A reinterpretation of symbols

Great Debates
1

I accept that this may get heated rather quickly. Let me express a few thoughts that have been running through my head for awhile with no real answer.

The cross is used by Christians to remember that Jesus died for our sins. People wear it on chains around their neck as a symbolism of their love for God and His love for them. This I understand.
But the crosses that go around the neck, most of the time, are not of Jesus on the cross. They are merely of the cross.
So I’m looking at this from the viewpoint of an outsider, which I am, and I see people with crosses. I see people who are wearing an object that has symbolized the death of untold thousands at the hands of the Romans. I see a tool that lead to the death of your God. And I have to ask why.

Why are you celebrating the death of Jesus? Surely there’s another aspect of his life worthy of symbolism. Remember the death, but celebrate the life.

Why can’t I interpret the cross to mean exactly what I said above? “Because we created the symbol and we can make it mean whatever we want.” Fair enough, I suppose.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it can be reinterpreted. Yes, yes, anything can be reinterpreted if you’re creative enough. But I’m not stretching things too much to get to my interpretation. The cross is a tool of death. Christians wear a symbol of that cross. They don’t wear a recreation of Jesus’s crucifiction, they wear a cross.

Now, if you’re already a bit upset by what I’ve said, please skip this next leap in logic. And I’ll admit it’s a leap, but it follows the same lines of thought as above. The Holocaust killed 6 million Jews and the Nazi’s symbol was the swastika. So, using the same logic as above, would it be possible for Jews to take the swastika and collectively reinterpret its meaning? Could we decide that the swastika will be our shorthand symbol as a way of never forgetting the horrors of the Holocaust?
Personally, I see it as completely unfeasible now. We’re too close in time to what happened in Poland and Germany for that to ever happen. I’m sure if someone wore a cross around his neck in 50 A.D. it would be interpreted completely different from today.
But what about this idea in, say, 150 years? When no one’s around who saw the Holocaust and pictures start to fade and history books start to crumble, what then? We’ll need some way to remember. To show others we remember? What better way than to do what the Christians did, take a bad thing and make it good?

Sorry this is long, I just wanted to get most of my thoughts out before the debate began so you can (kind of) see where I’m coming from. Now I’d like to know what you think.

2

“The cross is used by Christians to remember that Jesus died for our sins.”

Yes, it is used for this purpose, I believe.

"Why are you celebrating the death of Jesus?

Who, besides you, said they were?

Crosses, with or without a little Jesus on them, are symbolic of the first quote of yours, not the second.

My understnding is that Christians don’t look at it so much as the death of Jesus, but as a chance for their everlasting life.

My take is this: Don’t interpret other people’s symbols for them. The symbols mean what they mean to the individual, not what you may think or guess they mean. If in doubt, I would ask a person what the symbol she is wearing means.

I agree with you about the swastika – possibly many years from now it could be used as a symbol of the Holocaust, as a reminder never to forget. Will it? Probably not, imho, but it could happen, I suppose.

Sincerely,

Sir Rhosis

3

Ender,

Perhaps I really missed your point. You asked why you can’t reinterpret the cross to mean what you want it to mean.

You can of course do this. I can reinterpret anything I want, and for my purposes/needs/what-have-you that’s all cool and groovy. But besides me, who the hell cares what my interpretation is.

In other words, don’t hold your breath expecting your interpretation to catch on.

Sir Rhosis

4

Oh, I don’t expect my idea to catch on at all. I don’t really want it to. I’m just throwing it out there as something to think about. Why is it that the best way to remember a man’s life is to wear the tool of his death? Is there nothing else worthy of remembering?

5

Well, fom my reading on the subject, I believe the early Chrstians had “the cross” thrown in their faces (I seem to recall seeing a photo of an early example of grafitti showing a man with an ass’ head hanging from a cross with a fellow kneeling below, entitled “Bob worships his god” or something like that), and basically decided, as you noted, that it needed to be reinterpreted from a tool of death to something showing a triumph over death/dying for our sins.

And though nowhere near as potent as the cross, it seems to me that every act Jesus ever supposedly committed has been symbolized in art of every type.

The fish symbol is a very ubiquitous piece.

Sir Rhosis

6

The death of Jesus is as important as his life, for many Christians. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son . . .” His message would not have been the same without His crucifiction. The cross is not a symbol of Christ’s death, but of the promise of everlasting life, which would not have been possible without His sacrifice on the cross.

Not bad for a godless heathen, eh?

One problem I see with reclaiming the swastika is that it is still widely used with its orignal meaning. Unless those seeking to co-opt it made some specific modification to it (depict it as made from barbed wire, perhaps?) it would sometimes be difficult to determine the motives of the person displaying the symbol.

7

The original meaning of the swastika has nothing to do with Nazis. A number of ancient cultures, including American Indians, used the swastika as a symbol of good luck, etc. Hitler co-opted it, it’s now widely seen as a symbol of the Holocaust, and people are attacked if they try to use the symbol in it’s original meaning.

8

Yes. I think it’s a shame that the nazis ruined this perfectly good symbol. Maybe someday it’s original meaning can be reclaimed.

I don’t know that people are always attacked for trying to use the swastika to convey its original meaning. I thought I read somewhere that it had religious significance in India. Maybe an Indian person can call this.

And remember, Catholics generally use the crucifix - a cross with Jesus hanging on it - as their symbol of faith. A stricter interpretation of the Bible favored by many protestant denominations considers this to be akin to making a graven image of God, something unambiguously proscribed by scripture.

9

Yes, of course, slip of the fingers, mea culpa, I do know better . . .

10

cuautemhoc: *I don’t know that people are always attacked for trying to use the swastika to convey its original meaning. I thought I read somewhere that it had religious significance in India. Maybe an Indian person can call this. *

IANAIP, but I’ve lived in India and am an academic specialist in an Indological field, and can confirm that yep, the “svastika” is indeed alive and well as an Indian religious and cultural symbol that has nothing to do with Nazism. I’ve seen it used as a decorative feature on everything from mehendi designs (a sort of “temporary tattoo” body painting done with henna paste) to doormats. It doesn’t show up much on stuff for the Western export trade, though, and understandably so. (Some people try to draw a distinction between the Nazi “right-running” swastika and “left-running” traditional swastikas, or between the Nazi swastika with the arms on a slant and traditional swastikas with arms horizontal and vertical, but there’s a wide range of styles in the traditional swastikas and some of them do look almost exactly like the Nazi version.)

11

So then a symbols can and do change. Hitler said “no, I don’t think this is what the swastika means, here’s what I think it should be,” and world perception switched with him. Then it’s possible to switch it back again. Maybe not now, but sometime.

And the cross is an extention of this idea. I’m not saying I’m right in my interpretation. I know I’m not, actually, by the fact that those who created the symbol have ultimate say on what it means.
But the cross, originally, was a bad thing. True, not many Romans wore them around their necks as a way to cheer on the crucifixions, but the idea of the cross was at one point evil.

And that evil got changed to something good. How was that done? Who was the first to take an instrument of torture and murder and say “no, no, this is good. It’s godly. Wear it around your neck.” Wow, that almost sounds Eddie Izzardish.

So what else can we change? From evil to good, or, perhaps, from good to evil? What has been changed? How was this done?

12

It’s probably worth your while to read this thread!. Particularly the links.

13

In India, The swastika and the ‘Om’ symbol are supposed to bring good luck. U’ll find these symbols everywhere in daily life and have a special place in religious rituals.

And even when the Nazi Holocaust was in progress, the meaning of these symbols did not change for the Indians. Coz Hitlers swastika’s did not represent the Indian beliefs.

IMHO, The meaning of the symbols also depends on which particular community is interpreting it. By itself, It may be evil for some e.g the Jews, but good for others e.q the Hindus. But within the community the interpretation never changed.

14

Thanks, Kimstu. In your interpretation, what does the svastika mean in this context?

15

I’ve read that the symbol of the cross was never used by early Christians–not until around 500 AD. Before that, you only see fish and depictions of communion, etc. Apparently the cross was far too painful an image for them; they knew exactly what a crucifixion entailed and that it was the most horrific, tortuous death the Romans had been able to come up with. I imagine you could say almost the same thing about the swastika–maybe it will be a few hundred years before Western culture reinterprets that symbol, too.

Also, I’m LDS, and you may be interested to know that the way we feel about the cross is almost exactly as you describe. We don’t use any symbols, actually, but the cross tends to remind us of Christ’s painful death, and we wish to emphasize His resurrection. (Not that we never talk about the death part.)

As an aside, read a short story by Connie Willis called “Inn” in her Xmas collection for a little commentary on that…

16

If I’m not mistaken (and I very well might be), Hitler adopted the swastika as the symbol of the Nazi party because of its meaning (he was, after all, a big fan of the occult and mysticism). As such, he did not change its meaning; however, since the Nazis were widely associated with “evil”, the symbol of the Nazis came to be known as an evil symbol. If anything, it was everyone else who changed the meaning, not Hitler.

17

Interesting discussion, but I confess I’m not clear on what the debate is … should symbols never be reinterpreted, or who gets to decide, or what, exactly?

Vis a vis the cross, there’s also an element of power wrapped up in this symbolism. While there are many nice things to remember about JC, the idea that he came back after being crucified really sealed the deal. This event is like a fulcrum for Christians – before, there was death. Now, there is eternal life. Having a symbol of this in your house or on your person is a comforting thing to place between you and the powers of evil. When the devil is on your doorstep, you want to bring out the big guns.

This ties in the belief, not limited to Christianity, that sacrificial sites are places of great power.

Not that I think that every person wearing a cross today is using it to ward off the evil eye. But I think the idea of the cross as high voltage protection casts some light on why it became so traditional.

18

Enderw24, I think you’ve hit on something that has bothered me about Christianity for several years. I’m a recovering Seventh Day Adventist, and while I haven’t given up completely on xtianity, I have chucked a lot of it. Why? It’s a religion that celebrates death. Lots of it.

In my church, the actual life of Jesus is given short shrift. It’s like the previews at the movies - entertaining, but let’s get to the good stuff. While I understand and appreciate the significance of the event, I think The Man might be a lot happier if we’d pay more attention to his life than we do.

The xtians in my church were constantly worried about their soul, their everlasting place in heaven. More often than not, they did so at the expense of today and today’s people. These were not good people, and have done some things to other humans that should be considered criminal. Yet, so long as they were in church on Saturday (sleeping), believing that since they were there, proving to God they believed, they’d be “saved” by His death. They were so wrapped up in the rapture after death, they had forgotten what it meant to be alive today - to be good to one another.
If only they’d concentrate on living like Jesus rather than being saved by him, the afterlife stuff would take care of itself - that is, in my definition, God’s business anyway.

So I have to agree - the cross is a celebration of death. I think delphica’s hit on something, I wish more would celebrate the life.

Snicks

19

D’oh! Amend the above line to read:

“I think delphica’s hit on something, but I wish more would celebrate the life.”

A good post ruined.
Apologies,
Snicks

20

cuautemhoc: In your interpretation, what does the svastika mean in this context?

According to Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit Dictionary, it’s “any lucky or auspicious object, (esp.) a kind of mystical cross or mark…shaped like a Greek cross with the extremities of the four arms bent round in the same direction…” Literally, a svastika is “something that has svasti”, i.e., “su-asti”, “good-being”, or as TF said, good luck. It’s said that it was originally a symbol of the solar deity, but these days it seems to be just a generalized symbol of luck, auspiciousness, or benediction, “may it be well or blessed”. It’s used by both Hindus and Jains and AFAIK has no racial or ethnic significance at all.

Personally, I’d love to see the day when Hitler’s perversion of this symbol is ignored and forgotten (except perhaps in its classic form of a squared black swastika on a red ground, which will probably always symbolize Nazism) and the svastika is known mostly as an ancient Indian auspicious symbol. Maybe we should all start referring to the “good” kind as a “svastika” or “suastika” (which are closer to standard transliterations of the original Sanskrit anyway) and leave the spelling “swastika” to mean the Third Reich’s trademark.

Enderw, you’re right that the cross and crucifixion were negative symbols in pre-Christian Rome; I don’t think the cross was actually used as a visual icon of evil, but I do vaguely remember a character in Petronius’s Satyricon saying something like “may I be crucified if…” in sort of the same way as we say “I’ll be damned” or “wish I may die if…” I believe some of that negative sense is still retained in our “crux” (Lat. “cross”, “torture”), meaning a crisis, a point of agonizing or desperate significance.

Another changed symbol that comes to mind is the pink triangle, also used by Hitler to stigmatize homosexuals but now reclaimed as an icon of gay pride. (Apparently the Nazi black triangle has been similarly reclaimed by lesbians.) I don’t know how much the Jewish use of the Star of David as a cultural symbol is just continuing a pre-Hitler tradition, but I think that at least some of it is a deliberate effort at reclamation of the stigma of the Jews.

I think it’s probably a lot easier in general to adopt a former stigma as a positive symbol than to get a widely-acknowledged symbol of good accepted as a symbol of evil. Remember, even Hitler’s swastika wasn’t meant explicitly as a sign of evil, it stood for Aryan purity and German regeneration and all that stuff which had a positive significance to many people back then.