[AFGNCAAP]

It's obvious. You're a cat

[Ninth]

Wasn't the nazi's svastika different from the indu's one? I thought it was "turning" in the opposite direction...

Anyway, I think banning is stupid.

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by 100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja

I have to disagree with you on that other thing you said, but I'm not going to change this thread to ex-YU pros & cons. Don't think that would be fair to the rest of the community )

Oh please, lets make this into pros and cons! I used to be a huge nostalgic myself. When I came to the States I had access to literature about the recent wars, so I started reading up, trying to figure out what went wrong with the whole bratsvo & jedinstvo idea. Believe me, I had a bunch of ideas of the "let's get back together" kind, even drawing up flags for the new state. It's because history always gets me depressed, and my mind gets obsessed with its many failiures, so I try to reinvent it. Speaking from the perspective of Serbs, and what would've benefited them the most, today they would have their fabled great Serbia, if after WWI, the King had opted for making a Serbian nation state with coherent borders, instead of being a power hungry fool and creating a Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Let's face it: Slovenes and Croats do just swell by themselves.

So what we would have had would be three strong nation states (Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia) with three distinct languages (Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian), minor dialects (like Macedonian) included. Even if the monarchy was supplanted by the commies by this time, I don't think they could've done much damage. These would still be Serbian nationalist commies, worried about maintaining a singular national identity, instead of further partitioning it, like good ol' Tito did. I mean, where else but in ex Yu was Muslim considered an ethnicity, instead of relegious affiliation

Versus (what we have today)

Five more or less weak states (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia) with five languages (which are really three languages: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian), with the numbers of both states and official languages still subject to change (there is potential for a Montenegrin state and language, as well as an Albanian Kosovar state).

[stepurhan]

I think banning the swastika is wrong.

As has been pointed out, there are people in the world that don't view the symbol in a negative way. While Ninth may or may not be correct about it turning in the opposite direction (I don't know how to go about checking this) that's largely irrelevant. I would be willing to bet that most people wouldn't spot such a subtle distinction. How many people can, with absolute certainty, say which way the nazi version points? So how do you legislate against the bad swastika without discriminating against users of the good one?

Furthermore, banning the symbol doesn't get rid of the hatred and bigotry behind it. Nazis aren't just going to say "We haven't got our symbol any more. Guess we'll just disband and start loving everybody" The groups will go on, most likely with renewed fervour as they can quite honestly claim the government is trying to suppress them. Nothing gets a paranoid conspiracist going better than an actual event that supports their beliefs.

And as mr mitja points out, such a law would most likely not be effective in practice. The police have enough to do with dealing with the physical actions of groups such as these without having to spend time controlling their dress habits. I sometimes find myself thinking that the money spent on creating new laws would be far better used in providing the resources to properly keep the laws we've got already.

At the end of the day, a symbol is just a symbol. As long as individuals are only displaying the symbol then the present hurt is only memories of past hurt. Removing the symbol won't undo that past hurt and won't erase those memories. In some ways, being reminded of this past is a good thing, if it helps prevent such a regime from rising again.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Wasn't the nazi's svastika different from the indu's one? I thought it was "turning" in the opposite direction...

I thought so too, and I was going to add a post about that, adding that it didn't matter because most people don't care to notice which way the arms were facing, they just see a swastika and think "BAD!" But a google search turned up pictures of nazi flags and the swastika arms are facing in the same direction as the symbol on Ganesh's hand in that picture. So either Ganesh is advocating genocide or the claims that the nazis reversed the symbol aren't true.

Edit: Apparently it's the former, at least for the Ganesh in the picture. A little more research shows that the nazis DID reverse the symbol, and that specific picture of Ganesh actually has the nazi swastika on his hand. :eek:

But again, a lot of people don't know that, and I'm willing to bet that you'll find a few neo-nazi sites online advocating peace and love because they don't know which way a swastika faces.

[Bastich]

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Avinash_Tyagi

Secondly even if the Swastika had no positive meaning I would still oppose this Ban because of the idea of freedom of speech, now I'm not certain about the rule of law in Europe, but having spent a very long time in the US I feel that as long as someone does not violate another person's rights they should be free to express themselves, even if they are Nazi's

I have to disagree with this one. Just because you live in a democratic country, does not mean you have all the freedom in the world. The symbol holds very negative connotations and is associated with genocide. I think it does hurt people, relatives of people who actually have suffered through the holocaust. It's like saying that the KKK is fine, oh they can express themselves coz it's a free country, and let anyone who wants to wear the hood on his head. It's not the symbol, it's the meaning it holds.

[ConcreteRancor]

You get that off of Something Awful, Bastich?

[Supreme Goddess]

How interesting. I started reading this thread with my own ideas then found myself being swayed by each successive post. Oh dear.

My initial reaction is that the furour over Harry was WAY over the top. Poor lad, he's just a royal twerp, not a role model. And he wasn't making a political statement of any sort.

And the fact that his great uncle King Edward VIII liked Hitler has nothing to do with anything......

Seriously, banning a symbol is silly. Restricting how and where it can be displayed - that's polite and considerate. If the symbol is banned, never to be seen again, how can we educate the next generation? What about all our war movies?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Supreme Goddess

How interesting. I started reading this thread with my own ideas then found myself being swayed by each successive post. Oh dear.

My initial reaction is that the furour over Harry was WAY over the top. Poor lad, he's just a royal twerp, not a role model. And he wasn't making a political statement of any sort.

And the fact that his great uncle King Edward VIII liked Hitler has nothing to do with anything......

Seriously, banning a symbol is silly. Restricting how and where it can be displayed - that's polite and considerate. If the symbol is banned, never to be seen again, how can we educate the next generation? What about all our war movies?

How about it should be banned from the street (coz everyone is agreeing it is highly inconsiderate to wear it), but it can be displayed in movies and history books in a historic context. How does that sound ? 8-)

[fov]

Originally Posted by Supreme Goddess

My initial reaction is that the furour over Harry was WAY over the top. Poor lad, he's just a royal twerp, not a role model. And he wasn't making a political statement of any sort.

Wasn't he attending a "poor taste" costume party? Like, everyone was supposed to wear a costume that was of poor taste? Sounds spot on to me...

I had to play Hitler once in a school debate thingie where we had the Nazis / Socialists against the Allies. I made myself a swastika armband and wore it for that one class (along with an army pea coat I borrowed from a friend). A bunch of people who weren't even in my class got all upset and told their parents who called the principal. I still got an A.

Don't think banning the swastika is good, myself. Hiding things that actually happened is not a very good way to keep them from happening again.

-emily

[Supreme Goddess]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

How about it should be banned from the street (coz everyone is agreeing it is highly inconsiderate to wear it), but it can be displayed in movies and history books in a historic context. How does that sound ? 8-)

I think we just solved that one SoccerDude. *wipes hands and smirks* Bring on the next World Problem. We're on a roll here.... !!

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by fov

I had to play Hitler once in a school debate thingie where we had the Nazis / Socialists against the Allies. I made myself a swastika armband and wore it for that one class (along with an army pea coat I borrowed from a friend). A bunch of people who weren't even in my class got all upset and told their parents who called the principal. I still got an A.

My high school put on a production of Cabaret, so of course there were a lot of Nazi armbands. The incredibly ironic part was that about 2/3 of the cast, including a lot of those playing Nazis, were Jewish. The girl playing Fraulein Schneider, who was Jewish, joked that she would sing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" and then go backstage and cry. At least, I think she was joking.

[KamisoriX]

you can ban a symbol, but you can't ban what people thinks or feels.

[jjacob]

This is completely idiotic. Had it happened after WWII I could've retrospectively understood, but now? Besides it could prove to be a major hindrance to hindus, and they 'own' this symbol, not some fekkin dead nazis! In certain ways it feels like "recognizing" the swastika as a nazi symbol, and what makes them deserving of that? I'm sure my dad (who was in the resistance) would've certainly found this this appalling.

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I have to disagree with this one. Just because you live in a democratic country, does not mean you have all the freedom in the world. The symbol holds very negative connotations and is associated with genocide. I think it does hurt people, relatives of people who actually have suffered through the holocaust. It's like saying that the KKK is fine, oh they can express themselves coz it's a free country, and let anyone who wants to wear the hood on his head. It's not the symbol, it's the meaning it holds.

No, democracy does not mean limitless freedom. The question is what those limits are. This is a close call, because I agree that, for example, the emotional damage that the memories that the Holocaust holds for survivors must be beyond intense. (I'm thinking of the example of the neo-Nazis who wanted to march through a neighborhood where many Holocaust survivors had settled in Skokie, Illinois, in the 80s. That doesn't mean that I think the Nazis shouldn't have been allowed to march--only that I recognize that there was a real harm for the citizens of the town, and not simply something to be easily shrugged off.)

But banning things that hurt feelings or are "highly inconsiderate" seems way too broad to me. Think of all the things that are said on a daily hourly basis on this forum that hurt people's feelings--individual people, people we "know" in a way. Yeah, yeah, "it's not the same." Okay, what about the example of people protesting during the Vietnam war? What about John Kerry and others, who said that US soldiers had committed atrocities? Hurt feelings? Yes, as many veterans clearly feel today. True? Look in the history books--documented at Mai Lai and other places. Highly inconsiderate? We-ellllllll. What about pro-life protestors--or pro-choice protestors? Where do you draw the line on what's "considerate" there? Is Nazi symbolism something we feel free to ban because it appears to be a historical "done deal," something we settled in a war half a century ago? My view here is that Emily and jjacob are right, and that it's important not to ban these symbols for the very reason that banning them does more to help keep the nasty feelings behind these movements alive than allowing a free and open debate about them to take place.

Sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by jjacob

This is completely idiotic. Had it happened after WWII I could've retrospectively understood, but now? Besides it could prove to be a major hindrance to hindus, and they 'own' this symbol, not some fekkin dead nazis! In certain ways it feels like "recognizing" the swastika as a nazi symbol, and what makes them deserving of that? I'm sure my dad (who was in the resistance) would've certainly found this this appalling.

What none of us have brought up is the Neo-Nazis. Germany has been watching these groups for some time, and I know we do in the US. Perhaps this is a move by the EU to prevent the spread of Neo-Nazism throughout Europe. As far as "owning" the symbol - The Hindus may have had it first, but the Nazi's use/abuse of it made it known worldwide as theirs. The magnitude of the Nazi scourge, of killing 15 million people, was so horrifying, and so terrible, that "killing" the symbol may make some feel that they've killed the remains of the Nazi presence. Common sense says this isn't true, but the terror of a return to this evil regime's concepts may be blinding some to that truth.

FGM

[EasilyConfused]

Actually, a HUGE problem for Germany is that though IT has rules against Nazi symbolism and the Nazi party, America does not. It's not illegal to produce Nazi propaganda here or replicate the swastika--that's what Chris Kellner's point was in his interview. So many of the most virulent neoNazi propaganda groups are actually in America, which creates big problems--something that is legal here is illegal there.

My understanding was the ban on the Nazi party and Mein Kampf and so on was in the aftermath of WWII, specifically as a result of the Allies' attempt to "deNazify" Germany (just as we've tried to "deBathify" (sp?) Iraq.) I could be totally wrong however.

[100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja]

Originally Posted by Mares

Oh please, lets make this into pros and cons! I used to be a huge nostalgic myself. When I came to the States I had access to literature about the recent wars, so I started reading up, trying to figure out what went wrong with the whole bratsvo & jedinstvo idea. Believe me, I had a bunch of ideas of the "let's get back together" kind, even drawing up flags for the new state. It's because history always gets me depressed, and my mind gets obsessed with its many failiures, so I try to reinvent it. Speaking from the perspective of Serbs, and what would've benefited them the most, today they would have their fabled great Serbia, if after WWI, the King had opted for making a Serbian nation state with coherent borders, instead of being a power hungry fool and creating a Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Let's face it: Slovenes and Croats do just swell by themselves.

So what we would have had would be three strong nation states (Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia) with three distinct languages (Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian), minor dialects (like Macedonian) included. Even if the monarchy was supplanted by the commies by this time, I don't think they could've done much damage. These would still be Serbian nationalist commies, worried about maintaining a singular national identity, instead of further partitioning it, like good ol' Tito did. I mean, where else but in ex Yu was Muslim considered an ethnicity, instead of relegious affiliation

Versus (what we have today)

Five more or less weak states (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia) with five languages (which are really three languages: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian), with the numbers of both states and official languages still subject to change (there is potential for a Montenegrin state and language, as well as an Albanian Kosovar state).

Well, Yugoslavia was a great thing before and through the WWII. If it hadn't been for Tito, we would all probably be under the Soviet juristiction. Tito had a fine sense of balancing between both sides (Churchill & Stalin), and that was the thing that saved all of us in the war.
Basically, it was a dictatorship like in Cuba today. They were banning stuff they thought were "against the country", but the communist way of life was an easy one, it was based on the thought that everyone (no matter what or how much they work) will be able to make a decent living. There isn't any country that would be able to adopt this policy and not go bankrupt soon. Tito was the first who borrowed money from other countrys in the world, so he could artificially maintain the way of life. Yugoslavia was one person: Tito. Yugoslavia died the same day he did. At that point the best thing would have been that we went our separate ways to create CRO, Serbia, Slovenia... But it took us 10 years to of trying, and another 10 of hell. And nether was necessary.

BTW FairyGDM, I always thought the neo-nazis were a joke. There isn't any real threat from them, as I see it. It's mostly a bunch of kids who will abandon the stupid beliefs after a few years.

BTW2 I heard that there is a neo-nazist party (in politics) in Finland, and that it's supposed to be the first in Europe. Is that true?

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

What none of us have brought up is the Neo-Nazis. Germany has been watching these groups for some time, and I know we do in the US. Perhaps this is a move by the EU to prevent the spread of Neo-Nazism throughout Europe. As far as "owning" the symbol - The Hindus may have had it first, but the Nazi's use/abuse of it made it known worldwide as theirs. The magnitude of the Nazi scourge, of killing 15 million people, was so horrifying, and so terrible, that "killing" the symbol may make some feel that they've killed the remains of the Nazi presence. Common sense says this isn't true, but the terror of a return to this evil regime's concepts may be blinding some to that truth.

FGM

Actually, from 'experience' with this in the Netherlands (such as three carnival-trucks with neonazis on them this carnival ) they mostly use the 'white power' sign, but that's beside point - I'm saying such a ban will only be an incentive for neonazis. And as of now, most likely all swastika merchandise has trippled in value, making it more lucrative for the makers to produce the stuff. On the other hand, if they actually backup this ban with hard crackdowns and an obscene amount of arrests - I will change my opinion. The problem is that by banning this stuff the neonazis will only become more cautious to use this symbol in public (they can still use the whitepower symbol though ). It'd be very nice to see the local police forces / interpol using this as a kind of 'loophole' to crack down hard on neonazi organisations and networks, but I have little faith that will actually happen, let alone in the whole of the EU. I know full well the horrors of WWII, but I still say the symbol belongs to hindus - thousands of years of tradition 'beat' these horrific years IMO. It has little to do with remembering the war/holocaust.

Originally Posted by EasilyConfused

Actually, a HUGE problem for Germany is that though IT has rules against Nazi symbolism and the Nazi party, America does not. It's not illegal to produce Nazi propaganda here or replicate the swastika--that's what Chris Kellner's point was in his interview. So many of the most virulent neoNazi propaganda groups are actually in America, which creates big problems--something that is legal here is illegal there.

My understanding was the ban on the Nazi party and Mein Kampf and so on was in the aftermath of WWII, specifically as a result of the Allies' attempt to "deNazify" Germany (just as we've tried to "deBathify" (sp?) Iraq.) I could be totally wrong however.

Originally Posted by 100ja a.k.a. mr_mitja

BTW FairyGDM, I always thought the neo-nazis were a joke. There isn't any real threat from them, as I see it. It's mostly a bunch of kids who will abandon the stupid beliefs after a few years.

BTW2 I heard that there is a neo-nazist party (in politics) in Finland, and that it's supposed to be the first in Europe. Is that true?

Yeah, it's pretty bad in the U.S. I recently reported a site I came across which was totally into selling neonazi music, books and merchandise (they were even selling the hitler mustache ) to our main anti-rascism agency, but I got an email back that since it was based in the U.S., certain legislation wouldn't allow them to report it to U.S. authorities (or something, in any case they couldn't do anything about it). It's so easy (and tempting) to think that they're simply a bunch of unorganised retards (esp. after watching that Chapelle sketch "black white supremacist" OMG LOL that's in my top 10 of funniest things ever), but I think sadly the opposite is true, they're probably just as organised and as the evangelical christians. The U.S. government should really crack down on these guys, the way they handled terrorists (these guys are terrorists), well, a little better ofcourse (arresting a thousand with not one conviction).