concentration camps?

It sounds like an promotional stunt. Blame or accuse Ireland, and get everyone's attention for what he's about to say. Would anyone have paid any attention to him, if he hadn't mentioned either Ireland or Prince Harry?

Teneka

toiletduck wrote:

the nazis are condemned because they deliberatly set out to exterminate an entire race and built death camps to that end. Abu Gharaib isnt comparable to Auschwitz at all. Auschwitz = a death camp, Abu Gharaib = a prision where Iraqi, Syrian etc. terrorists, insurgents whatever were held, interrogated and where necessary tortured.

Exterminate an entire race? There were plans to move them out from the regions, use them as labour etc. Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 6 million people? You know how difficult it is to dipose of that many corpses? Ever question it or just accept it and leave it at that?

Many died of diseases and the like at Auschwitz as well.

Blackjack

swiss wrote:

Down with this sort of thing!

On a more relevant note, I sense a macabre kind of irony when I see groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris publicly vilify Prince Harry and condemn Ireland for remaining neutral during the war. Yes, it was insensitive of him to wear the uniform. Yes, he should have known better. However the manner in which he has been hounded is reminiscent of a witch hunt. Now various forces are trying to guilt trip him into some kind of 'penance', such as visiting Auschwitz and publicly apologising (he has already apologised to his father).

Why? What is the purpose of trying to make people feel guilty about something over which they had no participation or control? Is it to perpetuate a 'victim' complex? Or is it a reminder to people that not only have they to not condone the actions of the Nazi regime, they have to be publicly seen to condemn them? In both cases, I see this kind of pressure as counter productive. It only reinforces the stereotype that white, Christian people are oppressors, perpetuating an oppression to which all kinds of minorities are subject, irrespective of whether this oppression is actually present or not.

Devoid of these connotations, the Princes gaffe is simply that - a failure to see how inappropriate it is for a figure of authority (of any kind) to brand Nazi symbols. A tut-tut and a slap on the wrist is probably in order. However this was a private fancy dress party, the Prince is a 20 year old lad probably more interested in going out and having a good time than thinking about the potential political ramifications of his choice of costume. If it were not for his station, I don't think anyone would have given him a second look. Except for the partygoers of course - I agree with DadaKopf, he obviously didn't work very hard on his costume.

very well put.

FatherTed

Teneka wrote:

Exterminate an entire race? There were plans to move them out from the regions, use them as labour etc. Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 6 million people? You know how difficult it is to dipose of that many corpses? Ever question it or just accept it and leave it at that?

Many died of diseases and the like at Auschwitz as well.

Maybe if you had a relative who was put into a gas chamber and then have his body burnt, you would understand.

On the Prince's costume, he's what, 20? He should have enough sense to know that wearing it would cause an outrage. How stupid can he be?

Teneka

Jesus,

That could be said about anything. Should priests stop wearing their outfits because it reminds some people of the sexual abuse etc??

When does it stop?

meepmeep

Teneka wrote:

Jesus,

That could be said about anything. Should priests stop wearing their outfits because it reminds some people of the sexual abuse etc??

When does it stop?

Yeah, coz thats the same :rolleyes:

Teneka

When did I say it was the same?

Okay, lets say, Scots wearing kilts. Has to stop. William Wallace and co wore them, slaughtered many...wanted to keep one race in Scotland...

?

meepmeep

Teneka wrote:

When did I say it was the same?

Okay, lets say, Scots wearing kilts. Has to stop. William Wallace and co wore them, slaughtered many...wanted to keep one race in Scotland...

?

Well you made a comparision.....!?

What was your point exactly?

Are you comparing William Wallace to Hitler?

Or are you just talking out your hole?

Teneka

Regarding the 'man' who has a cartoon character as their avatar...

I never mentioned Hitler. Does it matter if its 1 million, 2 million or 10 million? Stalin murdered 12 million roughly, Pol Pot another. Nothing is said. You people are pathetic anyways, jumping to conclusions etc, not looking at the actual facts...reading from a bedtime story.

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

i think he's just trying to be normal..
would you like to be born into the royal family?
he didnt choose his parents. but he has to live the life which is not his to control... he doesnt decide where he goes to college, or his career... do you think he cna go off and work in a shop to earn money? no.. "its too common" for him to do it...
all the kid wants to do is have a some what normal life... jesus how many of you would wear something rediculous to a party? granted he's a prince. and he should have known better, but jesus he's only human. he's not "decended from god" or any crap like that...
sure we all done stupid things in the past. and saying "he's an attention seeking git" isnt right. he wants to have fun, drink, smoke, smoke dope, do what 80 - 85% of the people his age do...
he doesnt egt to choose his girlfriends... or anything..
and rebelling in the form that he did, i think was right. although i dont particularly agree on his atire, but on all other matter's i dont have any quarrel with him.
the nazi symbol should not have been presented in the matter as he did.
the swastica is the symbol which is feared around the world.
by millions of people who's relatives suffered under that banner.
every soilder in the 3rd reich wore that badge. and carried that flag everywhere.
of cource people are gonna be pissed off and think its horrible and want to ban it.
but look at the number of people in the world who believe in the idealogy of hitler.
how many people have read mein kampf? i did. and i can say hitler was smart. too smart for his own good. he over reached him self.
given he had more time, he would have won... but thats not on debate now.

they cant "ban"the swastica. they will never get rid of it untill it fades into the ages.
but to go that far, you would need to ban anything that has had negative effects.. any symbol. like the british flag. granted its their flag, but it was the banner for coloniasism ( spelling? )...
do they want to ban that? how about banning the jewish emblem? according to the bible they crusified our lord. why dont they go down that road? and debate that?

people are just going to have to accept the past, and live for the future. holding all thes negative thoughts and demanding the symbol removed from europe and all that is just gonna make people remember the past. and bring up more agruments. the past wont be forgotten so easily. but people dont want to read this stuff in the paper's. how many people do you think sat there and read the paper. that day they remembered stories their parents, grandparents told them... there are some horrible stories. of torture, hatred and discust. which should be forgotten, but due to our blisful ignorance were reminded about this on a regular basis...

Hairy Homer

Banning the swastika in itself would be utterly stupid. A meaningless piety that would epitomise the worst of political correctness.

The swastika was not the problem. The actions and ideologies of those who marched behind it were. To ban the symbol without properly recognising the factors and symptoms which cause those crimes to occur in the first place is to take your eye of the ball completely.

It's a bit like the word ****** (I'm assuming the politically correct word filter here is allowing me to print that word in its entirey. If it isn't then I'm using that derogatory word for a black person than begins with 'n', ends in 'ger' and is a corruption of the Spanish word negro which simply means black)

Polite society in America cannot bring itself to utter this word now. It's referred to as 'the n-word.' IT'S JUST A WORD. A derogatory one certainly. And there should be no need to use it but the crime is not uttering the word. It's the discrimination, abuse and mistreatment of one race by another that its use symbolises that is the problem.

But polite America thinks all it has to do is start calling people 'African Americans' and then it can continue to regard, and treat, black people like they were ****. Many young blacks see through this bull****. And so, the only people who utter the word '******' in America today are white supremacists and black militants.

Banning the swastika would only mean that civilised society's vigilance against Fascism/Nazism/Racism call it what you will, would be limited to looking out for people with guttural accents in baggy pants and daring to wave a swastika.

Meanwhile some white english-speaking university-educated thug who wants to nuke Arab cities in the name of 'freedom' could pass undetected into the national consciousness. 'Well how did we know he was a lunatic Fascist nut? HE wasn't even waving a swastika?'

bonkey

Hairy Homer wrote:

Polite society in America cannot bring itself to utter this word now.

Unless the person in qestion is black - assuming you aren't saying that Polite society excludes all persons of colour

Banning the swastika would only mean that ...

to me it would mean that we had once again failed to dsitinguish between a symbol, and the context in which a symbol is used.

jc

toiletduck

Teneka wrote:

Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 6 million people?.

When has it varied??

meepmeep

Teneka wrote:

Regarding the 'man' who has a cartoon character as their avatar...

I never mentioned Hitler. Does it matter if its 1 million, 2 million or 10 million? Stalin murdered 12 million roughly, Pol Pot another. Nothing is said. You people are pathetic anyways, jumping to conclusions etc, not looking at the actual facts...reading from a bedtime story.

Woman actually - you just can't help being wrong eh?

You need to resort to insults when people don't agree with you - you said banning the swastika would mean we should ban kilts....how so? Same with the priest comparison.....

You make statements, don't back them up, insult people, and are probably at home crying to your mammy about the bad people on the internet calling you an idiot and a racist.

You make statements, don't back them up, insult people, and are probably at home crying to your mammy about the bad people on the internet calling you an idiot and a racist

lol. nicely thought out.

bonkey

Teneka wrote:

When did I say it was the same?

I think you directly implied it when you said "That could be said about anything."

jc

growler

It was interesting to read that the Hindus are now looking at reclaiming the swastika symbol and are , obviously, keen to re-educate the rest of the population in the UK as to the original meaning of the symbol (article from the Times below). It would obviously be pretty difficult to enforce a ban on a symbol that is used so much by Hindus.

( btw , the front cover of Private Eye this week has a picture of Hitler with the caption "I've come as Prince Harry)



January 19, 2005

Hindus reclaim their symbol of life
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

HINDUS in Britain have started a campaign to “redeem” the swastika from its Nazi past and reclaim it as the symbol of life and fortune it once was.

The swastika is a 5,000-year-old symbol that has been used for centuries by Hindus, Buddhists and many other traditions to denote good luck, but because of the Nazis it has come to symbolise hate, anti-Semitism, violence, death and murder. The campaign, announced today, comes after members of the European Parliament called for a Europe-wide ban on the symbol after Prince Harry wore a swastika armband to a fancy dress party.

Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, has said that he is willing to consider the possibility of a ban. Nazi symbols including the swastika are banned in Germany.

Hindus use the right-facing version of the swastika, meaning “sun”, as jewellery or on doorways and buildings to bring good fortune. This was the version adopted by the Nazi Party in 1920 at Salzburg.

It is thought that Allied wartime propaganda is responsible for the false belief that at Hitler’s insistence the swastika was later reversed to the left-facing version, meaning “death” in Hindu mythology.

Ramesh Kallidai, of the Hindu Forum, is planning pro-swastika awareness workshops for every region of Britain with a large seminar in London. Every MP is to be lobbied by e-mail and an information booklet will be distributed to faith communities and others.

Mr Kallidai said: “A symbol we have used for more than 5,000 years is now on the verge of being banned because of association with the Nazis over which we had no control.

“Hindus wish to continue to use this symbol as part of their religion, but they risk being labelled a Nazi or, in the case of a ban, risk breaking the law. We need to educate people about the historical context of the symbol, its wrong use by the Nazis and its importance to Hindus”.

Hindus often have swastikas displayed around their homes and business premises or in artwork. Mr Kallidai said that it was ironic that a symbol depicting the wheel of life and good fortune had become a symbol of racism, torture and war.

Nitin Mehtma, founder of Young Indian Vegetarians, said: “Hindus were known as Aryans and the swastika was a symbol which identified them as peace-loving, cultured, tolerant people. It would be nice if this aspect of the swastika can be highlighted.”

Ashok Chudasama, of the Blackburn Hindu Centre, runs courses to explain the use of the sign by Hindus. He said: “When people in the north raised concerns about us using the swastika, we educated them and they have taken on board the true meaning.”

Bhupendra Patel, a magistrate and the secretary of the Shree Sattavis Gam Patidar Samaj, a Hindu organisation, said: “Like many Christians wear crosses, many Hindus wear swastikas. Does this mean they will be ostracised as Nazis?”

A spokesman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which has a well-established dialogue in place with Britain’s Hindus, said: “We respect the Hindu Forum’s desire to take back the swastika but it should be remembered that neo-Nazis and racists when daubing the swastika get it wrong more than they get it right. It is a sensitive issue and would require further dialogue.”

ANCIENT SIGN OF FORTUNE



One of the oldest known swastikas was painted on a paleolithic cave 10,000 years ago and swastikas have been found on pottery and coins from ancient India, China and Greece


Swastika is derived from the Sanskrit word svastikah, “being fortunate”. Swastika is made up of two Sanskrit words, “su” meaning good and “asti” meaning to exist. The last part changes the infinitive to the imperative so that the literal meaning of the term swastika is “let good prevail”


According to legend, the Buddha left footprints in the shape of swastikas


Native American blankets were woven with swastikas until the 1930s, when they were abandoned because of the symbol’s use by the Nazis


The symbol is formed from the shape of a cross, with the arms bent to the right symbolising health and life, or to the left, which came to symbolise ill fortune


The original designer of the Nazi emblem was Dr Freidrich Krohn, a dentist and a member of several German nationalist groups


The swastika was popularised in Germany after the archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann found many objects with swastikas on them when directing the excavation of Troy and Mycenae. He linked the symbol to the Aryan people

simu

I'm amazed no one seemed to be shocked that posh English people would think it fun to organise a party with "colonists and natives" as its theme in this day and age. This seems far worse than Harry's silly gaffe to me.

I read an interesting article somewhere that suggested that many English people who would rather not think about what their country did in its colonies tend to focus on WW2 as this is an example where the English were the good guys up against the Nazi baddies. I don't know many English people so I don't know if this is in any way true - what do people here who have more experience of the English think?

Teneka

meepmeep wrote:

Woman actually - you just can't help being wrong eh?

You need to resort to insults when people don't agree with you - you said banning the swastika would mean we should ban kilts....how so? Same with the priest comparison.....

You make statements, don't back them up, insult people, and are probably at home crying to your mammy about the bad people on the internet calling you an idiot and a racist.

I need to resort to insults? Calling me an idiot and a racist? Woman, get things sorted in that department as you honestly don't know what you're talking about. Shame really.

Why should you ban the Swastika? You do know that it is an ancient symbol representing strength, four powers of nature etc? Should we also ban the cross as it represents death and destruction in a religious sense? And no, thats not being silly about the arguement. Many people died and were persecuted by Christians throughout the centuries. So why shouldn't you ban that?

I could go on forever...

billy the squid

Teneka wrote:

When did I say it was the same?

Okay, lets say, Scots wearing kilts. Has to stop. William Wallace and co wore them, slaughtered many...wanted to keep one race in Scotland...

?

small differences in this theory

1. some of hitlers victims (who were put in concentration camps) are still alive where as those affected by the actions of william wallace are not as it happened over 800 years ago.

2 The clothing worn by william wallace was that worn before he returned to scotland. whereas the nazi uniform was created by the nazi movement and the nazi symbology was chosen by hitler.

billy the squid

Exterminate an entire race? There were plans to move them out from the regions, use them as labour etc. Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 6 million people? You know how difficult it is to dipose of that many corpses? Ever question it or just accept it and leave it at that?

Many died of diseases and the like at Auschwitz as well.

and many died in the gas chambers, or were shot, or were used for josef mengole's sick experinments.