Where do you draw the line as to what is or is not cultural appropriation?

But how important are these other symbols, really? We’re not talking about the crucifix or crescent, here - even in the cultures that revere them, they’re one symbol among many. While the people who hate the swastika, hate it more than any other.

I get what you’re saying, but still, whenever someone talks about “redeeming the swastika”, what I hear is “Holocaust denial”. Sure, it’s not denying that the Holocaust happened, not yet. But it’s fudging some important details, and that’s where it starts. Remembrance is based on details, not generalities.

I don’t see a logical and plausible path from one to the other.
There is no detail being fudged.
One group uses a symbol as the emblem for their evil organisation.
The other seeks to continue using it for their completely benign purposes.
The detail of usage matters here, I mean you also say yourself…

Which I’m not sure I fully agree with as a bald statement but OK, in that case would you not say that the detail of the Nazi crimes goes far deeper than a mere symbol?

I think this is a slippery slope argument. Do you actually believe that people in this thread (including myself) who have been talking about the original Hindu symbol, have a hidden agenda of holocaust denial?

The people in this thread? Absolutely not. People who might support their position? Some of them, definitely. Anti-Semites, like all rats, are good at slipping in through the cracks.

That sounds like an argument for banning everything. Stop all activity, in case those crafty nazis subvert your completely innocent peanut butter sandwich in their plan to regain power. I mean, it’s only a peanut butter sandwich, but those guys are good at slipping in…

Or as a slightly less ridiculous example, shouldn’t we ban white circles on a red background, just to be sure we’re not inviting someone to add a swastika in there?

If the government has evidence that your listeners are plotting to follow your advice, then you can be prosecuted for “aiding and abetting” or “conspiracy to commit”. Otherwise, the government should do squat.

If a genuinely religious party ever won a landslide election, there is a lot of atheist literature that could easily be labeled hate speech. If a genuinely misogynist party ever won a landslide election, there is a lot of feminist literature that could easily be labeled hate speech. What makes you think that your side is the only one that will ever be able to prosecute people?

If a hate speech law were enforced fairly, how many people on your own side would you be willing to sacrifice to it?

How are you judging importance? If you spend time in Hindu households, you will start noticing swastikas in a lot of the religious imagery. And if you go to India, you’ll see it as a decoration on buildings, not just temples.

For my speech? But it’s the same speech whether people follow it or not.

I am eternally grateful I live in a country where hate speech is actually illegal.

Ha ha ha. You think I’m unfamiliar with being constrained in my speech by evil bigots like it’s some kind of hypothetical for me? Been there, lived that. That’s precisely why I support restrictions on hate speech.

Also, I think you have exactly zero idea of what “my side” is in this kind of argument.

Really? I would like to redeem the swastika. Partly due to that tablecloth. But I’d also like to be able to visit Hindu and Buddhist temples and not think about the Holocaust. I’m not denying it happened, but I’d rather it not continue to damage my relationship with other, unrelated, things.

In terms of criminal prosecution I think this is about where the line should be drawn.

If a plausible case can be made that your words are a direct threat to someone then that should be criminalised. Anything that fails to come to that level should not.
And yes that would mean that some pretty horrific things can be said without criminal consequences.
It would also mean that people seeking to reclaim and use the swastika would be free to do so without fear of prosecution.

The nazis used Maltese-style crosses, Celtic style crosses and eagles in their symbology too, amongst other things. The air force emblems of both the USA and UK have employed eagles with spread wings in their emblems; the US Navy Cross medal is approximately as similar to the German Iron Cross as the Hindu swastika is to the nazi swastika flag.

Really, as a taboo symbol, the swastika is a significant outlier in the way it is regarded.

Are you certain that none of your friends, relatives, or allies will ever say anything hateful?
If they do, will you be willing to punish them?

I once decided not to rehire an electrician because he had Nazi eagles tattooed on his arms. That made me really uncomfortable. I would not have felt similarly uncomfortable if he’d had a different style of eagle tattoo.

Fwiw.

No, that would be a stupid certainty. People can turn to hate quite easily.

Of course, they would then cease to be friend, ally or family-I’m-willing-to-acknowledge. Like the way I no longer acknowledge my homophobic cousin, or the way I dropped my absolute best friend from uni when he started turning racist.

Yes.

Wait, was that supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

I wonder who will be deciding what constitutes a “plausible case” and a “direct threat”?

Actually, no, I don’t wonder that. Past experience tells me who will be doing that, and it’s never the people actually experiencing the threat.

I am skeptical that one can turn on one’s friends quite so easily.
But, your intentions are good.

Done it, would do it again. I don’t tolerate racists, or any kind of bigot. I can, and have, dropped friends for racism, homophobia, misogyny…never really miss them when they’re out of my life, either. Making new friends is so easy, why put up with the hassle of dealing with hate? It’s not worth it.

Well, bless your heart :roll_eyes:

I don’t think it’s up to anybody outside the cultures that historically venerate forms of the (non-Nazi) swastika symbol—not even those of us whose families were victims of the evils perpetrated under the banner of the Nazi swastika—to determine “how important” those non-Nazi swastikas are in those cultures.

People who use religious symbols that are clearly non-Nazi versions of the swastika in what are clearly traditional religious contexts have the right to continue to do so, without apologizing for their adherence to their traditions that the Nazis misappropriated and perverted for their own purposes.

Yes, such people should be thoughtful and sensitive about using their traditional swastika symbols when in the presence of other people who may not be familiar with them, and who might mistakenly associate them with Nazi imagery. But that’s not the same as saying that they just shouldn’t ever use them at all.

I find the phrase “redeeming the swastika” a little suspect too. IMHO, the Nazi swastika symbol is permanently irredeemable, while traditional non-Nazi swastikas don’t need any “redemption”.

The Fasces was also widely used in the UK before WWII, often to signify ‘strength through co-operation’ etc.

Also in the US; here’s the Lincoln Memorial.