Fylfots
Suze Hammond
SC> Just an aside on this: There's a town in Northern Ontario called
SC> Swastika. When pressured in WWII to change their name, they refused,
SC> saying "we had it first!" They're still named that today....
SC> That aside, the continued usage of swastikas by Neo-Nazi groups
SC> I think will preclude the reclaiming of the fyflot in MY lifetime.
SC> Cheers--
SC> Nicolaa/Susan
I think we should start trying to get them renamed "fylfots" outside the
arts and the SCA. If we could get the ball rolling on this shift, it might
make a difference.
After all, your average Neo-Nazi is hardly a rocket scientist. Eventually
even they might forget the two are the same.
... Another goofy brainstorm from the keyboard of.... Moreach NicMhaolain!
Arval d'Espas Nord
In article <3gbt3t$j...@pipe3.pipeline.com>, cl...@pipeline.com (Charles Lamb) writes:
> In rec.org.sca nusb...@em1.rmc.ca (2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher) said:
>
>
> >I don't want people, Neo-Nazi or otherwise, to forget that the two are the
>
> >same.
>
> But are they really the same? I thought the NSDAP emblem was a specific
> type of fylfot; one in which the central arms are placed on a 45 degree
> angle from the horizontal and the end of the arms are bent in a clockwise
> direction.
The word "fylfot" originally meant nothing more than a figure used to fill
the foot (hence the name) of a stained-glass window. But in modern usage
it has come to be synonymous with "swastika". They are the same.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> In rec.org.sca nusb...@em1.rmc.ca (2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher) said:
N> I don't want people, Neo-Nazi or otherwise, to forget that the two are the
N> same.
> But are they really the same? I thought the NSDAP emblem was a specific
> type of fylfot; one in which the central arms are placed on a 45 degree
> angle from the horizontal and the end of the arms are bent in a clockwise
> direction.
They are the same. The NSDAP displayed its main symbols -- the swastika
and various runes -- in different ways. In addition, the SS and SS-analog
organisations raised in the Ukraine, Scandanavia and the Low Countries wore
variations on the swastika.
And, to be blunt, of you were to appear in public wearing some variation
which the Nazis had not actually displayed, but which was recognisable to
me as a swastika, I would expect you to remove it.
--
Aryk Nusbacher | When I have learned what progress
Post-Graduate War Studies Programme | has been made in modern gunnery,
Royal Military College of Canada | When I know more of tactics than
a novice in a nunnery....
Andrea Marie Habura
On Aryk's post: Not to mention that currently-active Russian neo-Nazi groups
are using swastika variants as well. (I've seen the cover of the magazine
Pamyat, associated with the group of the same name, which features a drawing
of a blonde man holding sword and shield; the shield has a symbol that looks
like a cross between a swastika and four bullets.) Clearly, it's a currently-
evolving symbol and has lost none of its emotional force in the last 50
years.
Alison MacDermot
*Ex Ungue Leonem*
Henry Troup
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher <nusb...@em2.rmc.ca> wrote:
>And, to be blunt, of you were to appear in public wearing some variation
>which the Nazis had not actually displayed, but which was recognisable to
>me as a swastika, I would expect you to remove it.
And I'd help him.
It's the duck rule - if it walks like and duck and quacks like a
duck, it probably tastes good in orange sauce.
If it looks like a swastika, righthanded, lefthanded, or threearmed,
it smells of. And what it smells of is not acceptable in polite company.
--
Henry Troup - h...@bnr.ca (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
"Water isn't fish" - A rule of acquisition
DDuperault
>>which the Nazis had not actually displayed, but which was recognisable
to
>>me as a swastika, I would expect you to remove it.
>
>And I'd help him.
>
>It's the duck rule - if it walks like and duck and quacks like a
>duck, it probably tastes good in orange sauce.
What if it only walks like a duck, but doesn't quack? IE: If I were to
wear a certain shaped squiggle on a t-shirt you'd get completely hacked
off at me without determining my political or social beliefs first?
Without knowing who I am you judge me on my appearance?
Dawn
Henry Troup
DDuperault <ddupe...@aol.com> wrote:
>wear a certain shaped squiggle on a t-shirt you'd get completely hacked
>off at me without determining my political or social beliefs first?
>Without knowing who I am you judge me on my appearance?
Yes. Because by wearing a swastika you would associate yourself with
beliefs and actions that are unacceptable.
U.J|rgen hman
>In rec.org.sca nusb...@em1.rmc.ca (2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher) said:
>
>
>>I don't want people, Neo-Nazi or otherwise, to forget that the two are the
>
>>same.
>
>But are they really the same? I thought the NSDAP emblem was a specific
>type of fylfot; one in which the central arms are placed on a 45 degree
>angle from the horizontal and the end of the arms are bent in a clockwise
>direction.
Same, no of course not. Not to a herald or similar. But even in the SCA....
....how many non-heralds can tell the difference??
And in the mundane world....how many knows the difference??
Finland's Airforce used, if I remember this correct, a swastika/fylfot that
was turned the opposite way compared to the Nazi's.
And as long as there are people that can't separate Sweden and Switzerland,
or Austria from Australia you can bet your soul on that even more people
can't separate one kind of swastika/fylfot from another.
And if I ever would see a device with some kind of swastika on at an SCA-event
I wouldn't hesitate to address the owner as Lord/Lady Tasteless.
Ulf.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ulf Mj|dtunga(Mjoedtunga, Meadtongue) *Canton of Frostheim
*(where frogs live NOT)
Vert, in pale a crescent inverted *Barony of Nordmark
and a Thor's hammer argent. *Kingdom of Drachenwald
bu...@ludd.luth.se -=- U.J|rgen \hman -=- U.Joergen Oehman(NHL-Spelling)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
My reaction to anyone in the modern world wearing a swastika would
be "That person is a Nazi".
My reaction to anyone in the SCA wearing a swastika would be, "That
person is a Nazi".
Now, I know that Nazis aren't period (ggoodness knows, the middle
ages have enough problems without them), and I know that swastikas/fylflots
are perfectly period and did not carry the same symbolism. But in this
case, I cannot put aside my modern sensibilities. Sometimes it is impossible
to reconcile period practice with modern common sense and attitudes, and
this is one of those cases. I think for any of us in the SCA to try to
"rehabilitate" this symbol on the grounds that "it's period" is putting
the cause (a noble one in general) of pursuing authenticity above the
grim reality that the swastika symbolizes intolerance and genocide
in the modern world. Anyone who tries to "reclaim" the fylflot is rather
naive. Would YOU want to constantly explain that "no,I'm not a member
of the Aryan Nation", and "no,I'm not denying (or worse yet, praising)
the Holocaust--I'm trying to rehabilitate a medieval symbol"??!!!
Cheers--
Nicolaa/Susan
Canton of Eoforwic
scl...@epas.utoronto.ca
Nils Hammer
practical. Consider the sort of sophomoric lout who wants to wear the swastika,
and I have seen thinly disguised ones at events. I would like it if our reactions to such people did not make them feel important. I think it would be far better if you could contrive to laugh at them.
I don't have good references, but wasn't the old use of the fylfot much like our modern smiley face? Happy Happy, Joy Joy? I believe it was called the sun-sign. As for WWII, uh, my studies suggest that the nazis were pathetic loosers. Evil, yes but also stupid. I'm sorry that someone is sure to not like what I say, but the whole subject matter is like that. I'll stop now.
Nils K. Hammer
nh...@andrew.cmu.edu
DDuperault
>>off at me without determining my political or social beliefs first?
>>Without knowing who I am you judge me on my appearance?
>
>Yes. Because by wearing a swastika you would associate yourself with
>beliefs and actions that are unacceptable.
--
Beliefs and actions unacceptable to you, perhaps. You can't know my
beliefs or actions unless you observe and/or communicate with me at
length. I would rather you communicated and didn't just jump to
conclusions.
The really sad thing is, if I was wearing a swastika and you were wearing
a star of David, and _I_ got offended, _I_ would be the one accused of the
crime.
Not that I am trying in any way to justify historical events. I just
belive that all expressions and points-of-view are valid, even if I don't
agree with them.
Dawn
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> What if it only walks like a duck, but doesn't quack? IE: If I were to
> wear a certain shaped squiggle on a t-shirt you'd get completely hacked
> off at me without determining my political or social beliefs first?
Probably, yes.
Why: do you think it's the sort of thing you're likely to do?
> Without knowing who I am you judge me on my appearance?
By wearing some variant on the hakenkreuz, you would be making a
statement -- in fact, a statement of personal offence to me. The
fact that it is a "certain-shaped squiggle" rather than a squiggle
shaped like offencive words would not make me feel any better.
And I have indeed walked up to somebody (at an SCA event, in fact) and
suggested he remove a feldmuetze with Nazi insignia.
--
Aryk Nusbacher | "Chatter will bring you to the grave"
Post-Graduate War Studies Programme | No. 3 of the 10 Commandments of
Royal Military College of Canada | Parachute Troops, Canadian Army
Training Memo 24, March 1943.
Zach
>>wear a certain shaped squiggle on a t-shirt you'd get completely hacked
>>off at me without determining my political or social beliefs first?
>>Without knowing who I am you judge me on my appearance?
>
>Yes. Because by wearing a swastika you would associate yourself with
>beliefs and actions that are unacceptable.
--
Beliefs and actions unacceptable to you, perhaps. You can't know my
beliefs or actions unless you observe and/or communicate with me at
length. I would rather you communicated and didn't just jump to
conclusions.
<flame mode on>
I have to disagree here, the swastika is so closely attached to the
Nazi movement that it is very hard to think of it in any other way.
I in general dont believe in moral absolutes, but for anygroup that
advocated and performed mass murder I make an exception
<flame mode off>
Zach
(Guiliam)
JkrissW
wearing
a star of David, and _I_ got offended, _I_ would be the one accused of the
crime. >>
And what reason would you have to be offended by a Jewish symbol? Have
Jews subjected your people (whoever they are) to murder on an industrial
scale?
Kriss/Daveed
JkrissW
<<You can't know my
beliefs or actions unless you observe and/or communicate with me at
length. I would rather you communicated and didn't just jump to
conclusions. >>
Well, I'm inclined to feel that if it LOOKS like a Nazi, and if it QUACKS
like a Nazi, it must be... a duck!
Kriss/Daveed
U.J|rgen hman
swastikas and stuff...
In <3gto6b$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ddupe...@aol.com (DDuperault) writes:
*deleted*
>>Yes. Because by wearing a swastika you would associate yourself with
>>beliefs and actions that are unacceptable.
>--
>Beliefs and actions unacceptable to you, perhaps. You can't know my
>beliefs or actions unless you observe and/or communicate with me at
>length. I would rather you communicated and didn't just jump to
>conclusions.
I think that any person with a mind open enough to communicate with others
wouldn't even consider wearing a symbol that is loaded with so much feelings
as the swastika/hakenkreuz/fylfot is. The swastika is associated with certain
actions and beliefs and by wearing it you show the rest of the world that you
don't mind those actions and beliefs.
>The really sad thing is, if I was wearing a swastika and you were wearing
>a star of David, and _I_ got offended, _I_ would be the one accused of the
>crime.
Of course you would....The star of David is associated with the victims of
the holocaust. And I've never heard of exterminationcamps where the prisoners
and victims was wearing a swastika. I'm shocked that someone can sound surprised
of being accused of the crime while wearing a swastika.
And I wouldn't call it sad. Of course any person is allowed to wear a swastika,
but they are hopefully aware of the feelings that can turn against them if they do.
>Not that I am trying in any way to justify historical events. I just
>belive that all expressions and points-of-view are valid, even if I don't
>agree with them.
Kinda the wrong subject to validate both points of view, don't you think??
Genocide and such things doesn't sound valid to me.
But on the other hand....it's not long ago since non-white persons were less
worth even in the United States of America, and there are fractions of people
still dreaming about having a "nigger-boy" of their own.
LAPD, treats you like a King...or...??
Ulf, to close to the place of the events to forget about them....
Steven H Mesnick
should be judged without an effort to ascertain their actual political
beliefs. That is a naive view of semiotics. Those squigglies are, or can
be, a clear form of communication. The wearing of a "certain squiggly" can
mean, and very often throughout history has meant, that the wearer holds
certain political views, and is proclaiming them. I should think that if
that "squiggly" were a swastika, the
wearer is making their beliefs known loud and clear, and I see no reason
to ask them if it's actually a Ukrainian sun-cross. I can't imagine that
anyone could wear a swastika without knowing its association with Nazi
Germany.
Never again.
Steffan ap Cennydd,
mka Steve Mesnick, who knows too many elderly people with numbers
branded on their arms....
Steven H Mesnick
myself to be a Jew. Now, that implies that I am opposed to Nazism, so
a Nazi might get offended, but it does not imply that I think Nazis
should be systematically exterminated. Wearing a swastika, however, *does*
imply that one thinks that *Jews* should be systematically exterminated.
Bit of a difference in intent, there. Also note that, at least in the US,
wearing a swastika is *not* a crime.
Further, note that, as the swastika may actually be a Ukrainian sun-cross,
so the wearer of two interlaced triangles may also be saying he's Nigerian,
but the point of graphic symbology is that the symbol has an contextual
meaning. If I go to a debate between a Republican and a Democrat, the fact
that the fellow sitting to my left is wearing an elephant *implies* that
he supports the Republican: there is no reason to ask him if he's really
showing affiliation to a chivalric order in Denmark. I should think a
swastika worn in the US, or a Mogen David in other than red/yellow/green,
would have obvious connotations. If I see a Mogen David, I will assume that
the wearer is a Jew, or at least a supporter of Jewish causes, and I will
assume that the wearer of a swastika is a supporter of Nazi causes.
Steffan ap Cenydd
Samuel ben-Isaac
Steve Mesnick
Joe Bethancourt
: Well, I'm inclined to feel that if it LOOKS like a Nazi, and if it QUACKS
: like a Nazi, it must be... a duck!
But does it weigh the same as a piece of wood?
--
lock...@indirect.com PO Box 35190 Locksley Plot Systems
White Tree Productions Phoenix, AZ 85069 USA CyberMongol Ltd
"Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
at best it will break your heart, at worst, get you dead."
song lyrics at ftp/nau/edu /sca/ioseph or at http://mac9.ucc.nau.edu
George Barbanis
Unfortunately the Nazis have done an excellent job at ruining an
ancient, and, IMHO, beautiful symbol for all of us. Nowadays, any
uses of the cross cramponne will associate their user with NSDAP,
and, at any rate, stir painful memories in too many people...
I am curious, however, to existing uses of the fylfot. I know
Schliemann's house in Athens is decorated with fylfots, copied from
Mycenaean vases (also to be seen in the Athens museum). Do you know
of any other existing uses of fylfots, esp. in heraldry?
In service,
George Barbanis (still living in Mundania only)
Susan Carroll-Clark
I do _not_ believe that all points of view are valid. However{, I
generally hold that people should be free to express any views they
want to, even if I do not think they are valid. This is a touch{y
subject. I personally do not care if someone wants to wear a swatika;
however, I reserve my right to interpret that action as indicative of
{racist views{. If someone wants to wear a swastika at an SCA event,
fine; he/she offends me deeply, but I've got other ways of dealing
with that. However, {the swastika is {a banned charge in the SCA because
as an organization we do wish to condone the party traditionally associated
with it.
The average person who sees someone wearing a Star of David thinks,
"this person is Jewish". He/she does not usually interpret this action
as indicative of a radical Zionist stance, just as the fact that a
person wears a cross does not mean "This person is a Christian fanatic".
Stars of David and crosses are worn by a wide cross section of their
respective religious communities. A swastika, in comparison, is normally
only worn by neo-Nazis--a very focused group of people. Ordinary
Germans, for example, do not wear little swastikas around their necks.
The point is that freedom of expression will allow folks to
wear whatever they want. But because the SCA as an organization has
religious tolerance (and tolerance in general) as well as an anti-racist
stance as guiding principles, the organizization CAN legislate against
symbols of organizations which oppose these principles in registered
armory.
Regards--
DDuperault
wearing
>>a star of David, and _I_ got offended, _I_ would be the one accused of
the
>>crime.
>
>Of course you would....The star of David is associated with the victims
of
>the holocaust. And I've never heard of exterminationcamps where the
prisoners
>and victims was wearing a swastika. I'm shocked that someone can sound
>surprised
>of being accused of the crime while wearing a swastika.
I would claim to be surprised because here we have person with Viewpoint A
and person with Viewpoint B, where A does not agree with B and vice versa,
but A's feeling about B is considered wrong, while B's feelings for A are
not.
This situation could just as easily apply to members of the local auto
parts factory, where A are pro-union and B are not. Or where group A
represents homosexuals and B represnts "straight" individuals.
I would expect all persons in group A to belive to some degree that view B
is wrong, and likewise that persons in group B to believe that A is wrong.
This is what makes the world such a diverse and interesting place.
I do not believe that merely having the belief of one group or another is
a criminal act, nor do I believe that expression of that belief (where it
does not overlap into other things) is criminal. So that if a member of
the American Nazi party publicly expressed his viewpoint against Judaism
there should be no criminal offenses committed (Commonly called "hate
crime"). Just as if a member of the Jewish faith might publicly express
opinions about the American Nazi party without fear of reprisal.
At least in the USA. Your mileage may vary in your part of the world.
Dawn
DDuperault
>be, a clear form of communication. The wearing of a "certain squiggly"
can
>mean, and very often throughout history has meant, that the wearer holds
>certain political views, and is proclaiming them.
A very clear message of communication of the sort to which folks are
objecting would be something like a red t-shirt with a black swastika and
a picture of Adolf Hitlers face superimposed. Unmistakeable message.
But, what if it was a blue design on a yellow background with fish
overlapping?
Dawn
DDuperault
Thanks, so far you are one of the few people who appears to have thought
through some of what I am trying to say.
BTW, I don't support the Nazi aprty or it's beliefs. But it is a good way
to sir up discussion about certain points ....
Dawn
DDuperault
>> wear a certain shaped squiggle on a t-shirt you'd get completely hacked
>> off at me without determining my political or social beliefs first?
>
>Probably, yes.
>
>Why: do you think it's the sort of thing you're likely to do?
Not generally, but after the discussion here I am tempted to try a social
experiment at the local mall, testing public reaction to the display. I
wonder just how polite (or rude) folks will get....
>And I have indeed walked up to somebody (at an SCA event, in fact) and
>suggested he remove a feldmuetze with Nazi insignia.
I hope he said "No." Simple because a body has the right --in my opinion--
to display affiliation or belief in public. That belief can be anything
from political or religious affiliation to one's stance on whether or not
to unionize.
But then, things are different in Canada than in the US., are they not?
Dawn.
JkrissW
view B
is wrong, and likewise that persons in group B to believe that A is wrong.
This is what makes the world such a diverse and interesting place.
I do not believe that merely having the belief of one group or another is
a criminal act, nor do I believe that expression of that belief (where it
does not overlap into other things) is criminal.>>>
But viewpoints do not exist in a vacuum, and the flaunting of the
genocidal murderers' symbols in the face of someone whose relatives died
at their hands is simply WRONG. Such a symbol express approval of the
murderers' actions, and implies that the bearer might be inclined to take
such actions himself or aid those who would. From your arguments, am I to
take that you feel that the Hitler's war against the Jews was "right"?
Kriss
J. Terry Nutter
Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn.
Dawn recently posted:
> I do not believe that merely having the belief of one group or another is
> a criminal act, nor do I believe that expression of that belief (where it
> does not overlap into other things) is criminal. So that if a member of
> the American Nazi party publicly expressed his viewpoint against Judaism
> there should be no criminal offenses committed (Commonly called "hate
> crime"). Just as if a member of the Jewish faith might publicly express
> opinions about the American Nazi party without fear of reprisal.
I preface these remarks by recognizing that Dawn is not a Nazi, and is
not upholding the views of the Nazi party. We are talking here about
legal, social, and ethical principles involved in expressing certain
kinds of views, with the views associated with Nazism as a case in point.
None of the remarks about people expressing these views are aimed at
Dawn. I do think that her view of the principles involved is simplistic,
both ethically and legally.
It is important not to confuse the right to express a belief with the
right to have nobody object.
Belief in Nazi principles is not in itself criminal (at least in the legal,
as opposed to moral, sense); nor is the expression of that belief, so long
as it is not attended by any attempt to move people to illegal actions,
such as killing Jews -- or denying them employment or housing, or defacing
their property, or -- and so on. (Trying to cause people to engage in
hate crimes _is_ a crime, even if your actions are limited to the verbal.)
For the moment, I will use the expression "offensive belief" as shorthand
for "a belief that can be predicted with high probability deeply to offend
a majority of the people in the larger cultural group."
The Constitution gives people the right to express offensive beliefs;
no argument.
But neither the Constitution nor anything else gives people the right
to express offensive beliefs without offending others; and it gives those
others the same right to express their offense that it gave the original
speaker to express his offensive view.
Also, neither the Constitution nor anything else gives people the right
to try to force others to listen to them. Freedom of speech does _not_
include the freedom to choose one's audience, let alone to hold an
audience captive.
Furthermore, many states have "fighting words" laws, under which statements
sufficiently offensive constitute a legal basis for decking someone.
People are responsible for the normal consequences of their actions.
The normal consequences of deliberately being offensive involve dealing
with offended people. Since, in this case, the person suffering the
consequence not only was in a perfect position to predict the outcome,
but also initiated the hostilities, complaint seems precious.
I recognize that the same arguments can be applied to many causes; the
difference between our views, I think, is that if, for instance, I advocate
tolerance of homosexual behavior in a context in which people find the
mention of it, let alone calls for tolerance, offensive, I expect to take
some heat, and don't cry foul when I get it, or say that the Constitution
should protect me from it. I may try to argue my side; if I choose to,
I will do so recognizing that I must deal with the offense I generate.
People who choose to make Nazi-oriented fashion statements, or otherwise
to promote Nazi views, whether seriously or frivolously, should, I think,
be equally prepared to take the heat they cause.
Your arguments _seem_ to imply that it is somehow more virtuous to
express a view that is known to be widely offensive, in this case with
as excellent a reason as it is possible to imagine, than it is politely
to ask someone to desist from that offensive action; at least, that is
how I understand your response to Aryk. I wonder on what you base that?
Cheers,
-- Angharad/Terry
Lori Iversen
>...From your arguments, am I to
>take that you feel that the Hitler's war against the Jews was "right"?
>
>Kriss
Alexis here!
Daveed, I think you're wilfully misinterpreting Dawn's point and shifting
focus to an issue that she never even brought up. Just because I'm
willing to let a person or a group (no matter how abhorrent or loathsome
I find them and their ideas) exercise their First Amendment freedoms,
that doesn't mean that I agree with them or wouldn't really like to
poke them in the eye with something really hot and pointy. Applied
to the debate at hand, allowing neo-Nazis and Nazi sympathizers to
flaunt their beliefs (no matter how misguided or just plain wrong)
does *not* mean that I (or, I imagine, Dawn) think Hitler was right.
The neo-Nazis certainly aren't going to find *me* fighting for their
right to assemble, disseminate their "literature," or flaunt their
swastikas, but like it or not, they *do* have that right and certainly
should be allowed to exercise it. I also, it should be noted, have an
equal right to counter-demonstrate, counter-publish, and accidentally
spill battery acid over the swastika on Mr. Nazi's T-shirt.
Usually glad to be an American,
Alexis Vladescu Lori Iversen
WyvernHo-ette (IYS...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu)
Altavia, CAID The Valley, CA
JkrissW
is
a criminal act, nor do I believe that expression of that belief (where it
does not overlap into other things) is criminal. >>
I think I got a little carried away trying to bring home a point in my
first response to you, and I apologize if I sounded like I thought you
were a Nazi. Upon reflection, we're talking about two different sorts of
"freedom". As you said, and as has been upheld in the courts to be
permissable, the Nazis have the right in this country to state their
poison in public - as long as they don't cross the fine line into publicly
advocating violent and/or genocidal actions. They hold a march. I'm
somewhere else (or there, yelling back at them). No real problem.
What I *WON'T* stand for is display of that thing in the context of
activities of a recreational organization of which I am a member. Either
the swastikas stay out, or I get out. Nobody is going to force me to
associate with it, even indirectly. (Regarding non-NSDAP swastikas or
"fyflot", I don't know... It still feels funny, but it's the Hitlerian
one that gives me the creeps.)
Certain symbols come very highly charged with emotion and implications.
Most of my ancestry is southern, and I happen to feel that "Honest Abe's"
war of agression against the seceded southern states was completely
without constitutional justification. I've always liked the Confederate
battle flag as a symbol of regional pride, and sometimes use it for
something like the Windows wallpaper on my computer. This feeling I have
for it has NOTHING to do with any kind of support for slavery (which I
feel the South held on to far too long, to its ultimate ruin) or any kind
of racist sentiments towards blacks. (I grew up in Hawaii and early on
grew used to seeing the person before the pigment.) HOWEVER, I understand
that many people would - if I were to display that symbol publicly -
impute that kind of sentiments to me, either being offended and hateful
towards me because of it, or concluding that I'm a fellow bigot and loving
me for it, so I DON'T display it publicly and won't.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say? If one displays such a
controversial symbol as a swastika, they'd better be prepared for someone
to take offense and challenge them about it (or to come up and
conspiritorially whisper "Sieg heil!" in their ear as a gesture of
support).
Kriss (Daveed)
A Jewish soul, but southern to the bone.
Daveed of Granada, AoA, CHA
From the Barony of Lyondemere in fair Caid
mka J. Kriss White in smoggy L.A.
jkr...@aol.com
JkrissW
Daveed, I think you're wilfully misinterpreting Dawn's point and shifting
focus to an issue that she never even brought up. Just because I'm
willing to let a person or a group (no matter how abhorrent or loathsome
I find them and their ideas) exercise their First Amendment freedoms,
that doesn't mean that I agree with them or wouldn't really like to
poke them in the eye with something really hot and pointy. >>
You're correct, and I understand and agree. Please see my follow-up post.
Joseph Lee
On 6 Feb 1995, DDuperault wrote:
> >>The really sad thing is, if I was wearing a swastika and you were
> wearing
> >>a star of David, and _I_ got offended, _I_ would be the one accused of
> the
> >>crime.
> >
> >Of course you would....The star of David is associated with the victims
> of
> >the holocaust. And I've never heard of exterminationcamps where the
> prisoners
> >and victims was wearing a swastika. I'm shocked that someone can sound
> >surprised
> >of being accused of the crime while wearing a swastika.
>
> I would claim to be surprised because here we have person with Viewpoint A
> and person with Viewpoint B, where A does not agree with B and vice versa,
> but A's feeling about B is considered wrong, while B's feelings for A are
> not.
>
> This situation could just as easily apply to members of the local auto
> parts factory, where A are pro-union and B are not. Or where group A
> represents homosexuals and B represnts "straight" individuals.
Agreed, in general two groups having opposing viewpoints have the right
to believe their own viewpoints, however in this case the view held by
the nazi's (which regardless of the appropriatness of the association, are
immediatly thought of when someone wears a swastika or variant thereof)
is held, and rightly so, by society at large to be at least wrong if not
detestable.
>
> I would expect all persons in group A to belive to some degree that view B
> is wrong, and likewise that persons in group B to believe that A is wrong.
> This is what makes the world such a diverse and interesting place.
>
> I do not believe that merely having the belief of one group or another is
> a criminal act, nor do I believe that expression of that belief (where it
> does not overlap into other things) is criminal. So that if a member of
> the American Nazi party publicly expressed his viewpoint against Judaism
> there should be no criminal offenses committed (Commonly called "hate
> crime"). Just as if a member of the Jewish faith might publicly express
> opinions about the American Nazi party without fear of reprisal.
I assume that you mean the vocal expression of that belief. In the
mondane world yes you have the right to so express your oppinions.
However our society is based on courteousness and expressing those
oppinions specifically for this discussion those of naziism including
wearing a swastika or relitive thereof is very incourteous to those of us
who do not share that belief. And if I saw someone at an event wearing
said design I would speak to them nicely and explain that while they have
the right to believe whatever they wish, a large number of people will be
offended by wearing that symbol and it would probably be better if they
didn't wear it where everyone will see it.
I had a friend whom I took to his first event and he had a small (maybe
1/4") plain chain that he was wearing I didn't think it could be mistaken
for a knight's chain, but someone kindly spoke to him and explained that
while she didn't think there would be a problem, some people might have a
problem with it. my friend simply tucked the chain inside his shirt and
there was no further problem. it is possible to handle such situations
nicely.
>
> At least in the USA. Your mileage may vary in your part of the world.
>
> Dawn
>
>
Thrystan
Yoshitoshi
: In article <3gpqmr$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
According to *The Elements of Japanese Design, A Handbook of Family Crests,
Heraldry & Symbolism* by John W Dower, Weatherhill, 1982; p: 31: "The
Buddhist swastika, emblem of good luck and boundless virtue, appeared in
various forms on a number of warrior crests."
Matsuyama Yoshitoshi
DDuperault
>Your arguments _seem_ to imply that it is somehow more virtuous to
>express a view that is known to be widely offensive, in this case with
>as excellent a reason as it is possible to imagine, than it is politely
>to ask someone to desist from that offensive action; at least, that is
>how I understand your response to Aryk. I wonder on what you base that?
I have been trying to determine at which point we decide that expression
becomes offensive to those who disagree with a particular belief. Thus my
initial curiousity dealt with reactions to display of a potentially
offensive symbol when no other offensive action was taking place. I was
prepared to take much more "heat" in this discussion.
I have also been saying that people can hold beliefs with which we
disagree and that the holding of these disagreeable beliefs is not
something which we should label as wrong merely on the basis of
disagreeing with them. There exists, however, the common perception that
popularly opposed ideas should be restricted under law. (abortion, gun
control, Nazis, school prayer, and death penalties are frequent topics)
My response to Aryk (and others) was meant to say that people which hold
beliefs with which you do not agree are not bound to cease expressing
those beliefs, or displaying symbols associated with them, on the grounds
that someone disaproves, or even when many disaprove. I recognize that in
the Real World (tm) conflicts do occur where it is indeed best to cease
the display and retreat quickly.
Personally, I applaud actions on both sides of the scenario. The person
who has the initiative and courage to speak up against offending
expressions, and the person who has the strength to hold to his beliefs
and not be swayed both exhibit character traits that I admire. Complaining
about offenses without acting upon them, and allowing others to control
one's opinions are, to me, both signs of worthlessness.
Dawn
David Salley
> Not generally, but after the discussion here I am tempted to try a social
> experiment at the local mall, testing public reaction to the display. I
> wonder just how polite (or rude) folks will get....
Michael Moore, the guy who produces _TV Nation_, hired a driver to drive
a 18 wheeler truck cross country, painted red with white hammers and sickles
on it, 'testing public reaction to the display'. When he parked it in front
of the White House, the secret service was all over him. When he drove into
Georgia, he became an arson victim within 15 minutes of crossing the state line.
YMMV.
- Dagonell
SCA Persona : Lord Dagonell Collingwood of Emerald Lake, CSC, CK, CTr
Habitat : East Kingdom, AEthelmearc Principality, Rhydderich Hael Barony
Disclaimer : A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Internet : sal...@cs.canisius.edu (Please use this, reply may not work.)
USnail-net : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street, Buffalo, New York 14212-2029
Movie Double Feature : "Hurricane" and "Gone With the Wind"
(Contributed by multiple submitters)
Dick Eney
Lori Iversen <a...@deans.medsch.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>Alexis here!
>
>(bit snipped) Just because I'm
>willing to let a person or a group (no matter how abhorrent or loathsome
>I find them and their ideas) exercise their First Amendment freedoms,
>that doesn't mean that I agree with them or wouldn't really like to
>poke them in the eye with something really hot and pointy. Applied
>to the debate at hand, allowing neo-Nazis and Nazi sympathizers to
>flaunt their beliefs (no matter how misguided or just plain wrong)
>does *not* mean that I (or, I imagine, Dawn) think Hitler was right.
>The neo-Nazis certainly aren't going to find *me* fighting for their
>right to assemble, disseminate their "literature," or flaunt their
>swastikas, but like it or not, they *do* have that right and certainly
>should be allowed to exercise it. I also, it should be noted, have an
>equal right to counter-demonstrate, counter-publish, and accidentally
>spill battery acid over the swastika on Mr. Nazi's T-shirt.
>
preserving civil order) about allowing this sort of thing when it
constitutes real provocation to violence. An accidental spill of battery
acid over a swastika-blazoned T-shirt would probably rank there, if Mr.
Nazi were wearing it. And I can remember an even grosser instance: a
Midrealm Duke formed a shield wall team which was called "The Killer
Elite", and which used as a badge -- no lie -- the actual shoulder patch
of the Third "Totenkopf" Waffen-SS Division -- a skull and crossbones
appressed. (That is, with the bones in a squashed-down position and the
skull partly over, rather than above, them.) The reason the SS thought
this was a great badge was that it was the insignia used by the
extermination camp guards, from whom many of this unit's troops were
recruited. Several of us -- and not all Heralds or Jews, either -- went
to the Midrealm sovereigns at Pennsic and asked that this device be
barred from the field, frankly because there were some fighters who, if
they saw and recognized it, might not be able to remember that they were
supposed to stop hitting the wearers after they went down.
|-----Mandarin 2/c Vuong Manh, C.P. (dick...@access.digex.net)-----|
|----Opinions? All mine, and plenty more where they came from.-----|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Geoffrey Brent
> Heraldry & Symbolism* by John W Dower, Weatherhill, 1982; p: 31: "The
> Buddhist swastika, emblem of good luck and boundless virtue, appeared in
> various forms on a number of warrior crests."
>
> Matsuyama Yoshitoshi
One of life's little ironies...
Dawn writes :
>
> I have also been saying that people can hold beliefs with which we
> disagree and that the holding of these disagreeable beliefs is not
> something which we should label as wrong merely on the basis of
> disagreeing with them.
An aside for semantics : what basis is there for disagreeing with a
belief, other than believing it to be wrong ? If you say "I disagree
with statement X", I consider that exactly the same as "I consider X to
be wrong." To me, these are the chicken and the egg.
Saying "I disagree" is much more polite than saying "I believe you are
wrong." However, the literal meaning is virtually identical.
If I cannot consider something as wrong because I disagree with it, on
what grounds _can_ I consider it to be wrong ?
> Personally, I applaud actions on both sides of the scenario. The person
> who has the initiative and courage to speak up against offending
> expressions, and the person who has the strength to hold to his beliefs
> and not be swayed both exhibit character traits that I admire. Complaining
> about offenses without acting upon them, and allowing others to control
> one's opinions are, to me, both signs of worthlessness.
>
> Dawn
Strength of purpose is no more admirable than strength of body; both are
useful when you want to get something done, but strength does not
justify the purpose to which it is used. Sometimes I envy the strength
of purpose that Adolf Hitler possessed, but I do not admire it. Like
money, intelligence, whatever, it is a useful tool. It increases the
capacity to do good or harm, but it does _not_ make actions good.
You admire those who hold to their beliefs and are not swayed; do you
also admire those who listen to the words of others, consider their
arguments, and perhaps change their minds ? Listening is just as
important as talking.
--
Geoffrey the Quiet
(gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au, gbr...@laplace.anu.edu.au)
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> I am curious, however, to existing uses of the fylfot. I know
> Schliemann's house in Athens is decorated with fylfots, copied from
> Mycenaean vases (also to be seen in the Athens museum). Do you know
> of any other existing uses of fylfots, esp. in heraldry?
According to _The Jewish Almanac_, the earliest known Jewish use of
the hexagramme depicted it beside a swastika.
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> So that if a member of
> the American Nazi party publicly expressed his viewpoint against Judaism
> there should be no criminal offenses committed (Commonly called "hate
> crime").
> At least in the USA. Your mileage may vary in your part of the world.
In Canada, racial slander is a chargeable offence. It's as illegal as
carrying a handgun.
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
N> >And I have indeed walked up to somebody (at an SCA event, in fact) and
N> >suggested he remove a feldmuetze with Nazi insignia.
> I hope he said "No." Simple because a body has the right --in my opinion--
> to display affiliation or belief in public. That belief can be anything
> from political or religious affiliation to one's stance on whether or not
> to unionize.
Actually, he put on mediaeval clothing instead.
Thomas S. Arnold
ddupe...@aol.com writes:
>Beliefs and actions unacceptable to you, perhaps. You can't know my
>beliefs or actions unless you observe and/or communicate with me at
>length. I would rather you communicated and didn't just jump to
>conclusions.
>
>a star of David, and _I_ got offended, _I_ would be the one accused of
the
>crime.
Really? When did men and women wearing a Star of David massacre SIX
MILLION of your siblings?
It is said among my colleagues in Jewish History that the first to
mention the Holocaust in defense of his opinion loses, but in this case,
I feel I am justified.
I do not deny you the right to wear what you like or even say what you
like, (In fact, many of my brethren have died guaranteeing you those
rights.) but I do not give up my right to tell you that what you wear or
do or say disgusts me.
>Not that I am trying in any way to justify historical events. I just
>belive that all expressions and points-of-view are valid, even if I don't
>agree with them.
Do you, by extension, believe that all acts are justifiable and valid?
Is rape valid because "she was asking for it?" That is an expression and
a "point-of-view." Is that point of view valid?
I say: NO!!
It is a cheat and a lie, like the statement that Jews and like-minded
people should not react emotionally when confronted with a squashed
spider, kagflort, or swastika by-any-other-name.
Why do they make us angry? Because there are still those in the world
who believe that the only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the
job.
Those who call for the changing of its meaning might have point, but I
remind them that the emotional reaction remains on both sides of the
issue. White Supremicists and Neo-Nazis still wander the Earth in large
herds, seeding hatred wherever they roam.
Deny them strength!! Defend their use of the flag, but demand that they
recognize its meaning.
It stands for death, war, destruction, hatred, evil.
In Service,
-Thomas
Lori Iversen
>
>Really? When did men and women wearing a Star of David massacre SIX
>MILLION of your siblings?
Never. But men and women wearing a crucifix massacred millions of my
pagan friends' siblings, and yet no one speaks out against the crucifix
wearers.
>>Not that I am trying in any way to justify historical events. I just
>>belive that all expressions and points-of-view are valid, even if I don't
>>agree with them.
>
>Do you, by extension, believe that all acts are justifiable and valid?
>Is rape valid because "she was asking for it?" That is an expression and
>a "point-of-view." Is that point of view valid?
>
>I say: NO!!
I say: YES!! All *points-of-view* are valid. Many are also wrong.
*Acting* on those wrong points-of-view is absolutely wrong. Thought
is free, sir, at least in this country. If we encounter p-o-v's
that we believe are wrong, then we certainly have the right to try
to change those p-o-v's, within legal limits. Carrying a sign of
protest outside of an abortion clinic is an appropriate method in
attempting to modify or change others' p-o-v's. Physically
accosting women engaged in a legal activity is an inappropriate
method. Killing the provider of a legal activity (or his
receptionist) is not just inappropriate, it is loathsome and
reprehensible. Note that the people engaged in all three of these
activities share the same *point-of-view*.
>
>It is a cheat and a lie, like the statement that Jews and like-minded
>people should not react emotionally when confronted with a squashed
>spider, kagflort, or swastika by-any-other-name.
>
>Why do they make us angry? Because there are still those in the world
>who believe that the only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the
>job.
By all means be angry. By all means let the wearer of the offensive
symbology know that you find his actions inappropriate. But by God let
him wear his filthy symbol, so that all may know him for the asshole
he is.
>Those who call for the changing of its meaning might have point, but I
>remind them that the emotional reaction remains on both sides of the
>issue. White Supremicists and Neo-Nazis still wander the Earth in large
>herds, seeding hatred wherever they roam.
>
>Deny them strength!! Defend their use of the flag, but demand that they
>recognize its meaning.
I think that's all any of us have been saying.
>-Thomas
Geoffrey Brent
Will someone who holds this opinion _please_ define "valid" for me ? It
certainly isn't the word I know.
> *Acting* on those wrong points-of-view is absolutely wrong. Thought
> is free, sir, at least in this country. If we encounter p-o-v's
> that we believe are wrong, then we certainly have the right to try
> to change those p-o-v's, within legal limits. Carrying a sign of
> protest outside of an abortion clinic is an appropriate method in
> attempting to modify or change others' p-o-v's. Physically
> accosting women engaged in a legal activity is an inappropriate
> method. Killing the provider of a legal activity (or his
> receptionist) is not just inappropriate, it is loathsome and
> reprehensible. Note that the people engaged in all three of these
> activities share the same *point-of-view*.
Not quite. They share some beliefs - in this case, "abortion is wrong."
On the other hand, their overall points of view differ significantly.
Person A believes that abortion is wrong, but not sufficiently wrong
enough that murder is justifiable; person C believes that abortion is
wrong, and wrong enough that the murders above are justified. Those povs
have similarities, but they're not the same thing. (Don't ask what
happened to Person B, it's been a long day.)
> By all means be angry. By all means let the wearer of the offensive
> symbology know that you find his actions inappropriate. But by God let
> him wear his filthy symbol, so that all may know him for the asshole
> he is.
Agreed. Better to know people for what they are - ugly as that may be -
than to blind yourself to it.
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <3hb75r$5...@gort.oit.umass.edu>,
Thomas S. Arnold <tar...@hamp.hampshire.edu> wrote:
>
>Really? When did men and women wearing a Star of David massacre SIX
>MILLION of your siblings?
Without excusing what happened during W-II (mainly because it was
an inexcusable atrocity), I would point out the anecdote that
Isaac Asimov told about the time he shared a platform with Elie
Weisel. When challenged to point out even *one* time when the
Jews committed atrociites against any other group he cited the
treatment of the Edomites when they were conquered. Weisel
retorted that that was the *only* time, to which Asimov replied
that it was the only *opportunity* and one of one wasn't bad.
The general point is that it is historically human for the strong
to prey upon the weak. I think it is fair to say that the same
things are going on today.
--Hal Ravn
(Hal Heydt)
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> The neo-Nazis certainly aren't going to find *me* fighting for their
> right to assemble, disseminate their "literature," or flaunt their
> swastikas, but like it or not, they *do* have that right and certainly
> should be allowed to exercise it.
Depends on what country you live in.
Craig Martin Levin
Lori Iversen <a...@deans.medsch.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <3hb75r$5...@gort.oit.umass.edu>, Thomas S. Arnold <tar...@hamp.hampshire.edu> says:
>>Really? When did men and women wearing a Star of David massacre SIX
>>MILLION of your siblings?
>Never. But men and women wearing a crucifix massacred millions of my
>pagan friends' siblings, and yet no one speaks out against the crucifix
>wearers.
Millions? Probably not. Low tens of thousands, more like.
But reprehensible, all the same.
The reason why nobody has a beef with the wearers of
crucifixes is because the wearers of crucfixes in recent
history have done more than build death camps and bring
fire and war to the world, but actually some good things.
>I say: YES!! All *points-of-view* are valid. Many are also wrong.
>*Acting* on those wrong points-of-view is absolutely wrong. Thought
>is free, sir, at least in this country. If we encounter p-o-v's
>that we believe are wrong, then we certainly have the right to try
>to change those p-o-v's, within legal limits. Carrying a sign of
>protest outside of an abortion clinic is an appropriate method in
>attempting to modify or change others' p-o-v's. Physically
>accosting women engaged in a legal activity is an inappropriate
>method. Killing the provider of a legal activity (or his
>receptionist) is not just inappropriate, it is loathsome and
>reprehensible. Note that the people engaged in all three of these
>activities share the same *point-of-view*.
No, they don't. Related POV's, certainly, with the common
theme of the wrongness of abortion. <Note: I am not
supporting these POV's, simply going by your example.>
But the 2 latter POV's are _invalid_, because they go
against common sense, and, after a fashion, "natural
law".
Valid POV's can be understood by all reasonable people,
invalid are those of criminals, who by their deeds, if
they aren't insane or ignorant, are flaunting common
sense and reason, and of the insane, who have lost their
reason, and so they either are knowingly or unknowingly
invalid.
Once you claim the validity of all POV's/worldviews, you
deny our abilities to distinguish right from wrong, IMO.
--
Craig Levin Senhor Pedro de Alcazar
Ohio University History Department Shire of Dernehealde
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Midrealm
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings..
Regarding Christians and pagans: Be careful here. I do not think
that the Christians massacred millions of pagans in quite the same way
that the Nazis massacred millions of Jews. In all my readings of history,
I can only think of a couple of instances where Christian armies wiped out
pagans just for being pagans (the Teutonic Knights in Lithuania is the only
one that jumps out immediately). There were certainly wars of
conquest by Christian kings over pagan kings and peoples; but here, the
missionary activity was often secondary to the actual conquest, the belief
being that getting the locals to adopt the conquerors' religion would make
them more docile and biddable, or at least get them "on side". I also
know of wholesale Christian massacres of heretics, and the mostly post
period phenomenom of witch hunts. But I also know of pagans raiding and
killing Christians--once again, the religious issue being secondary to
the idea of raiding or conquest.
In general, the reaction of Christians to pagans in period was to
subdue and convert. In comparison, the Nazis put Jews in concentration
camps to exterminate them. Period. They weren't given a chance to leave
or convert, because according to Nazi ideology, they would always be a threat
to the Aryan race no matter where they went because their race was "tainted".
(Even Jews in the Middle Ages were usually allowed to either leave or convert).
According to the Nazis, even a tiny bit of "Jewish blood" could "contaminate"
a person--even if they were not observant Jews. I can think of no Christian
action against pagans which condemned a person to death for having pagans
in the family.
Jennifer Geard
Dawn wrote, of fylfots:
>But, what if it was a blue design on a yellow background with fish
>overlapping?
Or a recreation of one of the viking tablet-woven bands which includes
swastika patterns alternating with comb/trident patterns in metal-thread
brocade?
Signy Ragnarsdottir
==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==
Jennifer Geard blood...@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
Christchurch, New Zealand
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> the actual shoulder patch
> of the Third "Totenkopf" Waffen-SS Division -- a skull and crossbones
> appressed.
Also the cap badge of the 17/22 Lancers, when displayed over a riband
enciphered "OR GLORY". Hence their name, "The Death or Glory Boys."
Various Prussian lancers used the badge as well.
--
Aryk Nusbacher | "Sailors were fed food that had
Post-Graduate War Studies Programme | deliberately been made to taste bad."
Royal Military College of Canada | CBC News on the Navy's "Crossing
the Line" ritual, 9 Feb 95
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> I say: YES!! All *points-of-view* are valid.
The philosopher Jacob Needleman once said, "it's good to be open-minded,
but not so open-minded that your brain falls out."
> By all means be angry. By all means let the wearer of the offensive
> symbology know that you find his actions inappropriate. But by God let
> him wear his filthy symbol, so that all may know him for the asshole
> he is.
That's what my relatives who stayed in Europe said.
This, however, is how it all started in the first place. When the point
of view of a Hitler has the same value as mine, then Weimar is not far
off. And following Weimar ... we all have to spend a lot more time
polishing our boots.
U.J|rgen hman
>DDuperault (ddupe...@aol.com) wrote:
In Sweden it is a chargeable offense as well...luckily.
/Ulf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ulf Mj|dtunga(Mjoedtunga, Meadtongue) *Canton of Frostheim
*(where frogs live NOT)
Vert, in pale a crescent inverted *Barony of Nordmark
and a Thor's hammer argent. *Kingdom of Drachenwald
bu...@ludd.luth.se -=- U.J|rgen \hman -=- U.Joergen Oehman(NHL-Spelling)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DDuperault
>>In Canada, racial slander is a chargeable offence. It's as illegal as
>>carrying a handgun.
>
Which? Having an opinion or defending it?
Dawn
U.J|rgen hman
> Dawn
Having it...most people who have it doesn't defend it since they mostly show
themselves with their face covered.
Inciting a national group or minority is illegal. Such as, in any way, say that
people of another "race" are less worth, less intellegent, less human, etc...
Got it?? / Ulf
Elmar Vogt
>
> Greetings good gentles,
> I am curious, however, to existing uses of the fylfot.
> In service,
> George Barbanis (still living in Mundania only)
During a visit in Iceland, I was most surprised to see a swastika
as the logo of a bank.
I was told by the natives that this wasn't too unusual: According
to them, the swastika was a popular scandinavian symbol long before
the nazis. (I also suspect that these borrowed it from the scandinavians
rather than from indians or whereever else it might stem from.)
Cheers, Agilmar
--
mka Elmar Vogt
vo...@nt.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
Ferret
>From: somme...@apollo.hp.com (Bill Sommerfeld)
>Subject: Re: Fylfots
>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:54:22 GMT
>In article <3hj8h9$q...@cs6.rmc.ca>,
>2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher <nusb...@d19.rmc.ca> wrote:
>>Lori Iversen (iys...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>> By all means be angry. By all means let the wearer of the offensive
>>> symbology know that you find his actions inappropriate. But by God let
>>> him wear his filthy symbol, so that all may know him for the asshole
>>> he is.
Thats the way I treat evangalists and neo-nazis.
>>This, however, is how it all started in the first place. When the point
>>of view of a Hitler has the same value as mine, then Weimar is not far
>>off.
>How the *hell* does that follow? Are you saying that all permitted
>speech is of equal value? That's utter and total nonsense!
Freedom of speech allows everyone equal access to assholedom. Unfortunately
some of them get into politics, and even president talking nonsense and lies.
Ferret
fnkl...@acfcluster.nyu.edu
time the Jews slaughtered a people. Asimov retorted with the Edomites.
Wiesel said "that was only one". Asimov said "that was the only opportunity"
Hal then summed up that the strong always impose their will over the weak.
My comment:
Mr. Asimov was a wonderfull writer and, doubtless, a wonderfull physicist
but, obviously not a historian.
Regarding the treatment of Edom -
How can vengeance on an enemy be compared to the slaughter of the citizens
of one's own country?
Regarding opportunity to oppress -
In the middle ages there was a Jewish kingdom strong enough to exact
tribute from a number of Slavic nations and, on and off threaten
Constantinople itself.
In this kingdom Jews Christians, Moslems and "pagans" lived in astate of
full equality under the law (well, except that the rulers were Jewish).
Just my half Shekel's worth.
Nahum
2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> Or a recreation of one of the viking tablet-woven bands which includes
> swastika patterns alternating with comb/trident patterns in metal-thread
> brocade?
As one of the fellows who started saying that wearing swastikas in
public is unacceptable, I ought to respond:
If it looks like part of a pattern, then who cares?
david director friedman
"Inciting a national group or minority is illegal. Such as, in any
way, say that people of another "race" are less worth, less
intellegent, less human, etc...
>
I assume, from the way you put this, that truth is not a defense.
Hutu are demonstrably shorter than the average European, and Tutsi
taller. There is no a priori reason to suppose that similar
differences do not exist for intelligence (insofar as it can be
defined and measured), or other characteristics that many people
value--for that matter, some people value height. So I gather the
legal position in Sweden is that it is illegal to say certain things,
whether or not they or true (or, if you prefer, whether or not you
can offer better evidence for their truth than the prosecution can
for their falsity). Is that correct? If so, then I certainly agree
with Bill that the legal rules which (apparently) appear proper to
you appear oppressive to me. Interesting.
David/Cariadoc
david director friedman
One small datum on the "A swastika is a swastika is a swastika"
point. The floor tiling of one of the buildings at the University of
Chicago includes swastikas--the design is roughly the mirror image of
the one the Nazis used. I am fairly sure the building dates from
before WWII, possibly from before the rise of Hitler. Nobody seems to
be bothered--at least, I have never seen anyone demonstrating in
favor of having the tiling torn up and replaced by something else.
David/Cariadoc
MPER...@uriacc.uri.edu
I don't remember the person from whom this quote originated (was it
John Hancock?) but:
"I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it."
This is a founding principal of the United States. Not only can we let
people like neo-nazis roam the streets spouting propoganda, but we must, or
we fail to heed what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution say.
It is responsible and perhaps courteous to not fly "Gules, on a plate, a
fylfot sabl" in public. But to not allow the display of a symbol (e.g.
the fylfot) in any color, configuration, or design seems to be pushing the
point too far. Would "Argent, a fylfot, vert between three roses, proper, all
within a border engrailed, purpure" (yes, i know it's complex 8) remind too
many people of the Nazis? Should it?
Michael Perry | Lord Kenric Burn of Northampton ()/\
mper...@uriacc.uri.edu | Trollhaven -|---|
Physics Dept. | Barony of the Bridge, East Kingdom | \/
URI | of House Silverwing and Wishford Hall / \
2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher
I> By all means be angry. By all means let the wearer of the offensive
I> symbology know that you find his actions inappropriate. But by God let
I> him wear his filthy symbol, so that all may know him for the asshole
I> he is.
In article <3hj8h9$q...@cs6.rmc.ca>,
2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher <nusb...@d19.rmc.ca> wrote:
N> This, however, is how it all started in the first place. When the point
N> of view of a Hitler has the same value as mine, then Weimar is not far
N> off.
somme...@apollo.hp.com (Bill Sommerfeld) wrote:
S> How the *hell* does that follow? Are you saying that all permitted
S> speech is of equal value? That's utter and total nonsense!
I'm saying that all utterances need not be accorded the same
right to publication. Equal status need not be accorde to the
display of a swastika and to the argument against what the
swastika stands for. The Weimar Republic made exactly that
mistake. Lori relies too heavily on the invisible hand of sanity
in the free market of ideas.
2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher
I> I say: YES!! All *points-of-view* are valid.
In article <3hj8h9$q...@cs6.rmc.ca>, nusb...@d19.rmc.ca (2LT Aryeh JS Nusbacher) says:
N> The philosopher Jacob Needleman once said, "it's good to be open-minded,
N> but not so open-minded that your brain falls out."
Lori Iversen (iys...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu) wrote:
I> I don't like Nazis. I don't like neo-Nazis. I don't like
I> *anyone* who hates "just because."
You evauate their point of view as "valid", however.
I> I also don't like people who get all self-righteous and
I> proclaim that if I'm not for 'em, I'm against 'em.
..
> No, my ancestors were not massacred by Hitler
> and his minions. Perhaps that is why I do not feel the outrage
> and fury that my Jewish brothers and sisters may feel when they
> see symbols of those atrocities displayed.
Perhaps.
> Just because I
> don't froth at the mouth and screech about how offensive they are,
> it doesn't mean that I think they're acceptable.
You've said they are "valid". What's the difference between
"valid" and "acceptable"?
I also don't think I'm frothing at the mouth or screeching or
insulting you.
> Many things
> happen in our world that I don't find acceptable, but since they
> are legal there's not a whole lot I can do about them -- EXCEPT
> to write to my congressman.
What would you tell your Representative? You've said that every
point of view is valid.
> In the meantime, insulting me only pisses me off and lessens my
> sympathy for your cause
I don't have a cause.
J. Terry Nutter
Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn.
Lord Kenric Burn of Northampton writes:
> It is responsible and perhaps courteous to not fly "Gules, on a plate, a
> fylfot sabl" in public. But to not allow the display of a symbol (e.g.
> the fylfot) in any color, configuration, or design seems to be pushing the
> point too far.
Let's try not to fight straw men.
Some people have argued here that deliberately displaying a symbol of
genocide is a bad thing, and ought not to be considered socially acceptable.
Others have argued that doing so is an inflamatory thing, and those who do
so should be prepared to deal with inflamed people. Others yet have argued
that it is appropriate to make judgements about people based on the symbols
with which they voluntarily associate themselves. The College of Heralds
has a policy of not registering arms that include fylfots.
Fine.
How did any of this translate into preventing display?
Whether the College of Heralds should be in the position of registering arms
and claiming any kind of protection of them (even the very mild protection
of not registering other conflicting arms) is a separate issue, that I will
not try to address now. The relevant question is whether failure to register
arms that contain a figure entails a prohibition against displaying that
figure; and the answer is that it certainly does not, and that the College
of Heralds by-and-large has no illusion that it does (and a large proportion
of its members would have no interest in making it do so, even had they
the power).
I have not seen a single argument from the US for preventing display; the
strongest I have seen are arguments that doing so is morally objectionable,
or that one does so at one's own risk. From other countries, I have seen
arguments based on legal prohibitions against promoting certain kinds of
hate crimes. I do not know enough about those legal prohibitions to have
an opinion; I suspect the same is true of most people on this bridge.
Display has never been forbidden by the SCA at any level, and nobody is
trying to forbid it.
It seems to me unlikely to serve any useful end to argue against positions
that nobody has taken.
Cheers,
-- Angharad/Terry
Ferret
>Some people have argued here that deliberately displaying a symbol of
>genocide is a bad thing, and ought not to be considered socially acceptable.
>Others have argued that doing so is an inflamatory thing, and those who do
>so should be prepared to deal with inflamed people. Others yet have argued
>that it is appropriate to make judgements about people based on the symbols
>with which they voluntarily associate themselves. The College of Heralds
>has a policy of not registering arms that include fylfots.
Of course, in period the cross and crescent moon were symbols of support for
genocide. Perhaps all those displaying said sympols should be prejudged as
hate mongers and genocidal maniacs.
"Kill all, Kill all, God will know his own!" Richard the Lion-hearted
Ferret
George Barbanis
visited a few museums in Germany where WWII aircraft etc is on display.
Said aircraft have the Iron Cross (sable, border argent) on the fuselage,
but the swastikas on the tail fin have been removed. Does anyone know
why this is so? Is it forbidden to display the swastika, even on museum
pieces, or is it the decision of the museum?
In service
George Barbanis
JkrissW
know
why this is so? Is it forbidden to display the swastika, even on museum
pieces, or is it the decision of the museum?>>
I used to build model airplanes in my youth, and I discovered that most
model kits of WW-II German aircraft had the Iron Cross in miniature (on
the decal sheet) rather than the swastika they actually displayed on the
tail surface. This mystified me until I learned that all model
manufacturers who sold kits in Germany did this to avoid violating German
law.
Kriss (Daveed)
William Underhill
In a previous article, nusba...@rmc.ca (2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher) says:
>blood...@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Jennifer Geard) wrote:
>
>> Or a recreation of one of the viking tablet-woven bands which includes
>> swastika patterns alternating with comb/trident patterns in metal-thread
>> brocade?
>
>As one of the fellows who started saying that wearing swastikas in
>public is unacceptable, I ought to respond:
>
>If it looks like part of a pattern, then who cares?
If you think about it, almost any symbol has the potential to be offensive
to some person or group of persons. Shall we stop using all symbols then?
Perhaps we should restrict our heraldry to birds of the air and beasts of
the field (my brief poetic flare-up, and it too was probably
plaigiarized...)
(for the satirically challenged: The above para is light sarcasm, and was
written with a wry twist of the mouth as I talked aloud to my
computer...)(What? You don't talk to yours?)
>
>Aryk Nusbacher | "Sailors were fed food that had
>Post-Graduate War Studies Programme | deliberately been made to taste bad."
>Royal Military College of Canada | CBC News on the Navy's "Crossing
> the Line" ritual, 9 Feb 95
P.S. Good to see that our revered MoND has decided to lighten up a little,
and leave the poor sods on the ships alone for a while.
>
>
Cheerio!
William the Mariner
"You can offend some of the people all of the time, and you can offend all
of the people some of the time, and if you really, really work at it, you
can offend everyone forever."
--
William Underhill | The above opinions are not official
S.C.A.: William the Mariner, AoA | statements of the Government of Canada,
email: uf...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | the Canadian Armed Forces, or the
| Society for Creative Anachronism.
William Underhill
In a previous article, ddupe...@aol.com (DDuperault) says:
>
>>>In Canada, racial slander is a chargeable offence. It's as illegal as
>>>carrying a handgun.
>>
>>In Sweden it is a chargeable offense as well...luckily.
>
>Which? Having an opinion or defending it?
In Canada...
Not the holding of an opinion, but the dissemination of such opinion in a
form and manner that encourages hatred and incites violence. Therefore, I
can hold as an opinion the belief that Upper Armpitians are the scum of
the earth; I can express that opinion in private and/or to those who agree
with me; I cannot publish or broadcast a call to arms, to burn U.A.'s out
of their homes and businesses, nor may I revile them in a public forum.
All clear now?
Cheerio!
William the Mariner
P.S. to any scholars of Canadian law: If I have misinterpreted or
misrepresented the law, please correct me -- publicly.
2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher
>
> I don't remember the person from whom this quote originated (was it
> John Hancock?) but:
> "I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death
> your right to say it."
In a debate filled with amusing American chauvinisms, it is
invigorating to read one as outre as this one. While that
radical John Hancock might conceivably have said that, he
would have been quoting Voltaire.
> Would "Argent, a fylfot, vert between three roses, proper, all
> within a border engrailed, purpure" (yes, i know it's complex 8) remind too
> many people of the Nazis? Should it?
It would look to me like the badge of the National Socialist
Fatherland Florists' Association. Of course it would remind me
of the Nazis. It has a great big green swastika in the middle
of it! It would remind my grandparents of the Nazis. It would
remind my sisters of the Nazis. It would remind my colleagues of
the Nazis. In a few years, when he's old enough, it will remind
my nephew of the Nazis.
U.J|rgen hman
>Cheers, Agilmar
It is a fact that Adolf and his friends borrowed/stole much of the
symbols from the old nordic culture. He was also interested in norse
myths and so on. Just look at the SS-emblem with the rune-S's.
Various Nazi-groups/organisations around Europe during WW2 displayed
symbols from the old nordic culture. Today in the Nordic Countries the
Hammer of Thor is for example a symbol used by neo-nazi's and fascists.
A good thing was the history-trend, that among other things, made the
old nordic symbols "hot and hip" and a fashion. Hopefully that has kinda
removed some of the nazi-mark it has had. So in the future the neo-nazi's
might not ba able to use it as their "trademark" anymore.
Not many people are wearing swastikas though....Unless they are masked
and in large groups.
Ulf, still wondering what moran brought the swastika-discussion up in
the first place....
U.J|rgen hman
>David/Cariadoc
I think you have got it a bit wrong here.... It is illegal to say certain
things. Stating things like that the average Hutu are shorter and Tutsi
are taller than the average European are not illegal though, since there
can be clear proof that it's true.
Height and weight and other easily measured "racial" differences are
one thing. Intellegence, good- or evilness, human worth and such things
are another thing.
Stating that the average Swede is paler than the average Nigerian isn't
illegal, stating that the average Swede is more human than the average
nigerian isn't legal though.
But on the other hand....we've never had legally sanctioned apartheid here.
Ulf, maybe a bit clearer this time.
U.J|rgen hman
><< Today in the Nordic Countries the
>Hammer of Thor is for example a symbol used by neo-nazi's and fascists>>
>Hoo boy... I know quite a few SCAdians in Calafia who've worn the hammer
>for years (decades, even), but aren't the slightest bit fascist in their
>mundane political leanings. This is the first I heard of that symbol
>having anything to do with something beyond identification with the old
>Norse pantheon/religion.
It's actually quite common around several neo-nazi groups around Europe.
Mostly northern and western Europe though.
/ Ulf
U.J|rgen hman
>Go get 'em Ulf!
> TAIN
Whoa....a supporter....GREAT!!
Thanks Tain.
/ Ulf
2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher
> I have not seen a single argument from the US for preventing display; the
The case I cited (of asking somebody to remove a Waffen-SS Feldmuetze
with an eagle-and-swastika cap badge) was at an SCA event in the US.
The wearer was, by the way, a WWII re-enactor, not a neo-Nazi. He
removed the cap without demur.
Elmar Vogt
>
> As a point of interest, on the display of the cross cramponne: I have
> visited a few museums in Germany where WWII aircraft etc is on display.
Is it forbidden to display the swastika, even on museum
> pieces, or is it the decision of the museum?
>
> In service
> George Barbanis
I'm not sure about museums, but in general the public display of
symbols associated with the Third Reich is illegal.
Several years ago, aircraft model kits lost parts of their decals
for that reason, and received blackened spots on the box where the
part of the fin was.
Though I agree the display of swastikas should be forbidden in
public, I think this went a little too far...
Elmar
--
Elmar Vogt
vo...@nt.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
Lori Iversen
>
>Lori Iversen (iys...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu) wrote:
>
>> I say: YES!! All *points-of-view* are valid.
>
>
>
>That's what my relatives who stayed in Europe said.
>
>This, however, is how it all started in the first place. When the point
>polishing our boots.
>
>--
>Aryk Nusbacher | "Sailors were fed food that had
>Post-Graduate War Studies Programme | deliberately been made to taste bad."
>Royal Military College of Canada | CBC News on the Navy's "Crossing
> the Line" ritual, 9 Feb 95
Well, gosh.
Um...sorry. I was going to say something profound, but I seem to
be missing my brain. Here's something sincere instead:
I don't like Nazis. I don't like neo-Nazis. I don't like
*anyone* who hates "just because." I also don't like people
who get all self-righteous and proclaim that if I'm not for 'em,
I'm against 'em. No, my ancestors were not massacred by Hitler
and his minions. Perhaps that is why I do not feel the outrage
and fury that my Jewish brothers and sisters may feel when they
see symbols of those atrocities displayed. Just because I
don't froth at the mouth and screech about how offensive they are,
it doesn't mean that I think they're acceptable. Many things
happen in our world that I don't find acceptable, but since they
are legal there's not a whole lot I can do about them -- EXCEPT
to write to my congressman. And, perhaps, get the word out to
the population at large. As far as the neoNazis are concerned,
I'll leave that fight to those who foam at the mouth and screech;
there are other issues, issues much closer to my heart, about which
*I'll* foam at the mouth and screech (and I do -- just ask my friends).
In the meantime, insulting me only pisses me off and lessens my
sympathy for your cause -- sort of like the gay rights activists who
blocked Wilshire Blvd. at rush hour to protest Gov. Wilson's veto
of a gay-rights bill. Did I think Gov. Wilson was wrong? Yeah.
Did the protesters get my sympathy? Not for a minute.
For the record, I *would* speak to someone who was wearing a symbol
I found offensive. Not because I think *you're* right, but because
I think *I* am.
Ah -- I seem to have located my brain. I'll just nip off and fetch it.
Yours,
Alexis Vladescu Lori Iversen
WyvernHo-ette (IYS...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu)
Altavia, CAID The Valley, CA
Gary Heston
2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher <nusba...@rmc.ca> wrote:
>barb...@vnet.ibm.COM (George Barbanis) wrote:
>> Said aircraft have the Iron Cross (sable, border argent) on the fuselage,
>> but the swastikas on the tail fin have been removed. Does anyone know
>> why this is so? Is it forbidden to display the swastika, even on museum
>> pieces, or is it the decision of the museum?
>Nazi-era antiques sold in Germany (e.g. SS daggers), when they are
>sold (which is rarely) are displayed with swastikas covered up
>by stickers.
I believe it is illegal to display them. I know the "lightning S's" are
illegal to display; I worked a few shows in Germany about 15 years ago
for a band that used two of them in their logo, and we had to have different
programs, t-shirts, posters, and a special set of letters for the big
sign hung over the stage. Even our ID badges had to be made differently...
--
Gary Heston ghe...@nyx.cs.du.edu ga...@cdthq.uucp uunet!sci34hub!cdthq!gary
Disclaimer, datclaimer...
My home computer is more powerful than my F500 employers' Internet gateway
system. *They* make $2,000,000,000+/year. I make less than 1/50,000th of that.
Katherine
>
> 2AJN> From: 2Lt Aryeh JS Nusbacher <nusba...@rmc.ca>
>
> > Would "Argent, a fylfot, vert between three roses, proper, all
> > within a border engrailed, purpure" (yes, i know it's complex 8) remind too
> > many people of the Nazis? Should it?
>
> 2AJN> Fatherland Florists' Association. Of course it would remind me
> 2AJN> of the Nazis. It has a great big green swastika in the middle
> 2AJN> of it! It would remind my grandparents of the Nazis. It would
> 2AJN> remind my sisters of the Nazis. It would remind my colleagues of
> 2AJN> the Nazis. In a few years, when he's old enough, it will remind
> 2AJN> my nephew of the Nazis.
>
Swastikas are symbols that have been around A LOT longer than the Nazis.
The Nazis reversed the original swastika, so switched the meaning. I
think that people need to be educated on the real, origianl meaning
of the swastika, which is well-being, or something along that line.
It may remind you of the Nazis but you have to switch it back and bring
it back to its original purpose. And realize that swastikas aren't
bad, it is the way that they are switched. Like when you have a cross,
and then it gets turned upside down to be a satanic symbol, you don't look
at the cross turned right side up and say that it reminds you too much of
satanism. To me it is the same thing.
It all depends on the persons motive for using that symbol and
having people educated.
:off soapbox:
Katherine
Ferret
>When you wear a swastika you are displaying a symbol -- you are
>communicating. If somebody comes up to you to spit on your swastika
>or break your nose,
Then he would feel like your ancestors did when nazis spit on the star of
David and broke more than noses.
Would like to burn them in ovens as well ?
You are sounding like those you despise.
>then yes, you can explain to them that you are
>trying to break the use of the symbol as the badge of the Aryan race
>as originated by Madame Blavatsky and the racist Theosophists of the
>19th century, later developed by the Nazis into the badge of the most
>infamous genocide ever known by anybody anywhere.
Wrong, Stalin and the red star hold the record (10 million Ukrainians).
Hitler and the swastika (6 million Jews) are second followed by Harry Truman
and the white star in third place (100,000 + Japanese). Of course Truman
holds the record for most murdered in the shortest time. And the effects of
the bombs are still killing and maiming people today.
Ferret
Brendt Hess
FE>>trying to break the use of the symbol as the badge of the Aryan race
FE>>as originated by Madame Blavatsky and the racist Theosophists of the
FE>>19th century, later developed by the Nazis into the badge of the most
FE>>infamous genocide ever known by anybody anywhere.
FE>Wrong, Stalin and the red star hold the record (10 million Ukrainians).
FE>Hitler and the swastika (6 million Jews) are second followed by Harry Truman
FE>and the white star in third place (100,000 + Japanese). Of course Truman
FE>holds the record for most murdered in the shortest time. And the effects of
FE>the bombs are still killing and maiming people today.
*Sigh* Please, Ferret, if you're going to try to push people's buttons,
at least use correct terminology.
What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not meet *any* definition of
Genocide, unless you wish to claim that the intent of the U.S. was the
elimination of Hiroshiman and Nagasakian Culture.
To commit genocide, one must be working to eliminate a specific,
identifiable group of people -- a nation, a culture, a religion, a race,
or whatever. Simple killing is not genocide, no matter how many people
are killed. The intent is what matters.
Now, as to Genocidal acts, it is unclear to me whether or not the class
of "people who I don't like or are against me" is a clear enough
cultural group to classify Stalin's work as Genocide. Certainly, it is
noe of the three top contenders for largest mass murder effort, but I
would need to see some evcidence to call it a genocidal act.
Hitler was clearly pursuing a genocidal agenda.
(BTW, the third top contender is China during the Cultural Revolution.
They also are in contention for 2nd in actual genocide, with their
efforts in Tibet.)
Even in period there are contenders for more genocidal than the
Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings. Remember the Mongols? Do you recall
what they did to regions that they had conquered, but still resisted?
(At least according to some "historical" records.) How about the
Crusades? (Even in Europe -- does anyone know how many people were
killed in the Albigensian crusade?)
Finally, in my opinion, if you are going to criticize an act, you must
be able to proffer a better solution. If you can not, it is simply
complaining for complaining sake. What should have happened in Japan in
1945?
M. Vergilius
* OLX 2.1 TD * brend...@nwcs.org Vergil William de Comyn, An Tir