Swastikas (Random thoughts)

[Reptile]

My Girlfriend and I were talking about all the different historical symbols for one of her school projects, and we started stalking about the Swastika and how it's interpretation had changed in the last century.

She was raised Buddhist, so she always thought of it being a good luck charm as well as the many other things that it used to stand for before WW2. To me, I never really cared either, unless it had the big red band with it(that's when you run the hell away)

what do you guys think on the subject?

 

[Scissors]

I totally agree.

To me, a Swastika is just a logo.

If Hitler would have taken another logo, like... a Christian's cross, we would still see necklaces with Swastikas on it, and absolute none with a cross

That's what I think about it...

To me, it only is a Nazi symbol as, like you mentioned, it is printed on a red band.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

agrees, i've always found the design interesting, its just too bad it has such a bad stigma about it now

 

[Galactus]

It's weird that U.S. Navy has (or at least had) a building that looks like a swastika

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/09/26/us_navy_building_looks_like_a_swastika

 

[Firm18]

I Lol'd

 

[Majic Walrus]

The swastika isn't a hateful symbol any more than the cross is a holy symbol. The context of the usage is the only thing that gives it any meaning at all. I think it's unfortunate that someone could so heavily tarnish a symbol.

Also as a side note I have a good friend who has a swastika tattoo that represents good luck. He was fired from a construction job because the tattoo was visable and marked as "offensive".

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The swastika isn't a hateful symbol any more than the cross is a holy symbol. The context of the usage is the only thing that gives it any meaning at all. I think it's unfortunate that someone could so heavily tarnish a symbol.

Also as a side note I have a good friend who has a swastika tattoo that represents good luck. He was fired from a construction job because the tattoo was visable and marked as "offensive".

mass genocide, enslavement, and world domination will do that...


as for your friend, where was that tattoo located?

 

[Majic Walrus]

mass genocide, enslavement, and world domination will do that...


as for your friend, where was that tattoo located?

His right forearm. It was small and it was surrounded by buddhist and hindu text. Probably a 3 inch square including the text.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

His right forearm. It was small and it was surrounded by buddhist and hindu text. Probably a 3 inch square including the text.

did the place of work have a tattoo policy? (some prefer them to be concealed) if there was no such policy, and that was the reason he was fired, he probably had grounds for a lawuit. But if they have a tatoo policy, then theres nothing he could do about it, and probably should have concealed it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

did the place of work have a tattoo policy? (some prefer them to be concealed) if there was no such policy, and that was the reason he was fired, he probably had grounds for a lawuit. But if they have a tatoo policy, then theres nothing he could do about it, and probably should have concealed it.

The place did have a tattoo policy that prohibited "offensive and/or violent" tattoos; the problem is that he was terminated because the tattoo was offensive when it should not be considered as such. No more than a pentagram or pentacle just because of the negative connotation. There were plenty of tattoos on everyone else's arm but none that were considered offensive.

I think that symbols like that should be taken in context at work. If it isn't meant to be offensive and there's no policy prohibiting non-offensive tattoos it shouldn't be a problem for him to have it in view.

 

[SuBe]

Seemed like he was Fired for something that was offensive, but that offensive thing was a Religous Symbol, which might be against the law when it comes to Religous Discrimnation. I'd tell him to talk to a lawyer to see what his options are.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Seemed like he was Fired for something that was offensive, but that offensive thing was a Religous Symbol, which might be against the law when it comes to Religous Discrimnation. I'd tell him to talk to a lawyer to see what his options are.

I think I will let him know.

You know this wouldn't happen if whe had FairTax.

 

[SuBe]

True. There would be more jobs than Workers, so his value, especially if he was a great asset to the company, would increase, leading them to think twice before firing him. And instead, probably would have just had a discussion with him about it, to find out what the Tatoo really is.

 

[Shemtov]

A swastika was found on the floor of a roman synagogue

 

[EXT.23]

the symbol has a long history, but whether you want to admit it or not..it's going to have a stigma attached to it. now those that care to know in what way the symbol is being used will ask and you can explain and it's all good...but you can't say that the swastika ISN'T a symbol of hate at all because that just wouldn't be true, like saying the confederate flag is just a symbol of state's rights

 

[Majic Walrus]

the symbol has a long history, but whether you want to admit it or not..it's going to have a stigma attached to it. now those that care to know in what way the symbol is being used will ask and you can explain and it's all good...but you can't say that the swastika ISN'T a symbol of hate at all because that just wouldn't be true, like saying the confederate flag is just a symbol of state's rights

Wrong. The Confederate Flag was created uniquely as a representation for the Conferdate side of the civil war. In addition this was the side that most supported slavery. The Swastika wasn't created by Nazi Germany it was used for thousands of years, Hitler just picked it up.

Point of fact the swastika as a symbol can represent many things including hate so it's power as a symbol is only in the perception of others. Because it can represent so many things, both good and bad, there's no reason to dismiss it as "bad" simply because it could mean something bad.

This would be like banning the color white because the KKK uses it in their robes.

 

[Majic Walrus]

True. There would be more jobs than Workers, so his value, especially if he was a great asset to the company, would increase, leading them to think twice before firing him. And instead, probably would have just had a discussion with him about it, to find out what the Tatoo really is.

:heart:

 

[spideyboy_1111]

while there is probably legal wiggle room, offensive is offensive, no matter how you take it. And the place of work has reason to choose what they deem unacceptable. was it ignorant? yes. But they might of have the right to do so.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Come on the vast majority of people with swastika tats are racist *****ebags. Like 99.99%. I'm sure there are a few buddists and hindus rocking it, but I couldn't blame someone for making the obvious racist connotation. Some day the swastika might turn back into what it was but for now, there are still far too many living people that went through that hell for it to regarded as much more.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Come on the vast majority of people with swastika tats are racist *****ebags. Like 99.99%. I'm sure there are a few buddists and hindus rocking it, but I couldn't blame someone for making the obvious racist connotation. Some day the swastika might turn back into what it was but for now, there are still far too many living people that went through that hell for it to regarded as much more.

and ill actually agree with that...

to me it really depends, if there was just a tiny swastika among a bunch of other symbols, thats one thing, but if u have like a huge swastika among tiny symbols and writings then it's prob gonna make you come off like a *****e.

ESPECIALLY if said worker is dealing alot with the public.

 

[SuBe]

while there is probably legal wiggle room, offensive is offensive, no matter how you take it. And the place of work has reason to choose what they deem unacceptable. was it ignorant? yes. But they might of have the right to do so.

That Unacceptability Stops when it comes to Religous Discrimination, just as it does with Sexual Harassment, Physical Disability Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Ethnic Discrimination, and others.

If this is part of his Religion, and he is fired over it, it doesn't matter, it's his religion.

 

[Manic]

An Indian friend of mine had a chalk swastika on the ground of his front porch, right in front of the door. The way it was designed, it looked nothing like a Nazi symbol. The lines were more curved, and there were dots in the middle.

I have no clue how it survived the rain, though.

 

[SuBe]

magic

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That Unacceptability Stops when it comes to Religous Discrimination, just as it does with Sexual Harassment, Physical Disability Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Ethnic Discrimination, and others.

If this is part of his Religion, and he is fired over it, it doesn't matter, it's his religion.

unfortunately ignorance may win over a privately owned business especially if the worker deals with the public. The public tend to be even bigger morons and it could actually harm the business. He prob shouldn't of been fired, but simply told he had to cover it up.

 

[SuBe]

unfortunately ignorance may win over a privately owned business especially if the worker deals with the public. The public tend to be even bigger morons and it could actually harm the business. He prob shouldn't of been fired, but simply told he had to cover it up.

So, you would be ok if a Private Business fires an employee that is openly gay because he might offend a customer?