Uh Oh, There Goes the Jew Vote

[quote name='bmulligan']It means you're willfully ignorant if you don't think the same kind of deal making, coercion, muck raking, leg breaking, and yes, even killing does NOT exist today as it has throughout recorded history. Only today they don't break legs as much as they break bank accounts, fortunes, and public image. Is Jackson just shooting of at the mouth? He tends to do that away from the cameras, yes, but in public, all politicians words are made with specific calculations. This is no accident.

And yes, if the presidents of U of Illinois and Northwestern had coming out fundraisers to launch their political careers at Ayer's house and decide to run for POTUS, they should absolutely have to explain their relationships and face scrutiny - Democrat or Republican.[/quote]

I like how you keep repeating the same whacky conspiracy theories about Obama, but then in a desparate bid to retain integrity you throw in a line about how politicians from both sides are dirty and you treat both parties equally.

You've really become a partisan hack - even your "fair and balanced" cover story is stolen part-and-parcel from Fox news.
 
[quote name='camoor']I like how you keep repeating the same whacky conspiracy theories about Obama, but then in a desparate bid to retain integrity you throw in a line about how politicians from both sides are dirty and you treat both parties equally.

You've really become a partisan hack - even your "fair and balanced" cover story is stolen part-and-parcel from Fox news.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I'm far from desperate enough to care about your opinion of me and my party affiliation - or care about the standing of my integrity among those who have none.

If anything the peanut gallery here are hacks in waiting. If McCain had an association like Ayers, the attacks would be relentless, and you know it. Of course, the backpedaling by the Republican camp would be just as disgusting.


[quote-ProFW]1. Do you know how much interaction people on boards have with each other?

2. I know about that stuff very well. I also know a thing or two about Illinois politics. I also know that you are full of conspiracy shit.

3. If you think Jackson is that calculating you seriously know jack shit about Jackson.

4. What if Ayers was on the hiring committee at the University of Illinois? Does that mean every education professor they hire is also shady by proxy. Or how about the people who serve on the faculty senate? Maybe his program secretary is up to some shit as well.[/quote]


In order:

1. Yes. But both worked together on more than a board. In addition to the Wood's Fund board, there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project who's grant was penned by Ayers, and who's chairmanship was given to Obama.

2. You know a thing or two, self admittedly, and that seems to be about it.

3. You may be right in that Jackson is just an idiot, but since you probably weren't even born when he first ran for president, I'll give Jackson the benefit of the doubt this time that he's able to calculate his position and use his political infrastructure to leverage himself a footprint of political influence in a Democrat, and first black presidential administration. Those community organizers are sometimes lot more effective than they appear.

4. Yes.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']1. Yes. But both worked together on more than a board. In addition to the Wood's Fund board, there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge project who's grant was penned by Ayers, and who's chairmanship was given to Obama.
[/quote]

Which means what? What does that mean? What is the implication that you are getting at? How is the fact they worked on education reform through a grant granted by one of Ronald Reagan's best friends a threat to America?

2. You know a thing or two, self admittedly, and that seems to be about it.
Click to expand...
Sadly, that is all I need to know to know far more than you.

3. You may be right in that Jackson is just an idiot, but since you probably weren't even born when he first ran for president, I'll give Jackson the benefit of the doubt this time that he's able to calculate his position and use his political infrastructure to leverage himself a footprint of political influence in a Democrat, and first black presidential administration. Those community organizers are sometimes lot more effective than they appear.
Click to expand...
Actually I was born, point being? Jackson Sr will have no pull in an Obama administration. The guy is a flashpoint who creates division wherever he goes. I don't see anything constructive or any political need to have his washed up ass there. Obama is not a fool and Obama does not need Jackson's capitial. Obama has more than enough to ignore Jackson.

4. Yes.
Click to expand...
That is pathatic paranoia.

com103.jpg


I wonder if we can find a Mason, Knight Templar, and Mickey Mouse Club connection in this anti-American conspiracy as well. I am sure the Scared Feminine has something to do with it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Really? You can't believe it?[/quote]

haha Well I'm new here. Is this the norm? :p

Using bmulligans associative logic (lack of) there should be a 15 page post about Mel Gibson's dad, since he supported Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a white old republican, so his supporters obviously speak for McCain and therefore the Jewish can only vote 3rd party.
 
I used to live next door to a white supremacist. I got into a fight with him over his Confederate flag front license plate but I continued to live next to him for another year. Damn, I feel like Alan Keyes now. I don't know if I'm truly black anymore because his hate rubbed off on me through osmosis.
 
[quote name='HowStern']haha Well I'm new here. Is this the norm? :p

Using bmulligans associative logic (lack of) there should be a 15 page post about Mel Gibson's dad, since he supported Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a white old republican, so his supporters obviously speak for McCain and therefore the Jewish can only vote 3rd party.[/quote]

Actually it is worse than that with Ron Paul. remember his associations with white supremacists who also wrote in his newsletter.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If anything the peanut gallery here are hacks in waiting. If McCain had an association like Ayers, the attacks would be relentless, and you know it.[/quote]

liddypr.jpg


to the rescue!

Now - where's the political hay Bmuls?

PS Just because he has an American flag at his back doesn't mean he isn't a dangerous criminal who has sought to undermine democracy. Just wanted to point that out, I know some people lose all bearing when they see them stars and bars.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I used to live next door to a white supremacist. I got into a fight with him over his Confederate flag front license plate but I continued to live next to him for another year. Damn, I feel like Alan Keyes now. I don't know if I'm truly black anymore because his hate rubbed off on me through osmosis.[/QUOTE]

I'll bite.
What exactly made your neighbor a white supremacist? Are you one of those people that thinks the confederate flag is a racist symbol?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'll bite.
What exactly made your neighbor a white supremacist? Are you one of those people that thinks the confederate flag is a racist symbol?[/quote]

Because the Confederacy was such a noble cause. :roll:
 
Actually, i think people who fly confederate flags are funny. It's like they don't know the war is over and the south lost.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'll bite.
What exactly made your neighbor a white supremacist? Are you one of those people that thinks the confederate flag is a racist symbol?[/quote]

First of all, yes I believe the Confederate flag is a racist symbol just like Jews believe the Swastika is an anti-semitic symbol. It represents everything that was wrong with the white mind set of the slave owning days and the Jim Crow days. It does stand for tradition. A tradition of oppression and fear that has no place in America. I don't see black people flying it saying they're proud to be from the South.

Second, my neighbor was a white supremacist because of this. I knocked on his door because I kept walking out of mine and looking at his Confederate flag license plate. I told him I was tired of coming out of my door every morning to be greeted by Old Dixie. He said and I quote, "Look, boy. Ain't no $$$$er gonna tell me what the hell I can put on my car." I punched him in the face and we started rumbling. We spent the night in jail and it got swept under the rug since I started it by knocking on his door while he was sleeping. Later on, he got busted for calling black people on the flight line jungle monkeys. He lost a stripe for that one and that was the last I heard from him. He ended up getting married and moving off base. So yeah, I can say I lived next door to a white supremacist for about a year.
 
Interesting. I guess I don't get it. I know people that have/like the confederate flag and they aren't racists. The confederacy stood for a lot more than slavery, and still stands for a lot minus the oppression. They don't go hand in hand, imo. The confederate flag didn't stand for oppression any more than the civil war was all about slavery. Those are text-book myths.

Lets look at the KKK. Their primary symbol was the Christian cross. Does that make the cross a racist symbol? Some people might choose to see the cross as an oppressive symbol, but that's their choice, and doesn't make it reality in today's society.

And about the swastika, it's interesting you bring that up. The swastika has an interesting, beautiful and benevolent long running history before Hitler adopted it. I have a new-age friend that has a large embroidered swastika symbol from Tibet on his wall. It looks much different than the nazi version, but it's a swastika.

I guess it comes down to who is using the symbols and what their intent is. If a known racist is flying the confederate flag, then it's pretty clear what he means by it. But if someone that just grew up in Texas has a confederate sticker on their car, doesn't automatically make them racist or ignorant. It's ultimately it's up to the observer of such symbols to choose if they should, or have the right to be, offended by them.

Anyway, I ramble. I just happen to be a student of symbols, mostly ancient symbols, it interests me.
 
I know all about the original meaning of the symbols but they have been co opted and 99% (100% made up statistic but probably close to the real number) of the people that fly a swastika are doing it because they hate Jews and want to stir the pot.

The Civil War was about state's rights. You also have to admit that slavery was the biggest issue of the time. The federal government wanted to crack down on slavery spreading the territories and the South didn't like it because it meant more states joining the North. Look back to the events leading up to the Civil War. The Mason-Dixon line was a line that was intended to stop slavery and nothing else. There were riots and small battles in Kansas between abolitionists and slave owners. Both sides were trying to get the majority and would stop at nothing to get their way. Look at how the states were described leading up to the Civil War. You had free states and slave states. How can you say that slavery was just one issue that brought upon the War?
 
[quote name='depascal22']How can you say that slavery was just one issue that brought upon the War?[/QUOTE]

thrust can say it because he knows literally nothing about most subjects in general and this one specifically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']First of all, yes I believe the Confederate flag is a racist symbol just like Jews believe the Swastika is an anti-semitic symbol.[/quote]

That's pretty ignorant. Long before the swastika symbol was used by the Nazis it figured prominenly in Hinduism and Buddhism. Just because some a fascist western power tried to coopt this symbol, it doesn't mean that the only interpretation of this symbol in the modern world is now reflective of their fascist policies.
 
[quote name='camoor']to the rescue!

Now - where's the political hay Bmuls?

PS Just because he has an American flag at his back doesn't mean he isn't a dangerous criminal who has sought to undermine democracy. Just wanted to point that out, I know some people lose all bearing when they see them stars and bars.[/QUOTE]

But he's wearing a flag pin!

Anyway, you beat me to it.

[quote name='thrustbucket']And about the swastika, it's interesting you bring that up. The swastika has an interesting, beautiful and benevolent long running history before Hitler adopted it. I have a new-age friend that has a large embroidered swastika symbol from Tibet on his wall. It looks much different than the nazi version, but it's a swastika.[/QUOTE]

Well, the fact that the swastika had a long history before it was co-opted makes a big difference. The confederate flag always existed predominantly as the symbol for a group that believed in the rights of the States ... to own slaves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']That's pretty ignorant. Long before the swastika symbol was used by the Nazis it figured prominenly in Hinduism and Buddhism. Just because some a fascist western power tried to coopt this symbol, it doesn't mean that the only interpretation of this symbol in the modern world is now reflective of their fascist policies.[/quote]


How is that ignorant? If you saw someone walking down the street wearing a swastika t-shirt, would you assume that the person was really into ancient Tibetan symbolism? I don't see the Dalai Llama clamoring to return the swastika to its roots.

Would you wear a swatika to bar mitzvah? Of course not. Once a symbol has been co-opted by extremists, it's best to let it go because some people will always equate that symbol with hatred.
 
[quote name='camoor']
liddypr.jpg


to the rescue!

Now - where's the political hay Bmuls?

PS Just because he has an American flag at his back doesn't mean he isn't a dangerous criminal who has sought to undermine democracy. Just wanted to point that out, I know some people lose all bearing when they see them stars and bars.[/QUOTE]

Again, demonstrating fault with McCain doesn't negate Obama's associations with deleterious characters.

As an aside, again in reference to your personal attack on me as being a partisan hack, my pet name for John MCain since 2000 has been the Manchurian Candidate. But my personal thoughts about McCain are irrelevant in a discussion about Obama and his associations. If you want to start your own thread about McCain, please do so. Lord knows there are plenty of them already, most fueled and trolled by irrational hatred instead of objective inquiry - as almost every attack on me here is.
 
Let's talk about Obama and his associates in a thread where you original post was "hey! this black guy who wants to cut off Obama's nuts said something disparaging about Jews! This might hurt Obama's chances with them!"

Which is a modified version of "the actions of a single black person represent all black people." Which shows its hegemonic influence in our culture given your incredulity that McCain would dare repudiate someone else who says something inflammatory. Even when they're both white, and by your logic, ostensibly represent each others' interests.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let's talk about Obama and his associates in a thread where you original post was "hey! this black guy who wants to cut off Obama's nuts said something disparaging about Jews! This might hurt Obama's chances with them!"

Which is a modified version of "the actions of a single black person represent all black people." Which shows its hegemonic influence in our culture given your incredulity that McCain would dare repudiate someone else who says something inflammatory. Even when they're both white, and by your logic, ostensibly represent each others' interests.[/QUOTE]

Overboard as always, myke.
Jackson was making a direct reference to what an Obama administration will represent. How you can equate that with "the actions of a single black person represent all black people" is not only beyond the pale, it's beyond reality, a place you seem to enjoy much more than the real world.

If a Mitt Romney were to give an interview detailing that a McCain administration would mean bombing Iran and nuking North Korea, I'd either expect MCain to publicly discredit it, or accept it as cannon with his silence.

Has Obama even made a public comment on the Jackson affair?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Overboard as always, myke.
Jackson was making a direct reference to what an Obama administration will represent. How you can equate that with "the actions of a single black person represent all black people" is not only beyond the pale, it's beyond reality, a place you seem to enjoy much more than the real world.

If a Mitt Romney were to give an interview detailing that a McCain administration would mean bombing Iran and nuking North Korea, I'd either expect MCain to publicly discredit it, or accept it as cannon with his silence.

Has Obama even made a public comment on the Jackson affair?[/quote]

Perhaps he doesn't feel Jackson is relevant?

How many public comments has he made about the lawsuits concerning his American citizenship?
 
[quote name='depascal22']How is that ignorant? If you saw someone walking down the street wearing a swastika t-shirt, would you assume that the person was really into ancient Tibetan symbolism? I don't see the Dalai Llama clamoring to return the swastika to its roots.

Would you wear a swatika to bar mitzvah? Of course not. Once a symbol has been co-opted by extremists, it's best to let it go because some people will always equate that symbol with hatred.[/QUOTE]

The point is, though, if that person walking down the street wearing a swastika on their shirt existed, it's really up to you, or me, if we want to react to it and how.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If a Mitt Romney were to give an interview detailing that a McCain administration would mean bombing Iran and nuking North Korea, I'd either expect MCain to publicly discredit it, or accept it as cannon with his silence.[/QUOTE]

With this logic, our candidates would be repudiating speculation 25 hours a day. If that's the world you want, more power to you. Me? I'll live in my far off fantasy world wherein I think "hey, they aren't working together, and don't really like each other, so I don't consider the statement of Jackson to hold any credibility, let alone suffice for the need for repudiation from Obama."

Kind of how I feel about this very topic in the first place. There are topics worthy of discussion, and then there's this kind of crap.
 
[quote name='SpazX']For the same reason why Muslims in the US need to denounce other Muslims when they do bad things.

All black people think the same thing unless they specifically say otherwise.

That's how the people who are different from me work, isn't it?[/quote]

:applause: Well said.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Overboard as always, myke.
Jackson was making a direct reference to what an Obama administration will represent. How you can equate that with "the actions of a single black person represent all black people" is not only beyond the pale, it's beyond reality, a place you seem to enjoy much more than the real world.

If a Mitt Romney were to give an interview detailing that a McCain administration would mean bombing Iran and nuking North Korea, I'd either expect MCain to publicly discredit it, or accept it as cannon with his silence.

Has Obama even made a public comment on the Jackson affair?[/quote]

Romney is an official McCain campaign surrogate, Jackson has nothing to do with the Obama campaign at all. The comparison fails on that fact.
 
Since Jackson is dead wrong on Obama's strategy for Israel, I'm comforted to know that that Barack Obama's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security is steadfast. It will be the same old-same old change we can believe in.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']... a modified version of "the actions of a single black person represent all black people." Which shows its hegemonic influence in our culture given your incredulity that McCain would dare repudiate someone else who says something inflammatory. Even when they're both white, and by your logic, ostensibly represent each others' interests.[/quote]

When this exact method of argument is used by you and many others here to ascribe blame to Republicans and imply homogenous culpability in every financial and sex scandal, it's accepted as legitimate. How contradictory of you.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Would you wear a swatika to bar mitzvah? Of course not. Once a symbol has been co-opted by extremists, it's best to let it go because some people will always equate that symbol with hatred.[/quote]

I completely utterly totally disagree.

As for the swastika - it's all about context. If a person had a colorful Tiebetan shirt adorned with a discrete repeated swastika fringe at the bottom, then I would find it pretty ignorant for anyone to assume that person is a Nazi. However if you're talking about a skinhead wearing the swastika on an armband then yeah - that guy is probably a Nazi.

Plenty of extremist Christian denominations have adorned themselves with the Christian cross and committed horrific acts in it's name (a more modern example would be the use of a flaming Christian cross by extremist elements). However even with the checkered history of it's use I wouldn't expect Christians to abandon their most sacred symbol. Ironically the cross is the exact opposite of what you say - it was a symbol of Roman punishment designed to invoke terror (crucifiction was much more common then most people would assume) but in mainstream western culture it came to represent the ideals espoused by Jesus Christ.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']He's a freaking REVEREND. He speaks for Jesus, so I guess he can speak for an Obama administration.

I think Obama needs to immediately disavow himself from the Reverend as soon as possible to avoid further damage. And make sure that leash is better secured.[/quote]


Obama > Jesus
 
[quote name='camoor'] Ironically the cross is the exact opposite of what you say - it was a symbol of Roman punishment designed to invoke terror (crucifiction was much more common then most people would assume) but in mainstream western culture it came to represent the ideals espoused by Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Thank you for proving my point. People would never equate the cross with Roman paganism these days because it has been co-opted by Christians. Symbols are a way of showing the world that you belong or adhere to a certain group's philosophy. I see someone wearing a cross and I assume that they're a Christian, not a Roman paganist. Symbols lose their old meaning and gain new ones with each passing day. To say that symbols can only be one thing is a little ignorant.

Here's a little experiment. Walk down the street with a plain swastika on your shirt. No context or subtext, just the symbol. Walk around the neighborhood and see how many people embrace you as a child of Tibet and see how many people spit at you as a supporter of the Nazis. Do the same thing with a cross. Many people will tell you "Praise Jesus" not "Praise Pontius Pilate."
 
[quote name='camoor']He's just part of the huge liberal conspiracy that also links Obama to the MSM media, ACORN, and Ayers. Didn't you get the talking points memo?[/quote]

woa woa woa. I thought the liberal conspiracy was that we jews were going to take over the world...
 
[quote name='depascal22']Thank you for proving my point. People would never equate the cross with Roman paganism these days because it has been co-opted by Christians. Symbols are a way of showing the world that you belong or adhere to a certain group's philosophy. I see someone wearing a cross and I assume that they're a Christian, not a Roman paganist. Symbols lose their old meaning and gain new ones with each passing day. To say that symbols can only be one thing is a little ignorant.

Here's a little experiment. Walk down the street with a plain swastika on your shirt. No context or subtext, just the symbol. Walk around the neighborhood and see how many people embrace you as a child of Tibet and see how many people spit at you as a supporter of the Nazis. Do the same thing with a cross. Many people will tell you "Praise Jesus" not "Praise Pontius Pilate."[/quote]

Only one thing you say makes any sense (and is at odds with the rest of your post): "To say that symbols can only be one thing is a little ignorant." It's not a little ignorant - it's very ignorant.

You propose a ridiculous experiment. What the hell is a "plain swastika". Do you mean a black swastika with sharp edges at a 45 degree angle? I don't call that a plain swastika - I call that a Nazi swastika. Now - if a swastika uses color and optionally repeats as a pattern (you know - a Tiebtan swastika :wave:) then your experiment gains a little more merit. Of course it all depends on where you are too, and how worldly/cosmopolitan your American neighborhood is. I get that you're a "go with the flow" kind of guy - but I can't accept your conformist proposition that truth of a matter can be divined by walking it around Peoria and seeing how it plays. What's next - are all rainbows symbols of homosexuality? I think anyone with a Hawaiian license plate would disagree.

By your own arguement you would have seen the cross and assumed the first Christians were supporting a legion of terror and persecution. If everyone thought like you that symbol would have been snuffed out a long time ago. I think you have a fairly narrow and ethnocentric viewpoint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the cross analogy is a bit odd anyway. The Christians did first see the cross as a bad symbol because of its connection with brutality and torture (not to mention idolatry, which is still considered a problem by many). The first uses are dated to at least 100 or so years after Jesus. I imagine it was easy to gain ground after the crucifix wasn't used very much as well (or in places where it never was, or where the cross already had a good symbolic history).

You may not like it camoor, but symbols don't mean what you (as in individual displaying a symbol) want them to mean. That's not the purpose of a symbol in the first place - people have to know what it means or what the hell are you symbolizing? So perception is the entire point and if the perception is changed then the symbol is effectively changed (especially if the symbol is widely known as something completely different from what you're intending to convey). Perception may not be the same in every place in the world, but if you're in an area where swastikas are generally connected with Naziism and you're wearing a swastika then it's only reasonable that people assume the swastika represents Naziism (even if it's not the same form of the swastika that the Nazis used). Neither the person wearing the symbol nor the person perceiving it are "right" since symbols are inherently meaningless. That's not to say that you can't go ahead and wear a swastika to represent whatever the hell you want, but you can't do so and then be surprised that people don't think of it as you do and take offense.

In the case of the confederate flag, the confederacy was vehemently racist and fought for the right to keep slaves, etc.. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a black person to take offense at a flag that symbolizes that past, regardless of how the person using it intends it (though I'm not sure what good people see in it, so I'd love an explanation of that - fighting for what you think is right? Southern pride?).
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well the cross analogy is a bit odd anyway. The Christians did first see the cross as a bad symbol because of its connection with brutality and torture (not to mention idolatry, which is still considered a problem by many). The first uses are dated to at least 100 or so years after Jesus. I imagine it was easy to gain ground after the crucifix wasn't used very much as well (or in places where it never was, or where the cross already had a good symbolic history).[/quote]

Ahhh, I see now. When an example doesn't mesh with your theory, it's "a bit odd". Carry on.

[quote name='SpazX']You may not like it camoor, but symbols don't mean what you (as in individual displaying a symbol) want them to mean. That's not the purpose of a symbol in the first place - people have to know what it means or what the hell are you symbolizing? So perception is the entire point and if the perception is changed then the symbol is effectively changed (especially if the symbol is widely known as something completely different from what you're intending to convey). Perception may not be the same in every place in the world, but if you're in an area where swastikas are generally connected with Naziism and you're wearing a swastika then it's only reasonable that people assume the swastika represents Naziism (even if it's not the same form of the swastika that the Nazis used). Neither the person wearing the symbol nor the person perceiving it are "right" since symbols are inherently meaningless. That's not to say that you can't go ahead and wear a swastika to represent whatever the hell you want, but you can't do so and then be surprised that people don't think of it as you do and take offense.[/quote]

In the case of the swastika it's not whatever the hell I want - it's what the symbol represents. I love how some people are just fine with a violent fascist power coming in and completely redefining how we all are supposed to view history and symbols. It's very similar to those ugly Americans who continually associate Islamic symbols with terrorism - sure there have been some horrific acts made under the banner of these symbols, and these horrific actions have gotten the bulk of the press in the western world, but these horrific acts are not endorsed by everyone who wears these symbols and uses them as part of their spiritual beliefs, and to suggest so is very offensive. I can't agree that the average American has the final say on these issues - the average American doesn't speak for every Muslim, every Buddhist, etc.

[quote name='SpazX']In the case of the confederate flag, the confederacy was vehemently racist and fought for the right to keep slaves, etc.. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a black person to take offense at a flag that symbolizes that past, regardless of how the person using it intends it (though I'm not sure what good people see in it, so I'd love an explanation of that - fighting for what you think is right? Southern pride?).[/quote]

Don't know enough about the Confederate flag to have an opinion. You won't find me passing judgement on a symbol or a flag that I only have a surface knowledge of.
 
I don't understand. Christians co-opted the cross and effectively changed it's meaning. You said it yourself and now it doesn't make sense?

On my experiment, it doesn't need any controls. Take any symbol, put it on, and walk around. Don't make excuses for the ignorance of the people since your position is that your perception is the only one that matters. Could be Peoria and it could be Times Square. I bet the reaction to any swastika even if it's a Tibetan swastika will be pretty negative. Like it or not, the Nazis ruined a beautiful symbol and turned it into a symbol of hate and facsism.

I also agree with SpazX. I want to hear Southerners defense of Old Dixie. I would like to know how they think it's a perfectly harmless symbol of the Old South.

EDIT -- We're not saying that all symbols mean bad things. We're saying that some groups will co-opt them and the world in general will recognize it for that. You can hold onto your symbol for what it used to mean but don't be surprised when people look at you like a some sort of degenerate.

EDIT 2 -- No. We're not fine with a violent facist power coming in to take over a symbol but it's not like any of us were alive to fight it. The swastika is a symbol of facism and hatred. It's the symbol that skinheads use to deface Jewish businesses, homes, and graveyards. We didn't change the symbol but you have to recognize it doesn't represent Tibetan ideals in the mind of the world anymore. Your symbol got co-opted. You can continue to fight the good fight but people will never see the swastika as a symbol of good anymore, just like the world will never see the cross as a symbol of hatred and oppression anymore.
 
[quote name='camoor']Ahhh, I see now. When an example doesn't mesh with your theory, it's "a bit odd". Carry on.[/quote]

Whose theory of what? It's a symbol that changed over time. Was bad, now is good (in some places was good and still is, others maybe was good, and now is bad or was bad and still is bad).

[quote name='camoor']In the case of the swastika it's not whatever the hell I want - it's what the symbol represents. I love how some people are just fine with a violent fascist power coming in and completely redefining how we all are supposed to view history and symbols. It's very similar to those ugly Americans who continually associate Islamic symbols with terrorism - sure there have been some horrific acts made under the banner of these symbols, and these horrific actions have gotten the bulk of the press in the western world, but these horrific acts are not endorsed by everyone who wears these symbols and uses them as part of their spiritual beliefs, and to suggest so is very offensive. I can't agree that the average American has the final say on these issues - the average American doesn't speak for every Muslim, every Buddhist, etc.[/quote]

The original meaning of the swastika was no more or less arbitrary than the meaning most people in the west would give it now. It's a couple of crooked lines, with maybe a few dots thrown in, depending on what you're talking about. Some people decided to agree on what it meant and then it spread as meaning that - people perceived it as having that meaning. The Nazi swastika was probably the first time most Americans were introduced to the symbol and so their perception is based on that. It doesn't matter what anybody else means for it to represent or ever has meant for it to represent - the perception is what defines the reaction and interpretation of the symbol.

That doesn't mean that you can't display it and intend for it to mean something else, but like I said, other people aren't going to know what you mean with any symbol unless they have a basis for it - in the case of the swastika it's not a good one. If somebody wants to display a swastika with its pre-Nazi meaning then they should go for it, they just shouldn't be surprised if people assume they're a neo-Nazi and have to explain it more.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an earlier and more positive meaning somewhere in the world for wearing a white hooded robe, but if you do it in America people are going to assume you're in the Klan. It's not their fault for making the mistake.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I don't understand. Christians co-opted the cross and effectively changed it's meaning. You said it yourself and now it doesn't make sense? [/quote]

No, it all makes perfect sense. Romans had one idea of what a cross meant. Early Christians had another. Neither was the "right" or "wrong" meaning. I don't equate popularity with truth - in the case of symbols, I believe both you and SpazX do.

Eventually the more popular perception of this symbol switched from terror to Christian ideals. OK that's nice. Doesn't mean the majority turned minority opinion suddenly became "wrong".

[quote name='depascal22']On my experiment, it doesn't need any controls. Take any symbol, put it on, and walk around. Don't make excuses for the ignorance of the people since your position is that your perception is the only one that matters. Could be Peoria and it could be Times Square. I bet the reaction to any swastika even if it's a Tibetan swastika will be pretty negative. Like it or not, the Nazis ruined a beautiful symbol and turned it into a symbol of hate and facsism.
[/quote]

My perception is not the only one that matters. But certainly sub-groups (and even individuals depending on circumstances) are entitled to an opinion - and certainly that opinion can be treated with a modicum of respect even if it's an agreement to disagree (we are still not a majority rules country - we're supposed to be the land of freedom including freedom of expression) If someone's sacred symbol involves two interlaced crosses or a moon and palm tree who are you to say that the majority opinion of these symbols in a particular country is the only valid opinion. I went to a New Orleans restaurant with a beatuiful tile floor - it happened to be swastikas but they explained it was from before WWII and they were symbols of good luck. I didn't voice revulsion because some lousy fascists changed the public perception of that symbol, I respected the intent of the original tiler and the interpretation of the restaurant even in our modern day. After your post I have a feeling you would have started a petition to boycott the restaurant, damn the circumstances.

[quote name='depascal22']EDIT -- We're not saying that all symbols mean bad things. We're saying that some groups will co-opt them and the world in general will recognize it for that. You can hold onto your symbol for what it used to mean but don't be surprised when people look at you like a some sort of degenerate.

EDIT 2 -- No. We're not fine with a violent facist power coming in to take over a symbol but it's not like any of us were alive to fight it. The swastika is a symbol of facism and hatred. It's the symbol that skinheads use to deface Jewish businesses, homes, and graveyards. We didn't change the symbol but you have to recognize it doesn't represent Tibetan ideals in the mind of the world anymore. Your symbol got co-opted. You can continue to fight the good fight but people will never see the swastika as a symbol of good anymore, just like the world will never see the cross as a symbol of hatred and oppression anymore.[/quote]

Here's the problem: you look at the world as a monolithic body where the majority perception on a symbol is the "correct" perception. I look at the world as a wildly diverse place with a plethora of perceptions of symbols - and in the arena of symbols I disagree that symbols can only mean what the majority takes them to mean. Most people in America interpret rainbow signage as a sign of homosexuality - does that mean every person who buys a rainbow-colored garmet is advertising that message? Does that mean everyone who has a photograph of a beautiful rainbow in a valley is sending that message? No! Ridiculous! Who cares if you asked a bunch of middle-American diner patrons what they thought and they snickered "hahaha gay". I just cannot accept that this is the best way to define symbols, it flies in the face of all reason.
 
Symbols are used as a non-verbal way of communication. To do that, there must be some consensus on the meaning of the symbol. If you saw a van with a red cross coming up to you after a hurricane, would you hide because you thought you were about to be crucified? It's not a right or wrong question. It's what the majority of the people will think that symbol means.

Don't get me wrong. This is America and you can do whatever you want but you can't be pissed if people get offended at a swastika. I'm sure there have been Jewish patrons that didn't want to dine in that restaurant in NO not because the original intent was good luck but because they kept thinking about their grandparents getting gassed and used as lamp shades.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Don't get me wrong. This is America and you can do whatever you want but you can't be pissed if people get offended at a swastika. I'm sure there have been Jewish patrons that didn't want to dine in that restaurant in NO not because the original intent was good luck but because they kept thinking about their grandparents getting gassed and used as lamp shades.[/quote]

I can agree with that. I'm respectful of other peoples perceptions of these symbols. I am just saying that, majority or minority, it's only fair to look at context and the intent of the bearer when interpreting a symbol. The actual symbol only tells half of the story.

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant.
- Bill Hicks
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']I can agree with that. I'm respectful of other peoples perceptions of these symbols. I am just saying that, majority or minority, it's only fair to look at context and the intent of the bearer when interpreting a symbol. The actual symbol only tells half of the story.[/quote]

I can't argue with that but most people won't subscribe to that philosophy. You can't tell a Jew to look at the other side of an issue without rose colored glasses. If I walked into that restaurant in NO with one of my Jewish friends, I wouldn't argue with him if he wanted to leave because of the swastikas. It's not up to us to tell people how they can or can't perceive the symbols.

For me, it's the Confederate flag. I hate everything it stands for and will never let people just say it stands for tradition or the old ways. To me, the old ways were shackling my ancestors up like cattle. Nothing could make me change that perception.

EDIT -- I think there are strong parallels between the Christian Cross and the n word. Both were used to oppress a group but slowly they were co-opted by the oppressed to show solidarity. I'm sure that early Christian leaders were apalled when people started wearing crosses and using it as a good symbol. Civil rights leaders are also appalled by young blacks use of the n word. We said fuck it, you want to make it a negative thing. We'll turn it around and make it a positive thing no matter what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top