Politically Correct Sensitivity vs. Parody -- how close to the line is "oops, too close?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

fireluxlou

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
283
I have uncommon sense. :D

And it *has* been a long time since WWII. At this point, almost 3/4 of a century since it began.

It may have been 3/4s of a century but you're talking like it's had little to no impact and that because it was a long time ago we should ~get over it in some sense, just so you can have a silly t-shirt that equalises grammarians to nazis. The white nationalists/EDL associate themselves (the groups I know of) with Hitler and his Nazi symbols. And it doesn't matter how long it was ago. It's still relevant to living memory.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,172
Reaction score
3,179
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Agree completely.

That's why this question. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could diffuse their symbol? Give it less power. I don't know about you, but putting the Confederate Flag on the roof of the General Lee didn't give more power to the slavery movement in the south. It made that symbol just a little more ridiculous. It looked cool, for reasons not related whatsoever to its previous intent.

Why can't we do that? If someone can take a symbol (or a word for that matter) and change it, why can't we take that symbol or word and change it back? There is a concerted effort in America that seems to be winning, as far as I can tell: in a very few short years, we've managed to get the world to think about the meaning of the word "marriage" -- and religious conservatives be damned, but the meaning is changing. I don't see why we can't do that for other terms and symbols -- ESPECIALLY those ones that have been used to hurt others.

This is a darned interesting question.

There is a tension between defusing/changing the meaning of a word or symbol and the need to keep a symbol as a memorium for its place in history.

There is a good in changing the meaning of such a symbol, but there is also a risk of loss of memory. My personal inclination is that it is the right of those who suffered under something to decide what should be done with the symbols of that thing, whether to keep or redeem or mock.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
But it still happened long ago.

Then go forward with your idea. But you asked for feedback and you got it. Here's mine, since you asked: I wouldn't buy your t-shirt and if the design really does resemble a swastika, I would look askance at anyone wearing it. Then again, I tend to call myself a grammar nerd rather than nazi. I know those are two different things, but I rarely use "nazi" for anything, since I attended a book launch at which several holocaust survivors shared their stories. I thought I knew about the horrors, but I went home shaking.

But it's your idea to pursue.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
As a supporter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, I fully understand that. It is nowhere near long ago in memory, especially for families of the men and women who suffered and died. My Grandfather flew B-17s over Germany, and my Great Uncle humped across Africa with Rommel. Neither man came back the same boy who left home. That war changed everybody it touched.

But it still happened long ago.
Well, dave, think about it this way. Suppose instead of the Nazi flag, you were asking about the Confederate Flag.

Your response might look like this...

"As a supporter of the NAACP, I fully understand that. It is nowhere near long ago in memory, especially for families of the men and women who suffered and died in the Civil War. My Grandfather walked with Dr. King, and my Great Uncle humped across Africa with Mandela. Neither man came back the same boy who left home. Segregation changed everybody it touched.

But it still happened long ago."


Basically, your argument is the equivalent of "It's not racist. I have black friends."
 

rwam

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
188
Location
Glen Carbon, Illinois
Not to derail, but there's a girl at my work who's named Swastika. She's from India. She's probably the nicest, kindest person I know there. Someday I'll ask her how it was growing up with that name.
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
Well, dave, think about it this way. Suppose instead of the Nazi flag, you were asking about the Confederate Flag.

Your response might look like this...

"As a supporter of the NAACP, I fully understand that. It is nowhere near long ago in memory, especially for families of the men and women who suffered and died in the Civil War. My Grandfather walked with Dr. King, and my Great Uncle humped across Africa with Mandela. Neither man came back the same boy who left home. Segregation changed everybody it touched.

But it still happened long ago."


Basically, your argument is the equivalent of "It's not racist. I have black friends."

I don't think your analogy is congruous, opty. For the specific statement there, I was saying that I understood the arguments of the two previous posters: one who said he was from a jewish family, another whose family fought in the war. Then I stated that I am not entirely outside that realm myself. And then I stated a fact: that *despite* these things, time has moved on.

The Civil War was fought and lost almost 150 years ago. If there's someone still holding a grudge, they really need to let it go.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
The Civil War was fought and lost almost 150 years ago. If there's someone still holding a grudge, they really need to let it go.

Considering the Confederate Flag to be offensive, especially when hung on a public building, is not "holding a grudge." That flag is not a benign symbol and there's not one good reason to pretend it ever was or turn it into one. I don't think "getting over it" helps anything. We need to remember, and trying to update a symbol that stands for dividing our entire country and oppressing a race of people doesn't help anyone. Well, except those who want to sanitize our country's history.
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
Digging up a dead horse from five years ago so you can beat it again isn't my idea of fun.

Would it please you better to beat living things to death? I could set up a few broad squirrels so you can shoot 'em with a slingshot.
 
Last edited:

Archerbird

Nightowl
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
1,598
Reaction score
335
Agree completely.

That's why this question. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could diffuse their symbol? Give it less power. I don't know about you, but putting the Confederate Flag on the roof of the General Lee didn't give more power to the slavery movement in the south. It made that symbol just a little more ridiculous. It looked cool, for reasons not related whatsoever to its previous intent.

Why can't we do that? If someone can take a symbol (or a word for that matter) and change it, why can't we take that symbol or word and change it back? There is a concerted effort in America that seems to be winning, as far as I can tell: in a very few short years, we've managed to get the world to think about the meaning of the word "marriage" -- and religious conservatives be damned, but the meaning is changing.

Yes, that's exactly the same.

Personally I don't want the meaning of the swastika to change back. Why should it? Why would anyone want to?

And yeah, if a person walks down the street wearing a swastika they'll be (mis)taken for a nazi. Which is a good thing IMO, because only dumb-asses would find it funny.
 

kayleamay

I'm on the phone.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
15,143
Reaction score
4,250
Location
Vantucky, WA
Agree completely.

That's why this question. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could diffuse their symbol? Give it less power. I don't know about you, but putting the Confederate Flag on the roof of the General Lee didn't give more power to the slavery movement in the south. It made that symbol just a little more ridiculous. It looked cool, for reasons not related whatsoever to its previous intent.

Why can't we do that? If someone can take a symbol (or a word for that matter) and change it, why can't we take that symbol or word and change it back? There is a concerted effort in America that seems to be winning, as far as I can tell: in a very few short years, we've managed to get the world to think about the meaning of the word "marriage" -- and religious conservatives be damned, but the meaning is changing. I don't see why we can't do that for other terms and symbols -- ESPECIALLY those ones that have been used to hurt others.

I don't think you're making much of a point there. It may be socially acceptable to waive around conferderate flags in parts of the south, but here, I wouldn't advise it unless you're looking to stir something up. I see it, on rare occasion, used as curtain for a rundown apartment, but that's about it. In my part of country, the confederate flag is considered a racist symbol. For the record, we don't whistle dixie here either.

But back to the swastika. Regardless of how long ago WWII was, you're still suggesting we try to make a symbol that represents a group that committed some of the most heinous acts in history and still has offshoots with those same beliefs today, and trivializing it.


If my kid brought home a confederate flag, I'd tell him to get rid of it and explain why.

If my kid brought home something with a swastika on it, I'd do the same.

It's hard enough for people that are generations removed to hear non-convoluted versions of history. Changing the meanings of symbols just to make them more commercially acceptable is just convoluting things more.
 
Last edited:

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
I thank everyone for their time and consideration on the topic. I think it's been answered strongly. In summary: once a symbol or word has been used negatively or for great harm, it is now sacrosanct, and cannot be used for anything else, nor have its meaning changed or altered, for fear of forgetting the vile things done with it.

I personally do not hold this view, but I respect the majority opinion here.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I thank everyone for their time and consideration on the topic. I think it's been answered strongly. In summary: once a symbol or word has been used negatively or for great harm, it is now sacrosanct, and cannot be used for anything else, nor have its meaning changed or altered, for fear of forgetting the vile things done with it.

I personally do not hold this view, but I respect the majority opinion here.

The problem is that the symbol is still currently used as a symbol for various neo-nazi and ultranationalist groups. When the symbol is forgotten or loses its notoreity (probably after another large war - look at the Iron Cross from World War I,) you can use it for parodying purposes
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
Would it please you better to beat living things to death? I could set up a few broad squirrels so you can shoot 'em with a slingshot.

I try not beating things at all. I have been a warrior for many causes, but I'm an old man now. I thought I'd try giving peace an opportunity to make its case.
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
The problem is that the symbol is still currently used as a symbol for various neo-nazi and ultranationalist groups. When the symbol is forgotten or loses its notoreity (probably after another large war - look at the Iron Cross from World War I,) you can use it for parodying purposes

Your argument holds no water against Opty (and other)'s assertion that the confederate flag is just as volatile.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,924
Reaction score
5,294
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
I thank everyone for their time and consideration on the topic. I think it's been answered strongly. In summary: once a symbol or word has been used negatively or for great harm, it is now sacrosanct, and cannot be used for anything else, nor have its meaning changed or altered, for fear of forgetting the vile things done with it.

I personally do not hold this view, but I respect the majority opinion here.

I think you miss the point. Certainly old harmful symbols can be rehabilitated and changed. However, enough time must have passed so that their resurrection is not a further attack to the traumatized survivors and those who know and love them.

You are declaring that the horror of what the swastika represents is far enough in the past for it to be used lightly. That isn't true. Horrific events last, and World War II is still within living memory.

The American Civil War, which you also brought up as an example, ended 147 years ago, but its effects, particularly the savage oppression of free blacks, were not even begun to be addressed until perhaps seventy years ago, and not lawfully put down until only forty or fifty years ago. As for holding grudges, evidence suggests that there are a not inconsiderable number of Southerners who still to this day resent losing.

Napoleon was used as a bogeyman of evil and terror for nearly a century after his heyday (consider that Conan Doyle used his name as a watchword for satanic evil in his Sherlock Holmes stories, more than seventy years after Napoleon's death).

World War II is still fresh with us. I have family members who remember those years. I knew someone who was a commander on a landing tank craft in Flotilla 6 in the Solomon Islands in 1943 (nice guy, he lent me his Charles Addams books and George Gamow's pop physics). My most beloved teacher was born in 1941, in Poland, on the run from the Nazis. My grandmother lived in Washington, DC, supervising telephone networks during the war. My grandfather set up air bases.

And although not all those people are still with us, I remember them, and what happened to them. And there are thousands and thousands more people who lived through World War II, or know and love people who lived through it.

Maybe in another couple of generations someone might be able to resurrect the old Nazi symbol without offending people. Maybe not.

But now? Oh, don't say it was a long time ago. It's early days yet.
 
Last edited:

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
Your argument holds no water against Opty (and other)'s assertion that the confederate flag is just as volatile.
When I lived in Florida and Alabama, a confederate flag hanging in front of someone's house, or pasted on the back of their car, indicated that they were a dumbass living in some convoluted version of the past that I didn't want to venture into. You're free to do whatever you like with either symbol, but people are free to judge you for wearing them too, regardless of your intent.

I use the term grammar nazi on other sites, fyi. But there's no way in hell I'd ever walk outside with a swastika on, or anything even resembling it.
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Huh. Was the Iron Cross as dramatically reviled after WWI as the swastika after WWII? (dunno). If so, thats an interesting thought.

Well, it would have been up there with the Hammer-and-Sickle and the Anarchist signs.
 

JohnnyGottaKeyboard

Who let this guy in...?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
2,134
Reaction score
211
Location
On the rooftoop where he climbed when the laughter
In summary: once a symbol or word has been used negatively or for great harm, it is now sacrosanct, and cannot be used for anything else, nor have its meaning changed or altered, for fear of forgetting the vile things done with it.

I personally do not hold this view, but I respect the majority opinion here.
You sound a bit like Eric Cartman: "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Clearly your summation is incorrect (altho I agree with you that others have skirted close to making that argument). Case in point: the pink triangle. It was also a WW2 era symbol of repression, but now has been transformed into a symbol of the complete opposite. And let's not forget that the swastika originated as a symbol for good and was hijacked by the Nazis. So symbols CAN change and often do quickly without any strict regard for an historical distance. I think the main objection to (or difficulty in) rehabilitating the swastika is that it has yet to be abandoned. It is still owned (in much the same way as the Confederate flag--though I'd argue to more of an extreme) by those who use it to symbolize something quite specific.

As an aside, I am interested in how the definition of the word marriage has been changed. It means a union or fusion of two (or more) formerly disparate objects, no? As in "A Marriage of Style and Function," or "A Marriage of Modernism and Surrealism," or "A Marriage of Asian and European Spices." I'm seriously confused. I haven't heard it mean anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.