|
Just to jump back on the swastika horse for a second, purloining a symbol from one cultural group to be used in other, perhaps devious, ways by another, is not the sole domain of the Nazis. The Christians, when they came across the Pagans "stole" many Pagan rituals of the Yule and the festival of Eostar, to name but two, to, ostensibly, convince the non-Christians of the day that they (the Chistians) were an enlightened bunch, and "Gosh, we can have all sorts of happy days as well. Why don't you celebrate ours and leave your nonsense behind." So, if the first group then tries to use those "purloined" rituals, are the meanings diminished in the eyes of the user? No, I think not. In fact, I think that using a symbol in the way it was originally intended can eradicate the secondary meaning because the primary meaning often makes more sense. For instance, why does the Christian world use the symbol of the bunny at Easter? Simple, it was originally a pagan symbol of fertility (multiplying into life), as was the egg, at celebrations held at about the same time as Christ's crucifixion day. Perhaps the origins of the svastik should be explored so that those still convinced that the new meaning is the only meaning will understand why it was used in the first place (I don't like the notion of posting links, so I won't ... let's just say, I went to google and looked for <<"hindu swastika" origins>> ... the first link it came up with (hinducouncil) was the most interesting). So, what's the point of my posting? Simply, that anyone can use symbols whether originally their own or someone else's. If a symbol has had a negative connotation, research it's origins. If the original meaning was positive, use the symbol in that positive light and the meaning may change for you. If not, try to be sympathetic to those who *have* been using those symbols for many years.
Cheerio
|