nazi symbols controversy

growler

I guess many of you will have seen the furore in the media caused by Prince Harry's poor choice of fancy dress costume , like many I assume that this was simply a lack of judgement by a young lad with no sinister intent.

But it did get me thinking about the upset that is caused by the symbolism of the nazi party might equally be applied to the symbolism of the British Empire, of which Harry is a living representative.

It's arguable that the Union Jack or even the Royal insignia might well be viewed with similar disgust and revulsion by many peoples around the world as the swastika evokes in those who suffered and died during the height of nazi power. It's not like the Union Jack hasn't presided over the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of innocents around the world. It was the flag of war and colonialism, it presided over the slave trade etc. I'm almost surprised that the Liberals in the UK haven't suggested that it is a tainted symbol of their country, certainly most countries in the world have seen evil committed "under" it's flag, but the Union Jack/ British Empire would be a clear leader in terms of it's historic usage.

I wonder do the natives of Australia, Nigeria, India, Burma, Afghanistan et al. ( never mind those countries where there may currently be conflict with british troops) keep a special place place in their hearts to revile the symbols of the Empire ? The Star Spangled banner seems to be gaining popularity as a symbol of evil in the Muslim world in a rather short space of time. The Union Jack has been the flag of the conqueror since the mid 1500's.


Anyone got any thoughts as to why the swastika (perhaps even the stars and stripes) are so reviled, even banned in some countries , while to the best of my knowledge the Union Jack doesn't suffer from the same overt negative connotations? Will the swastika lose it's potency as time goes by?

oscarBravo

growler wrote:

The Union Jack has been the flag of the conqueror since the mid 1500's.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Union Jack was created with the Act of Union in 1800.

pickarooney

growler wrote:

Anyone got any thoughts as to why the swastika (perhaps even the stars and stripes) are so reviled, even banned in some countries , while to the best of my knowledge the Union Jack doesn't suffer from the same overt negative connotations? Will the swastika lose it's potency as time goes by?

Perhaps if something positive for humanity was done under the banner of the swastika, it could regain some of its former popularity. Unlikely though.

spanner

come on this is mainly the british press, it was a stupid thing to do and i am sure he realises this now, i cant see much difference in it than dressing up as hitler like many comidens do.
he is still 20 years of age, this was a private party, i am 20 years of age and i have made a lot worse mistakes than him. now that they have killed his mother they need someone for the column inches

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

Perhaps if something positive for humanity was done under the banner of the swastika, it could regain some of its former popularity. Unlikely though.

The swastika is actually the ancient sandscript symbol for "good luck" and "strength". It was used for thousands of years as a positive symbol in Asia, India and the middle east. Hittler mis-interpreted the "strength" bit (it means inner strength not strength by force). Shame really.

DadaKopf

I'm more offended by the fact that he obviously didn't put any effort into the costume. If you're gonna go to a fancy dress party, you should do it well.

Shane™

I though it was because it was the desert troop uniform, not just the swastika?

simu

The boy's an idiot, the boy does something idiotic - not much of a surprise then.

As for the Union Jack being offensive - I don't care about it as we now have our own flag in Ireland. Seeing it draped all over the place the one time I went to NI was unpleasant though, especially as, unlike English people, many Unionists probably would hate me for being from the Republic and having an Irish name etc. Seeing it when I went to London made no impression on me.

therecklessone

growler wrote:

It's not like the Union Jack hasn't presided over the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of innocents around the world. It was the flag of war and colonialism, it presided over the slave trade etc.

Credit where its due. It was also the flag of the navy that helped bring the slave trade to an end.

FTA69

simu wrote:

As for the Union Jack being offensive - I don't care about it as we now have our own flag in Ireland. Seeing it draped all over the place the one time I went to NI was unpleasant though

It was draped all over the place in the south during the War of Independence too, when peoples' national identity comes under threat they usually respond with explicit indicators of their culture ie putting tricolours all over the place.

sceptre

oscarBravo wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken, the Union Jack was created with the Act of Union in 1800.

Ah a bit earlier than that for the older version but as you say, not 1500s. The design dates from 1606 though it wasn't used as a flag of a single country in any way till 1707 (it was designed as James I/VI's personal royal flag and remained in usage only as a royal flag for quite some time). It's also worth keeping in mind that unlike here that there's never been a law making it the national flag (it's achieved that through usage) and the first plain statement made by a member of government that the flag was in fact the UK national flag didn't come till 1933. So, no, it certainly couldn't have been used in any context in the 1500s and wasn't used as the flag of "the conqueror" for a long long time after.

therecklessone wrote:

Credit where its due. It was also the flag of the navy that helped bring the slave trade to an end.

Red ensign/white ensign (before 1864 the red ensign was the flag of the fleet patrolling north atlantic and caribbean, after 1864 the white ensign was the flag for the whole navy (red switched to the merchant navy). Though obviously the Union Jack never presided over the slave trade boats either.

(I had an interest in flags when I was younger. May have been all the purty colours)

therecklessone

sceptre wrote:

Red ensign/white ensign (before 1864 the red ensign was the flag of the fleet patrolling north atlantic and caribbean, after 1864 the white ensign was the flag for the whole navy (red switched to the merchant navy). Though obviously the Union Jack never presided over the slave trade boats either.

(I had an interest in flags when I was younger. May have been all the purty colours)

Pedant...

Point taken re. the relevant flag, but that aside, the central point of my post remains the same.

SkepticOne

growler wrote:

Anyone got any thoughts as to why the swastika (perhaps even the stars and stripes) are so reviled, even banned in some countries , while to the best of my knowledge the Union Jack doesn't suffer from the same overt negative connotations? Will the swastika lose it's potency as time goes by?

Because the Union Jack is still the current flag of the UK but the Swastika is associated not with present day Germany, but with Germany of a certain era and, more specifically, with a political movement and ideology. Moreover it was used in a very deliberate and overt way during the Nazi era. Every newsreal of political events and anything assocated with Hitler seems to contain the symbol.

The same cannot be said to anywhere near the same extent of the Union Jack or even the US flag. The UK today is not quite the same UK of the colonial times and so the associations have changed. If the UK had adopted a specific symbol whenever it carried out masacres, then that symbol might be regarded the same way as the Swastika.

It is not really surprising to me that the Union Jack is not looked at the same way as the Swastika.

Oh and the press reaction to the fancy dress incident is a little overblown but the press (and not just the Brit press) is obsessed with the British royals. I've very little interest in what some idiot dresses up in. As far as I'm concerned he can go aroud wearing just body paint and a flower pot on his head if he wishes.

Manach

In part it depends on the context where the swastika is worned. A while back whilst on a bus I happened to notice the pattern on a women's shirt <as you do :rolleyes: >. A multiple swastika pattern. The women herself seemed to be of Southern Indian origin. It seemed unlightly she was a proponent of the new Reich.

As for the British Empire - well at least it passed into retirement fairly gracefully.

sovtek

For Chissake...they sent the boy to a rehab for smoking a bit o dope...

goin'_to_the_PS

They need to dope the lot of 'em up they should relax a bit

Peanut

From BBC news:
"German politicians have called for Nazi symbols to be banned throughout Europe after Prince Harry was pictured wearing a swastika to a fancy dress party.
The Liberal group in the European Parliament says all of Europe suffered because of the crimes of the Nazis, so there should be a continent-wide ban."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4178643.stm

What is wrong with these people... ..this is the country that arrested a man for teaching his dog the nazi salute! http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_828619.html

BTW I think part of the reason the Swastika has a greater impact is that the design of the symbol is very much more striking than the Union Jack for example.

pwd

that harry guy is just an attention-seeking twat. That's why he wore that, not anything else.

simu

Peanut wrote:

From BBC news:
"German politicians have called for Nazi symbols to be banned throughout Europe after Prince Harry was pictured wearing a swastika to a fancy dress party.
The Liberal group in the European Parliament says all of Europe suffered because of the crimes of the Nazis, so there should be a continent-wide ban."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4178643.stm

Sigh. If people put half the effort they put into getting wound up about this sort of thing into preventing discrimination and hate crimes against minorites in *today's* world, we might lessen the possibility of future holocausts ocurring.

mike65

Nothing to see hear, move along.

How the fvck does one impliment a total ban on a symbol? Would that mean a film or even documentary would be breaking the law if the swastika was featured. A nonsense knee jerk reaction and a pity comming from Germans who really should have some wit about this having lived with the Nazi cloud for 60 years...

Mike.

Boggle

Interesting comparison:

Swastika: Nazi symbol - used to brainwash millions of germans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for national gain. Evil.

American flag; American symbol - used to brainwash millions of americans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for national gain. Erm.... ??Good??

SkepticOne

Boggle wrote:

Interesting comparison:

Swastika: Nazi symbol - uued to brainwash millions of americans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for personal gain. Evil.

American flag; American symbol - used to brainwash millions of americans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for personal gain. Erm.... ??Good??

I think this comparison could do with a bit of explanation. Seems a bit rubbish as it stands.

Boggle

The nazi's are condemned with the benefit of hindsight - because we have had sufficient to look at their actionsand judge them. We see that invading other countries was wrong, mass murder was wrong... deprivation of human rights was wrong.

Trouble is we don't seem to learn from hindsight as the american govt currently appears intent on controlling the world - not necessarily by occupation but by fear and intimidation. They invade Iraq, for no discernable reason (WMD was the reason and thats been disproved), they take control of the resources and ideally leave behind a puppet govt that will be so grateful for their 'liberation' (i.e. those now in power will owe the US for their cozy little jobs) that they will effectively do as they are told. Countries are being invaded, thousands upon tousands die and are dying, many are deprived of their human rights - and all for a stupid little vendetta mixed in with the temtation of oil.

Tell me, hypothetically speaking, if things were to go belly up for the US - say if they invaded Iran and it backfired - and they ended up losing their war. Do you think that in 60 years that they would be remembered as good? I'd doubt it - every atrocity they have committed would come bach to haunt them - Abu Gharaib would become the new Auschwitz - and it is them who would be portrayed by history as evil ..... After all, I'm sure that the Nazi's were sure that they were the good guys too.

pork99

Boggle wrote:

Interesting comparison:

Swastika: Nazi symbol - uued to brainwash millions of americans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for personal gain. Evil.

American flag; American symbol - used to brainwash millions of americans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for personal gain. Erm.... ??Good??

"Collateral damage" (reprehensible though it may be) v Babi Yar ?

No comparison really

magpie

Anyone seen wearing a swastika should be rounded up and shot... oh, hang on.

toiletduck

the nazis are condemned because they deliberatly set out to exterminate an entire race and built death camps to that end. Abu Gharaib isnt comparable to Auschwitz at all. Auschwitz = a death camp, Abu Gharaib = a prision where Iraqi, Syrian etc. terrorists, insurgents whatever were held, interrogated and where necessary tortured.

Boggle

the nazis are condemned because they deliberatly set out to exterminate an entire race and built death camps to that end. Abu Gharaib isnt comparable to Auschwitz at all. Auschwitz = a death camp, Abu Gharaib = a prision where Iraqi, Syrian etc. terrorists, insurgents whatever were held, interrogated and where necessary tortured.

The jews were pawns used by hitler. He decided that if you got everyone hating the jews then they would not only agree with you and keep you in power but they also woudln't notice when you took away their freedom's and forced them into a war that they probably didn't want to be in at all... Auschwitz resulted from that.

Notice that by getting the americans to fear Al-Quaida and the muslims that Bush has managed to start reigning in the American people's freedoms?? Abu-Gharaib is an unpleasant precendent if things really do go to pot....

The point I was getting at but got caught up in my own rant was that you shold never forget or deny history because if you do, you are doomed to repeat it. And the Nazi symbol is a part of history.

pork99

toiletduck wrote:

interrogated and where necessary tortured.

Well that's a key difference - use of torture by a Gestapo offficer brought reward & promotion, use of torture by a US soldier gets him a 10 year jail sentence; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4177883.stm

And yes I'm aware he's only in the dock because he was dumb enough to get in the photos, that there's superior officers who should be joining him etc

pork99

Boggle wrote:

The jews were pawns used by hitler. He decided that if you got everyone hating the jews then they would not only agree with you and keep you in power but they also woudln't notice when you took away their freedom's and forced them into a war that they probably didn't want to be in at all... Auschwitz resulted from that.

Hitler successfully tapped a long tradition of German anti-Semitism. I recommend you read this

DoctorGonzo

This is off topic im sorry[/url]


Don't be sorry. Be banned for spamming the boards - sceptre

SkepticOne

The reason I thought the comparison rubbish was more due to the fact that the Swastika is a Nazi symbol used by the Nazis. The fact that it might have helped rally Americans (or Russians, or British) against them is fairly incidental.

Boggle: "Swastika: Nazi symbol - uued to brainwash millions of americans into believing they had the right to invade foreign countries and kill masses of innocent people for personal gain. Evil."

It seems bizarre to me to associate WW2 US actions with the Swastika symbol while ignoring any associations of that symbol same with Nazi Germany. I doubt if the Nazis, when they decided to adopt the symbol, wanted the US to act in the way that they did: ultimately participating in the destruction of Nazi Germany.

Boggle

Sorry Skeptic - it should have read germans but forgot to corect it.

What I meant to get at was that the Swastika was the symbol under which the germans united and under which they believed they were justified in doing moral wrongs. I was then saying that this is comparable to what is happening in the US at the moment. (blind patriotism at its worst)
(Sorry about that)

Hitler successfully tapped a long tradition of German anti-Semitism. I recommend you read this

Obviously not going to order the book - but I can hazard a guess that it is mentioning economic resentment (the jews had the money and wouldn't share it essentially while the germans were broke and recovering from WW1) along with other traditional tensions towards them as being the causes of the anti-semitism.
My point was that hitler seized upon this resentment boiled it to pure hatred and united all people under him with something in common to hate. While they were busy hating the jews they neglected to watch their leader as he took total control and reduced their rights. This is akin to what is happening in the states at the minute.

toiletduck

im interested to know what rights you mean (as in what rights of the German people Hitler took). Before Hitler became Chancellor he repeatedly stated his objection to democracy and it was no secret that if the Nazis gained power, Germany would become a dictatorship. So the Germans knew they would lose their democracy, freedom of speech etc. I just dont see how it can be compared to the curret situation in the States. If the Americans dont like the way things are going, they'll have a chance to change the leadership at the next election.
However i do agree that the al-Quida threat has united the Americans but then this is nothing new. Previously they were united against the threats posed by the Soviets, Nazis, Japanese.... The notion of using fear of an enemy to unite a country is a common theme around the world.

Boggle

So the Germans knew they would lose their democracy, freedom of speech etc.

You would really have to ask if they really understood what was going on at the time and they ealised the implications of what was happening and what they were allowing to happen - but then again, from any doc's I've seen, they seemed totally besotted with this leader... Look at how easy the patriot act slipped into present day America - question it and you are, effectively, a traitor.

If the Americans dont like the way things are going, they'll have a chance to change the leadership at the next election.

Like the last election? One moron or the next! (at least here we can choose from a bunch of morons)

The notion of using fear of an enemy to unite a country is a common theme around the world.

Have you noticed that the Americans do seem to have trouble getting by without an enemy to battle... Wonder what would happen if the American people were allowed to stop worrying about their enemies and focus on domestic affairs - guess they'd have to sort out healthcare 'n stuff!

Gordon

When the European Swastika book burnings come into effect I'll be the first up to the pyre with my Father Ted DVD of Series 2 part 2. Less of these Un-European thoughts.

Careful now.

the nazis are condemned because they deliberatly set out to exterminate an entire race and built death camps to that end. Abu Gharaib isnt comparable to Auschwitz at all. Auschwitz = a death camp, Abu Gharaib = a prision where Iraqi, Syrian etc. terrorists, insurgents whatever were held, interrogated and where necessary tortured.

Point of fact in regards to this. Hitler was intent on the destruction of all inferior races. That included gypsies, Poles, the uneducated, the overly-educated, the aristocracy etc etc. People sieze on the Jewish issue because so much has been made of it, but there was as many non-jewish german, french, and Polish people killed in the death camps as any other segment of society/religion.

part of the relationship between the Bush Admin and Hitlers Admin is that bush has highlighted the Arab people as being a threat to the Soverignity of the US. Somewhat like what Hitler declared on the jews and other undesirables. There are some comparisons, but Bush has not called for the extermination of entire segments of society....

pickarooney

Anyone else think the Germans are just trying to get rid of it for their own sakes, sweeping nazism and their involvement under the carpet?

swiss

Down with this sort of thing!

On a more relevant note, I sense a macabre kind of irony when I see groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris publicly vilify Prince Harry and condemn Ireland for remaining neutral during the war. Yes, it was insensitive of him to wear the uniform. Yes, he should have known better. However the manner in which he has been hounded is reminiscent of a witch hunt. Now various forces are trying to guilt trip him into some kind of 'penance', such as visiting Auschwitz and publicly apologising (he has already apologised to his father).

Why? What is the purpose of trying to make people feel guilty about something over which they had no participation or control? Is it to perpetuate a 'victim' complex? Or is it a reminder to people that not only have they to not condone the actions of the Nazi regime, they have to be publicly seen to condemn them? In both cases, I see this kind of pressure as counter productive. It only reinforces the stereotype that white, Christian people are oppressors, perpetuating an oppression to which all kinds of minorities are subject, irrespective of whether this oppression is actually present or not.

Devoid of these connotations, the Princes gaffe is simply that - a failure to see how inappropriate it is for a figure of authority (of any kind) to brand Nazi symbols. A tut-tut and a slap on the wrist is probably in order. However this was a private fancy dress party, the Prince is a 20 year old lad probably more interested in going out and having a good time than thinking about the potential political ramifications of his choice of costume. If it were not for his station, I don't think anyone would have given him a second look. Except for the partygoers of course - I agree with DadaKopf, he obviously didn't work very hard on his costume.

Anyone else think the Germans are just trying to get rid of it for their own sakes, sweeping nazism and their involvement under the carpet?

Why not? they still have a genuine problem with certain groups within the German population that aspire to the Nazi way of life. Also they've managed to make a success of the nation without resorting to invading another nation.. Makes sense that they don't want to dwell on the embarrassment and shame many feel about their grandparents actions..

there is the aspect that they're still getting blamed for their country's actions when they themselves weren't actually born.

pickarooney

Deleted User wrote:

Why not? they still have a genuine problem with certain groups within the German population that aspire to the Nazi way of life. Also they've managed to make a success of the nation without resorting to invading another nation.. Makes sense that they don't want to dwell on the embarrassment and shame many feel about their grandparents actions..

there is the aspect that they're still getting blamed for their country's actions when they themselves weren't actually born.

Yeah, I actually totally agree with this. I just think it's a bit sly all the same

On a more relevant note, I sense a macabre kind of irony when I see groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris publicly vilify Prince Harry and condemn Ireland for remaining neutral during the war

I've always found it strange that these groups don't call out "for shame" that the nations of Europe didn't involve themselves in German affairs from 1933 - 1939 during which many of the round-ups of "German undersirables" occurred. I suppose its kinda hard to criticise the nations that defeated Germany in 1945.... especially since its unlikely that these Governments didn't know that the Concentration Camps were in use...

I wonder will he cry out "for shame" against Switzerland for remaining Neutral while being surrounded by Axis territories and processing Nazi profits from the concentration camps?

It sounds like an promotional stunt. Blame or accuse Ireland, and get everyone's attention for what he's about to say. Would anyone have paid any attention to him, if he hadn't mentioned either Ireland or Prince Harry?

Teneka

toiletduck wrote:

the nazis are condemned because they deliberatly set out to exterminate an entire race and built death camps to that end. Abu Gharaib isnt comparable to Auschwitz at all. Auschwitz = a death camp, Abu Gharaib = a prision where Iraqi, Syrian etc. terrorists, insurgents whatever were held, interrogated and where necessary tortured.

Exterminate an entire race? There were plans to move them out from the regions, use them as labour etc. Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 6 million people? You know how difficult it is to dipose of that many corpses? Ever question it or just accept it and leave it at that?

Many died of diseases and the like at Auschwitz as well.

Blackjack

swiss wrote:

Down with this sort of thing!

On a more relevant note, I sense a macabre kind of irony when I see groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris publicly vilify Prince Harry and condemn Ireland for remaining neutral during the war. Yes, it was insensitive of him to wear the uniform. Yes, he should have known better. However the manner in which he has been hounded is reminiscent of a witch hunt. Now various forces are trying to guilt trip him into some kind of 'penance', such as visiting Auschwitz and publicly apologising (he has already apologised to his father).

Why? What is the purpose of trying to make people feel guilty about something over which they had no participation or control? Is it to perpetuate a 'victim' complex? Or is it a reminder to people that not only have they to not condone the actions of the Nazi regime, they have to be publicly seen to condemn them? In both cases, I see this kind of pressure as counter productive. It only reinforces the stereotype that white, Christian people are oppressors, perpetuating an oppression to which all kinds of minorities are subject, irrespective of whether this oppression is actually present or not.

Devoid of these connotations, the Princes gaffe is simply that - a failure to see how inappropriate it is for a figure of authority (of any kind) to brand Nazi symbols. A tut-tut and a slap on the wrist is probably in order. However this was a private fancy dress party, the Prince is a 20 year old lad probably more interested in going out and having a good time than thinking about the potential political ramifications of his choice of costume. If it were not for his station, I don't think anyone would have given him a second look. Except for the partygoers of course - I agree with DadaKopf, he obviously didn't work very hard on his costume.

very well put.

FatherTed

Teneka wrote:

Exterminate an entire race? There were plans to move them out from the regions, use them as labour etc. Extermination process is highly exaggerated by the media. Look at the figures they shoot out. Varies the whole time. Currently stands at 6 million people? You know how difficult it is to dipose of that many corpses? Ever question it or just accept it and leave it at that?

Many died of diseases and the like at Auschwitz as well.

Maybe if you had a relative who was put into a gas chamber and then have his body burnt, you would understand.

On the Prince's costume, he's what, 20? He should have enough sense to know that wearing it would cause an outrage. How stupid can he be?

Teneka

Jesus,

That could be said about anything. Should priests stop wearing their outfits because it reminds some people of the sexual abuse etc??

When does it stop?

meepmeep

Teneka wrote:

Jesus,

That could be said about anything. Should priests stop wearing their outfits because it reminds some people of the sexual abuse etc??

When does it stop?

Yeah, coz thats the same :rolleyes:

Teneka

When did I say it was the same?

Okay, lets say, Scots wearing kilts. Has to stop. William Wallace and co wore them, slaughtered many...wanted to keep one race in Scotland...

?

meepmeep

Teneka wrote:

When did I say it was the same?

Okay, lets say, Scots wearing kilts. Has to stop. William Wallace and co wore them, slaughtered many...wanted to keep one race in Scotland...

?

Well you made a comparision.....!?

What was your point exactly?

Are you comparing William Wallace to Hitler?

Or are you just talking out your hole?

Teneka

Regarding the 'man' who has a cartoon character as their avatar...

I never mentioned Hitler. Does it matter if its 1 million, 2 million or 10 million? Stalin murdered 12 million roughly, Pol Pot another. Nothing is said. You people are pathetic anyways, jumping to conclusions etc, not looking at the actual facts...reading from a bedtime story.

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

i think he's just trying to be normal..
would you like to be born into the royal family?
he didnt choose his parents. but he has to live the life which is not his to control... he doesnt decide where he goes to college, or his career... do you think he cna go off and work in a shop to earn money? no.. "its too common" for him to do it...
all the kid wants to do is have a some what normal life... jesus how many of you would wear something rediculous to a party? granted he's a prince. and he should have known better, but jesus he's only human. he's not "decended from god" or any crap like that...
sure we all done stupid things in the past. and saying "he's an attention seeking git" isnt right. he wants to have fun, drink, smoke, smoke dope, do what 80 - 85% of the people his age do...
he doesnt egt to choose his girlfriends... or anything..
and rebelling in the form that he did, i think was right. although i dont particularly agree on his atire, but on all other matter's i dont have any quarrel with him.
the nazi symbol should not have been presented in the matter as he did.
the swastica is the symbol which is feared around the world.
by millions of people who's relatives suffered under that banner.
every soilder in the 3rd reich wore that badge. and carried that flag everywhere.
of cource people are gonna be pissed off and think its horrible and want to ban it.
but look at the number of people in the world who believe in the idealogy of hitler.
how many people have read mein kampf? i did. and i can say hitler was smart. too smart for his own good. he over reached him self.
given he had more time, he would have won... but thats not on debate now.

they cant "ban"the swastica. they will never get rid of it untill it fades into the ages.
but to go that far, you would need to ban anything that has had negative effects.. any symbol. like the british flag. granted its their flag, but it was the banner for coloniasism ( spelling? )...
do they want to ban that? how about banning the jewish emblem? according to the bible they crusified our lord. why dont they go down that road? and debate that?

people are just going to have to accept the past, and live for the future. holding all thes negative thoughts and demanding the symbol removed from europe and all that is just gonna make people remember the past. and bring up more agruments. the past wont be forgotten so easily. but people dont want to read this stuff in the paper's. how many people do you think sat there and read the paper. that day they remembered stories their parents, grandparents told them... there are some horrible stories. of torture, hatred and discust. which should be forgotten, but due to our blisful ignorance were reminded about this on a regular basis...

Hairy Homer

Banning the swastika in itself would be utterly stupid. A meaningless piety that would epitomise the worst of political correctness.

The swastika was not the problem. The actions and ideologies of those who marched behind it were. To ban the symbol without properly recognising the factors and symptoms which cause those crimes to occur in the first place is to take your eye of the ball completely.

It's a bit like the word ****** (I'm assuming the politically correct word filter here is allowing me to print that word in its entirey. If it isn't then I'm using that derogatory word for a black person than begins with 'n', ends in 'ger' and is a corruption of the Spanish word negro which simply means black)

Polite society in America cannot bring itself to utter this word now. It's referred to as 'the n-word.' IT'S JUST A WORD. A derogatory one certainly. And there should be no need to use it but the crime is not uttering the word. It's the discrimination, abuse and mistreatment of one race by another that its use symbolises that is the problem.

But polite America thinks all it has to do is start calling people 'African Americans' and then it can continue to regard, and treat, black people like they were ****. Many young blacks see through this bull****. And so, the only people who utter the word '******' in America today are white supremacists and black militants.

Banning the swastika would only mean that civilised society's vigilance against Fascism/Nazism/Racism call it what you will, would be limited to looking out for people with guttural accents in baggy pants and daring to wave a swastika.

Meanwhile some white english-speaking university-educated thug who wants to nuke Arab cities in the name of 'freedom' could pass undetected into the national consciousness. 'Well how did we know he was a lunatic Fascist nut? HE wasn't even waving a swastika?'