Racism and political correctness.
The Highlander
sent her daughter to school with a swastika on her arm says she
regrets redrawing the Nazi symbol after a teacher scrubbed it off.
The mother, who considers herself a white nationalist, is fighting the
child welfare system to regain custody of her daughter, 7, and son, 2.
They were taken away after the girl was sent to school with the
swastika drawn on her arm.
Four months ago, her daughter drew a swastika on her arm and went to
school, where her teacher scrubbed it off. The mother helped her
daughter draw it on her arm again, an act she regrets.
"It was one of the stupidest things I've done in my life but it's no
reason to take my kids," the mother told CBC News.
Child and Family Services case workers were alerted and went to the
family's apartment, where they found neo-Nazi symbols and flags, and
took custody of her son. Her daughter was taken from school.
In court documents, social workers say they're worried the parents'
conduct and associations might harm the emotional well-being of the
children and put them at risk.
Although she proudly wears a silver necklace that includes a swastika
and has "white pride" flags in her home, the mother, who can't be
named to avoid identifying her children, denies she's a neo-Nazi or
white supremacist.
"A black person has a right to say black power or black pride and yet
they're turning around on us and saying we're racists and bigots and
neo-Nazis because we say white pride. It's hypocrisy at its finest."
The mother has been fighting in court for four months to get back her
children, who are living with extended family. The mother can see her
children for two hours a week.
"It's been gut-wrenching. I didn't get off the couch for the first
eight days; I just cried. I laid in their bed and held their stuffed
animals and just cried. Last few nights, I've been sleeping in my
daughter's bed."
She's outraged that the police and child welfare authorities could
take her children away because of her beliefs.
"I'm willing to jump through their hoops," she said. "If they want me
to deny my beliefs, I'll tell them that, but at the same time, I'm not
a traitor to my politics, my beliefs. I just want my kids back."
Case sparks debate
The case has sparked questions about whether the state has the right
to protect children from their parents' beliefs.
University of Winnipeg professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, an expert on
hate groups, said while he disagrees with the ideology, he fears
taking custody based on beliefs is draconian.
"If children are apprehended based on parents' political or religious
beliefs, then one is opening a kind of slippery slope," he said.
But University of Manitoba professor Harvy Frankel, dean of the
faculty of social work, said officials did the right thing.
"We should be reassured that this is child welfare practice as it
should be."
If the two sides can't resolve their differences next week, they'll go
to family court, likely in the fall (autumn.)
This is an interesting case because as Canada is a multi-racial
society, the government walks a fine line between freedom of speech
and the suppression of racism. For example, at the local Highland
Games, children can be seen with the Scottish flag painted in their
faces and if anyone raised a banner marked "Scottish Pride", I imagine
that there would be no objections from the authorities.
To my mind, the suggestion of white pride is racist, because unlike
the natural pride of various ethnic groups who parade during Canada
Day, there is no element of their displays which suggests that other
racial groups are inferior, and that in my opinion crosses a line
which is unacceptable in a civilized society.
Needless to say this reaches further into the question of racism. The
many views about the English expressed in this group by many, myself
included, does make wonder where national or ethnic pride begins and
ends before it becomes racism. The US has been through the period of
"No Irish Need Apply", while some of the views recently expressed by
readers' letters in newspapers like the Daily Telegraph about the
Scots make it clear that a degree of anti-Scottish hatred is alive and
well in England, with a reciprocal reaction in Scotland, where the
very word "English" in its Gaelic form - Sasannach - is used as an
anti-English insult in southern Scotland.
Jeffrey Hamilton
"The Highlander" <mic...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:c1db7d5d-4726-4449...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The woman is a fool, pure and simple.
Noone is stopping her from having *white pride*, what authorities are
responding to, is the Swastika and other Nazi symbols.
Canada more that did her part in beating the Nazi pestilence in WWII, why
should it's regalia be allowed now ?
cheers....Jeff
Nkosi
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:vKQdk.16149$Ec....@read2.cgocable.net...
While I agree that the NAzi symbols are abhorrent to thos left who fought
against them and certailnly the Jewish religion, I trust the social workers
will now be romoving those black kids whose mamas and papas are balck poer
bogots and racists. Although I somehow doubt this.
Nkosi
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Nkosi" <mina.bo...@kya.kamina.com> wrote in message
news:x_Rdk.244938$NN3....@newsfe08.ams2...
* romoving * and *balck poer bogots* indicate to me that you are a racist
fool. I don't need to know further about you. I will now introduce you to my
*bit 'n byte bucket*, bye-bye.
cheers.....Jeff
Fred J. McCall
:
:The woman is a fool, pure and simple.
:Noone is stopping her from having *white pride*, what authorities are
:responding to, is the Swastika and other Nazi symbols.
:Canada more that did her part in beating the Nazi pestilence in WWII, why
:should it's regalia be allowed now ?
Why shouldn't it be? Are you afraid Canadians are so weak minded that
they might flock to Nazism if someone is allowed to wear a swastika?
If government can outlaw views and their expression, what's to stop
them from outlawing YOUR views one of these days?
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right
to say it."
-- Voltaire
The Highlander
Voltaire never said that. A lady named Evelyn Beatrice Hall did,
intending to summarize his attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius
and his controversial book "De l'esprit", but it was mistaken for an
actual quote from Voltaire and has been erroneously assigned to him
ever since.
What a pity you didn't have a British education. At my school I would
have been thrashed for such an appalling blooper.
To continue: The question at hand is not one of the right to say or
not say something which others might consider socially unacceptable.
For example, if I were to refer to Ramabriga as Ramanigger, some
people would no doubt be amused, while Ramabriga himself would no
doubt be outraged, along with those who would see it as racism. And as
racism is intended to disparage and denigrate those of a different
skin colour or whose social mores vary from those of the person making
a racist remark, it is not unreasonable to believe that such remarks
could lead to a breach of the peace, rioting and murder. In fact,
anything to do with White Power often ends violently and is clearly
aimed at doing so, despite claims that White Power is exercising its
right to freedom of speech. In a nutshell, we are back to the shouting
of "Fire" in a crowded theatre, of which American Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free
speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater," a
judgement which has stood the test of time in most jurisdictions.
In Canada, making threats is treated as a physical assault. Marching
in a parade shouting "Kill the (target group)!" will get you jail
time. And it is threatening behaviour towards a racial or ethnic group
that most authorities are anxious to stop before it becomes a riot and
people get hurt or killed and, horror of horror, tourists stop coming
and large companies move to another city.
Racism seems to grow in communities where a foreign population becomes
visibly larger. Vancouver alone has seen race riots in the past
against Sikhs and the Chinese. There was a race riot against the
Japanese, which the Japanese won, much to the embarrassment of the
rioters, who were soaked by a sudden rainfall as they retreated.
Racism in Scotland has tended to be related to particular economic and
social circumstances when migrants have been perceived by the resident
population to represent some form of economic or social threat.
While today it is most commonly directed towards visible minorities,
during the 18th and 19th centuries, and even still in the 20th
century, hostility and prejudice was expressed towards migrants from
Ireland, Italy and even the Highlands of Scotland, as witness the
posts of Kronek, aka Heid thi Baa, who at least has enough
intelligence to make them from the comparative safety of New Zealand,
rather than face to face.
The most overtly racist country I have ever been in is England, no
argument. The most overtly racist country in Europe is Italy, where
gypsies are now being fingerprinted and their settlements destroyed as
Italy's highest appeal court ruled that it was acceptable to
discriminate against Roma on the grounds that "all Gypsies were
thieves", rather than because of their "Gypsy nature". Mussolini would
have been delighted - he sent thousands of gypsies to Hitler's death
camps.
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
Is it fuck. In story books maybe or 100 years ago.
Complete bollocks as would be expected from an under-achiever like
yoruself.
Racism in Scotland is exactly the same as it is in other countries -
no different.
Also, it is worth noting that the Japanese and the Chinese are very
rascist too - as nations.
In South africa we can see how easy it is to jump to conclusions and
appoint a terrorist (Mandella) as
a man of peace. Now look at that country - it is on its knees and
rapidly going the same way as Zimbabwe.
You may not see that in Glasgow suburbia or Vancouver but here in NZ
the place is swimming with white educated South Africans who have fled
for their lives.We only ever hear one side of the story. It's not
about Blacks being all bad and whites all good or vice-versa - but a
clash of culture.
It's often not about ones colour but about who thinks they have the
God given right to land. the Black of South Africa are generally a
nomadic tribes -peoples. The whites set-up civilization and the blacks
moved in to claim it as theirs - even though they did not occupy the
land in the first place. Who is right?
K.
Ian Smith
Racism; that overused, distorted, diluted, cliched word.
In my opinion, all cultural/ethnic groups think theirs is the best way,
and therefore all others are deemed inferior (by varying degrees). This
is human nature. Does this mean we are all naturally "racist" to a
certain extent? I think so.
Until you get to know an individual personally, it is prudent to make
judgements about their likely behaviour, based on the general behaviour
of their cultural/ethnic/social group. Such a survival strategy has
worked for countless millenia, and still does today. I'm amazed at the
current "political correctness" denialist movement, which flies in the
face of this common sense.
By the way, I reckon the woman was stupid to involve her children in
political extremism, and is now paying dearly. She asked for trouble, and
got it. I also think the authorities overreacted, and continue to
overreact by not returning the children.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:vKQdk.16149$Ec....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
Because that was what the war was all about.
Political freedom.
Let the Nazi's morally bankrupt ideas and ideals destroy themselves in
public debate. Taking a woman's children away from her due to her political
beliefs (however abhorrant they might be to others)is the action of a Nazi
state. Tehre is no suggestion that she or her daughter ever threatened any
harm to anyone whatsoever.
I dread to think what they would have made of my nephew who had a swastica
tattooed on the back of his right hand when he was 13.
Who the **** do these people think they are. Ah yes - 'Christians' I
presume. Those who sport a cross-like symbol as an advertisment for their
beliefs. Beliefs that are ultimately responsible for far more deaths than
Nazism ever was.
Yet more sickening hypocrisy from "Look! The monster is over there" brigade.
The Highlander
> On Jul 12, 5:17 am, The Highlander <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote:
http://www.scotlandagainstracism.com/onescotland/8.1.2.html
Article entitled "Racism in Scotland."
Much of what you wrote above is nonsense.
Tribes in South Africa were not nomadic and are not to this day.
You are confusing the Zulu expansion as they sought to enlarge their
territory, which conflicted with the Boer desire to set up a Boer
State.
Some background reading would help you get a grasp on the subject.
http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol081av.html
The Highlander
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:vKQdk.16149$Ec....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Highlander" <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
In fact the Canadian people are not unlike the Americans; there is a
strong tradition of self-help and self-expression.
The only major difference is that the Canadians used the Mounties as
ambassadors to the native tribes and their reputation for straight
dealing and keeping their word meant that there were no Indian wars in
Canada. There was an uprising by the Metis people - those of mixed
Indian-French descent - who sought to have their own territory, which
has been recognized in today's Canada as a legitimate grievance which
the government sought to suppress.
The most striking difference in the experience of the Americans versus
the Canadians concerning the tribes was that the Mounties were dressed
in red so that they would not be mistaken for the US cavalry who wore
blue. The truth of this can be seen when the Sioux nation entered
Canada under Sitting Bull and asked that Queen Victoria protect them
from the Americans.
Much of Canada's prairies were settled by European immigrant groups
seeking religious freedom, especially Ukrainians, Russians and
Germans. Their beliefs tended to make them seek rapport with the
tribes, rather than trying to get rid of them and indeed the first
native uprisings in Canada took place in the last few years but in
each case were settled by mediation. Many Canadians are part-native,
and although racism is still heard, especially from older people, it
is mostly aimed at Asians and seems more directed at the overt signs
of their culture rather than built-in dislike. The Chinese in
particular have spent vast sums of money in cities like Richmond,
building skyscrapers and so on and my feeling is that the complainers
are motivated by jealousy rather than racism. Most Chinese have
integrated fairly well and it is very noticeable that their young
people are often met in mixed Chinese-European groups and that mixed
marriages are starting to happen, just as happened in Hawai'i. I might
add that a large number of natives have a Scottish ancestor, as the
pragmatic Scots hunters and trappers who first appeared in the west
wanted wives and took them from the native population. This is very
noticeable in the west, where many mixed blood natives are tall, well-
built and had Gaelic-speaking great-grandfathers. Indeed the second
largest ethnic group in British Columbia is the Scots, according to
the national census and I have found that my relationships with
natives are frequently helped by the fact that I am a Scot.
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:vKQdk.16149$Ec....@read2.cgocable.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Highlander" <mich...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
Good point!
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
I am going on what people have told me - not on history books. They
use the resources in the land and then move on - that is their way and
we probably did the same in cave-men times.I even know a guy whos
father was forced off his farm Zimbabwe style (because he was white -
that was his crime). The farms lie derelict. Soon South Africa will be
the new Zimbabwe. The current leader was also a terorist. Ultimately
though the whites are to blame for trying to take a stone-age people
to the 21st century.
K.
Ian Smith
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:vKQdk.16149$Ec....@read2.cgocable.net...
>>
>> "The Highlander" <mic...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:c1db7d5d-4726-4449-8360-
fcf839...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Dammit, I was going to say all that! Hmph! I was thinking of starting a
collection of Nazi artifacts. Unfortunately, Ebay has banned the sale of
such. Perhaps a wee visit to the Barras...
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 11, 6:46 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :The woman is a fool, pure and simple.
:> :Noone is stopping her from having *white pride*, what authorities are
:> :responding to, is the Swastika and other Nazi symbols.
:> :Canada more that did her part in beating the Nazi pestilence in WWII, why
:> :should it's regalia be allowed now ?
:> :
:>
:> Why shouldn't it be? Are you afraid Canadians are so weak minded that
:> they might flock to Nazism if someone is allowed to wear a swastika?
:>
:> If government can outlaw views and their expression, what's to stop
:> them from outlawing YOUR views one of these days?
:>
:> --
:> "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right
:> to say it."
:> -- Voltaire
:
:Voltaire never said that. A lady named Evelyn Beatrice Hall did,
:intending to summarize his attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius
:and his controversial book "De l'esprit", but it was mistaken for an
:actual quote from Voltaire and has been erroneously assigned to him
:ever since.
:
:What a pity you didn't have a British education. At my school I would
:have been thrashed for such an appalling blooper.
:
Yes, it's a pity I didn't have a British education. Then I, too,
could get the occasional bit of literary minutia correct while getting
virtually everything else wrong.
:
:To continue: The question at hand is not one of the right to say or
:not say something which others might consider socially unacceptable.
:
:For example, if I were to refer to Ramabriga as Ramanigger, some
:people would no doubt be amused, while Ramabriga himself would no
:doubt be outraged, along with those who would see it as racism. And as
:racism is intended to disparage and denigrate those of a different
:skin colour or whose social mores vary from those of the person making
:a racist remark, it is not unreasonable to believe that such remarks
:could lead to a breach of the peace, rioting and murder. In fact,
:anything to do with White Power often ends violently and is clearly
:aimed at doing so, despite claims that White Power is exercising its
:right to freedom of speech. In a nutshell, we are back to the shouting
:of "Fire" in a crowded theatre, of which American Justice Oliver
:Wendell Holmes, Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free
:speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater," a
:judgement which has stood the test of time in most jurisdictions.
:
But here you attempt to conflate two things that are unrelated.
Political speech, even offensive political speech, is NOT tantamount
to raising a false alarm in a theater. By your reasoning above, ALL
political speech should be outlawed, as it could certainly "lead to a
breach of the peace, rioting, and murder".
The burning of the American flag (a political statement) is
stringently protected political speech. This despite how the
overwhelming majority of Americans feel about people doing it.
By your lights, all the more egregious and vituperative criticism of
George Bush ought to be illegal, since there are going to be people
who vehemently disagree with them and who find them offensive.
:
:In Canada, making threats is treated as a physical assault. Marching
:in a parade shouting "Kill the (target group)!" will get you jail
:time. And it is threatening behaviour towards a racial or ethnic group
:that most authorities are anxious to stop before it becomes a riot and
:people get hurt or killed and, horror of horror, tourists stop coming
:and large companies move to another city.
:
Once again you attempt to conflate something unrelated in order to
bolster your argument. No one in the case under discussion had
engaged in any "threatening behaviour". Certainly no one was calling
for the killing of anyone.
What it seems to come down to is that speech that YOU don't like is
'dangerous' and should be prohibited (according to you). That's all
well and good until the folks making the rules decide that it is YOUR
views that are 'dangerous'.
A pity you didn't have the advantage of a United States education,
where they teach the actual application of logic as an accompaniment
to debating tactics.
<snip further irrelevancies>
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
The Highlander
What a pity you don't grow up and behave like a gentleman, instead of
the foul-mannered attention seeker that you are.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
news:487897b9$0$6121$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
. She asked for trouble, and
> got it.
So sporting a symbol that represents one's viewpoint in Canada is 'Asking
for trouble' is it?
Remind me never to go there. Better warn all those wearing crucifixs around
their necks to steer clear too.
The whole idea of legalised kidnapping of peoples children as a response to
someone's political leanings (regardless of wether they are commies, facists
or raving loonies) is absolutely outrageous - I hope those responsible in
the 'authorities' end up in their own Nazi jails. Bastards!
Fred J. McCall
:
'Gentlemen' don't whinge and immediately resort to personal attack
when bested in discussion. Such behaviour as you just engaged in is
considered unmannerly even among the English.
What a pity YOU don't grow up and behave like a gentleman, instead of
the foul-mannered attention seeker that you are.
--
Ian Smith
> "Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
> news:487897b9$0$6121$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
> . She asked for trouble, and
>> got it.
>
> So sporting a symbol that represents one's viewpoint in Canada is
> 'Asking for trouble' is it?
Only in the context of her (presumably) knowing what communist,
interfering *rseholes are now in charge. In a properly free society, one
would _not_ be asking for trouble. Just to clarify.
> Remind me never to go there. Better warn all those wearing crucifixs
> around their necks to steer clear too.
>
> The whole idea of legalised kidnapping of peoples children as a response
> to someone's political leanings (regardless of wether they are commies,
> facists or raving loonies) is absolutely outrageous - I hope those
> responsible in the 'authorities' end up in their own Nazi jails.
> Bastards!
Those interfering b*stards are Nazis themselves!
I wonder if the same would've happened in Scotland. The "social services"
here are quite good at interference, and they too are blighted with that
handicap of political correctness.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:05:03 +1000, Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>
>> "Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
>> news:487897b9$0$6121$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> . She asked for trouble, and
>>> got it.
>>
>> So sporting a symbol that represents one's viewpoint in Canada is
>> 'Asking for trouble' is it?
>
>
> Only in the context of her (presumably) knowing what communist,
> interfering *rseholes are now in charge.
I don't suppose she imagined for a second that the state would kidnap her
children.
In a properly free society, one
> would _not_ be asking for trouble. Just to clarify.
Stop agreeing with me - it's really annoying.
>
>
>> Remind me never to go there. Better warn all those wearing crucifixs
>> around their necks to steer clear too.
>>
>> The whole idea of legalised kidnapping of peoples children as a response
>> to someone's political leanings (regardless of wether they are commies,
>> facists or raving loonies) is absolutely outrageous - I hope those
>> responsible in the 'authorities' end up in their own Nazi jails.
>> Bastards!
>
> Those interfering b*stards are Nazis themselves!
>
> I wonder if the same would've happened in Scotland. The "social services"
> here are quite good at interference, and they too are blighted with that
> handicap of political correctness.
But surely they are not yet completely unhinged?
Maybe I've been away too long.
I wasn't kidding about my Nephew tattooing a swastika on his hand.
Due to our bizaar family structure he is only a year yonger than me and we
were more like brothers as kids.
Anyway, it wasn't such a great idea in the 60's either and he caught a lot
of flak for it. He and 2 or 3 other kids took a notion to use ink and a
needle for a spot of DIY artwork.
Point being that, although they got a LOT of flak from their parents (and
eventually my nephew had a swallow proffesionaly tatooed over the top) the
reaction of schoolteachers and other 'authority figures' was usually a sad
shake of the head at the stupidity of youth.. There was no suggestion that a
SWAT team might descend from helicopers and round up the neighbourhoods
children.
An infallible method of encouraging fascism is to drive it underground where
the filth can breed out of sight.
If someone in my country is a Nazi I want to know all about it.
We should encourage them to wear their badges right in the middle of their
protruding foreheads SFAIAC.
The Highlander
> "Ian Smith" <ianinho...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4879cd9e$0$20072$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:05:03 +1000, Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>
What should be born in mind is that the Nazi swastika is the symbol of
a lost cause, so by extrapolation, people who wear or display
swastikas are acknowledging that they are losers.
deem...@aol.com
Hey to the Confederate flag and Hammer and Sickle.
sandy58
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Ian Smith" <ianin...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
:>
:> In a properly free society, one
:> would _not_ be asking for trouble. Just to clarify.
:>
:
:Stop agreeing with me - it's really annoying.
If you find it annoying, just imagine how I feel about BOTH of you
agreeing with me...
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
Cory Bhreckan
The word swastika comes from Sanskrit svástika. The symbol is important
to Hindus, the Nazis stole it.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
The Highlander
Rudyard Kipling used to have it printed on his books, using it as the
Hindu religious symbol that it is.
And as I recollect (I can't find my Chinese character dictionary) it
was used, reversed, in old Chinese writing to signify Buddhism, but
has been replaced in Mandarin Chinese with two other characters, "fó
jiào".
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
It has been found in the ruins of Troy and was also linked
to the Medusa by the ancient Greeks. Among the Greeks it apparently
represented continual/frenzied motion. To the Hindus I think it
represented duality. Also, swastikas have been found among the Native
Americans of the US southwest.
Some of these are recersed from the Nazi symbol.
conwaycaine
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e165bba3-1628-49d5...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 13, 5:40 pm, Cory Bhreckan <coryvrec...@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:
> The Highlander wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 5:56 am, "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <ador@ble> wrote:
> >> "Ian Smith" <ianinho...@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message
> The word swastika comes from Sanskrit svástika. The symbol is important
> to Hindus, the Nazis stole it.
>
> -
It has been found in the ruins of Troy and was also linked
to the Medusa by the ancient Greeks. Among the Greeks it apparently
represented continual/frenzied motion. To the Hindus I think it
represented duality. Also, swastikas have been found among the Native
Americans of the US southwest.
Some of these are recersed from the Nazi symbol.
********************************************
The Cherokee also used the symbol, albeit a reverse swastika.
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Cool, I'd only read about the SW....a National Guard division
from AZ and NM had the swastika as their symbol....it got changed
shortly after we got into WW2.
sandy58
EXTRAPOLATION indeed, Plastic Sheep-Shagger? WOW! We ARE dredging out
the jaw-breakers! To what/whom do we own THIS dubious pleasure? You
are really trying SO hard to be noticed. Lemme tell you, Miss
KnowNowt....if you grew another head......you'd be noticed as bongos.
Nothing else. Bin your collection of "big writing" dictionaries and
buy a Rubic's Cube, arsehole. Now THAT'S EXTRAPOLATION........in a
freakin' nutshell. :-)
Adam Whyte-Settlar
And as I recollect (I can't find my Chinese character dictionary) it
was used, reversed, in old Chinese writing to signify Buddhism,
I was given a little silver swastika pendant as a present from a girl I was
going out with but I had to stop wearing it as, in 1970's Scotland, the
Fascist connotations far outweighed all others.
conwaycaine
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9febff74-6d05-49ec...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
***********
I first saw the symbol when I was a wee lad.
I thought at the time, the Cherokee might be supporting the nazis.
My mother soon disabused me of that notion.
conwaycaine
"sandy58" <alec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:eff67db8-b2ba-4a5c...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
<Snip>
Jaysus, we've drawn yet another............
The Highlander
You're really losing it, aren't you? It's pretty clear that you have a
medical or mental problem.
Jeffrey Hamilton
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c13g74du5qkvrp8m1...@4ax.com...
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> :
> :The woman is a fool, pure and simple.
> :Noone is stopping her from having *white pride*, what authorities are
> :responding to, is the Swastika and other Nazi symbols.
> :Canada more that did her part in beating the Nazi pestilence in WWII, why
> :should it's regalia be allowed now ?
> :
>
> Why shouldn't it be? Are you afraid Canadians are so weak minded that
> they might flock to Nazism if someone is allowed to >wear a swastika?
No, I'm not afraid of that. Canadian's paid a heavy price defeating the Nazi
pestilence. Why allow it's dogma or symbol's to gain recognition again.
These are not symbols that IMHO should be celebrated. YMMV.
This *mother* drew a Swastika on her daughters arm and sent her to school,
it was erased by a teacher and this *mother* then redrew the Swastika and
sent her daughter back to school.
This *mother* was looking for a fight, congratulations, mission
accomplished.
Now she is worried, as well she should be.
Society now has the obligation to ensure that this *mother* is indeed fit to
raise a child.
Children are born without prejudice, this *mother* would saddle her child
with prejudice. Not a good quality.
I believe that by sending her child to school, decorated with Nazi insignia,
this *mother* is in fact endangering her child.
Let's at least err on the side of caution and investigate.
I'm not espousing that her child be taken from her, unless she is of course
too totally inept to raise a child.
> If government can outlaw views and their expression, >what's to stop
> them from outlawing YOUR views one of these days?
Society has a right to expect protection from certain elements. The
government has an obligation to investigate and enforce, if society demands
it.
cheers....Jeff
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:c13g74du5qkvrp8m1...@4ax.com...
:> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:> :
:> :The woman is a fool, pure and simple.
:> :Noone is stopping her from having *white pride*, what authorities are
:> :responding to, is the Swastika and other Nazi symbols.
:> :Canada more that did her part in beating the Nazi pestilence in WWII, why
:> :should it's regalia be allowed now ?
:> :
:>
:> Why shouldn't it be? Are you afraid Canadians are so weak minded that
:> they might flock to Nazism if someone is allowed to >wear a swastika?
:
:No, I'm not afraid of that. Canadian's paid a heavy price defeating the Nazi
:pestilence. Why allow it's dogma or symbol's to gain recognition again.
:These are not symbols that IMHO should be celebrated. YMMV.
:
Who said anything about 'celebrating' them? I merely think that
outlawing political expressions because the politics they support are
unpopular, stupid, evil or whatever is a poor course for an ostensibly
free country.
:
:This *mother* drew a Swastika on her daughters arm and sent her to school,
:it was erased by a teacher and this *mother* then redrew the Swastika and
:sent her daughter back to school.
:This *mother* was looking for a fight, congratulations, mission
:accomplished.
:
This *mother* thought it wasn't the place of the teacher to do that
sort of thing. She's right on that, no matter how stupid her
political views may be.
:
:Now she is worried, as well she should be.
:Society now has the obligation to ensure that this *mother* is indeed fit to
:raise a child.
:
Why just her? Why not EVERY mother?
:
:Children are born without prejudice, this *mother* would saddle her child
:with prejudice. Not a good quality.
:
No, children are the most prejudiced little buggers in existence.
Is it your view that it is the job of the State to determine what
personal beliefs parents may or may not impart to their children? If
so, who gets to draw THAT line?
Sounds like time to take away ALL the children and have them
brainwashed, er, RAISED by the State so we can be sure that they
believe what the State thinks they should.
Let's outlaw lots of other beliefs while we're at it...
:
:I believe that by sending her child to school, decorated with Nazi insignia,
:this *mother* is in fact endangering her child.
:
Why? Because the 'good' people might physically attack her?
Nothing like mob justice, I always say...
:
:Let's at least err on the side of caution and investigate.
:
:I'm not espousing that her child be taken from her, unless she is of course
:too totally inept to raise a child.
:
:> If government can outlaw views and their expression, >what's to stop
:> them from outlawing YOUR views one of these days?
:
:Society has a right to expect protection from certain elements. The
:government has an obligation to investigate and enforce, if society demands
:it.
:
Great. So you actually ESPOUSE the sort of society that Hitler
wanted, where the State indoctrinated everyone?