Even if we agree that, say, the ancient Indian swastika “can no longer be used in its original context without constantly having to provide defenses and explanations to the majority of people” (which I’m not at all sure that I agree with anyway; literally hundreds of millions of Indian people in their own culture use the swastika “in its original context” of a traditional auspicious symbol all the time, without any defenses or explanations required), what does that have to do with cultural appropriation?
The problem with the Nazi swastika isn’t so much that they copied another culture’s meaningful symbol for their own symbolic purposes, as that the purposes they used it to symbolize were overwhelmingly nefarious and evil.
If instead of genocidal fascists the Nazis had been, say, an animal-welfare movement dedicated to providing better care for stray kittens and puppies, and put the Indian swastika on their logo just because they thought it was cute, we could still be having a valid conversation about whether that could be considered an unacceptable form of cultural appropriation.
I think this example sort of falls apart here, in the real world, because the swastika has been so commonly used throughout the world and across such a variety of time and space that I think it’s a stretch to refer to any version of the symbol as “the Indian swastika” unless you’re just talking about the word “swastika.” In which case, one could make the argument that in referring to the Nazi symbol, we are unfairly defaming the Sanskrit word swastika and when we refer to its nefarious associations, we ought to call it by our own English word fylfot or, indeed, Hakenkreuz, which is what it’s called in German.
Yup, all valid points. Personally, I would like to see increasingly widespread and accepted use of various forms of the ancient swastika in their original cultural contexts, accompanied by increasing and well-deserved cultural oblivion and irrelevance for the specific form and meaning of the evil aberration that was the Nazi “swastika”.
I don’t know that I ever will see that, but I’d like to.
I don’t think “listening” to what a person says counts as “paying attention”. I would still then dimisss what they say when it comes to criticising what I wear.
No, that’s absolutely not what either Fry or Hitchens meant when they said what they said. There’s no double standard at play. Your random internet commentator is also completely misunderstanding it.
I gave you two examples. One that I would not be concerned about, one that I would. What I hear from the person (an explanation that has to rise above “I’m offended”) would impact whether I think they have a valid point that I need to be concerned about.
There’s no “mission”. I think cultural mixing, adaptation and adoption is an excellent thing, it is the way we all progress and I want it to happen as much as possible.
Sure, there are areas of the world where no explanation is needed, but in the ‘west’, anyone attempting to use it in its original context will have to constantly provide explanations. Especially if they happen to not ‘look right’ for an Indian.
But no, I don’t think the conversation about a group using a symbol for their better care for stray kittens and puppies organization would be equally valid. Unless the new context is negative, it doesn’t become a bad thing. If, in this hypothetical world, you have a swastika bumper sticker, nobody will think you’re an evil monster. They may think you support caring for kittens and puppies, and you might explain ‘oh, no, this version is a good luck symbol’ and they’re not going to insist that you must be a kitten-and-puppy-carer because of it.
To be honest, I probably would, if only to get a glimpse into his/her world and mind-set in a non threatening place where (in theory, as the helper) I am in a position of power. Also, I am of the opinion that helping anyone, out of altruism, is a good thing.
I do find it distinctiy weird that anyone would decorate their car like this.
So you’re saying that you believe the irrevocable transformation of a symbol of divinity, prosperity and luck into a symbol of ultimate evil, is best described as a victory for the good side, not the evil one?
While I agree that the specific black-white-red Hakenkreuz design of the Nazi flags is indelibly associated with the evils of Nazism, I wouldn’t agree that all other forms of the swastika from different traditions should be similarly condemned and repudiated due to that association.
The two photos in this article about a recent decision by Victoria state in Australia to ban the Nazi symbol illustrate the sort of distinction I mean.
I agree, and I think the opposite opinion is to some degree an example of the lack of nuance and even critical thinking that happens with the whole appropriation question. Heck, even just the rotated symbol by itself is only ever a reference to the Nazis. I can clearly distinguish that from the symbol that’s being used in the non-rotated configuration on a Buddhist temple, for example, or other religious usage.
So, I can call an ethnic group “cockroaches” on my radio show, even call for them to be exterminated, but that’s just “speech” and the government should do squat about it?
