Is the Swastika an evil symbol?

[MeMyselfAndI]

A friend of mine has a hobby, he collects old money. Recently he showed me a Tsarist-era 250 Ruble bill he has
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YdwA1wl6avk/TTZojtNy9lI/AAAAAAAACls/UOf1EbHeJAs/s1600/Capture+2.PNG

When I saw swastikas on Russian money it shocked me at first. Then, i started thinking.

A. The Kolovrat aka 'Wheel of Fire', the symbol of Jarilo, ancient Slavic God of the Sun is one of the most common among Russian pagans to this day
http://www.wulflund.com/images_items/silver-kolovrat-slavic-sun-wheel-pendant-ag-925_2.jpg
http://www.wulflund.com/images_items/slavic-greybeard-kolovrat_3.jpg
Regular pagans wear pendants like these because it is believed Jarilo brings luck, as well as sexual prowess in men and fertility in women. Certain Slavic nationalist groups have stolen the symbol and use it on their flags and such, but you can't blame the symbol itself for that. In itself, the Kolovrat does not stand for anything bad or evil.

B. In India, a swastika-like symbol represents the Hindu God Gamesha (I believe)
http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/yogi_bhajan_borg.jpg
http://aleximreh.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/swastika-on-terracotta-plate-wall-hanging-bp95_l.jpg

Both of these are ancient symbols that originated long before Nazism.

However, I also know that in the Tsars' Russia, the level of anti-Semitism and Judophobia often enough matched and surpassed that in Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s. Black Hundred militias and Cossacks attacked and robbed and massacred Jewish people, raped their girls and women... Horrible things happened.

At the same time, the swastika on money may have been a nod to the ancient Kolovrat, nothing more. The Germans, Hitler, may have known about anti-Jewish hatred in Russia before 1917, and he may have seen the swastika on our old money. That is where he may have gathered the idea for Nazism.

That is a scary thought indeed....

[Donkey]

Not an evil symbol. Certainly not. But it has such a stigma, that just about anyone (except in very specific ancient traditions) using it is being deliberatively provocative.

[JHC]

In India it is common to find the swastika in commercial use and residences often have swastikas painted on the entry door.

Hitler just borrowed it.

How can any symbol be evil? They are symbols - inanimate, soulless objects. Of course, they are also tools and using it in the West is verboten.

(:sneaky: See what I did there? Verboten... tee hee)

[MeMyselfAndI]

Not an evil symbol. Certainly not. But it has such a stigma, that just about anyone (except in very specific ancient traditions) using it is being deliberatively provocative.

Well, I am from the Russian North, where there are many Slavic Pagans. I have a few in my family. many are frustrated than when they come to the city (Arkhangelsk) and wear their Kolovrat pendants, people think they are nazi... :)

In India it is common to find the swastika in commercial use and residences often have swastikas painted on the entry door.

Hitler just borrowed it.

How can any symbol be evil? They are symbols - inanimate, soulless objects. Of course, they are also tools and using it in the West is verboten.

(:sneaky: See what I did there? Verboten... tee hee)

Exactly.

[Greendruid]

The symbol is also common among some American SW groups. I can't remember which ones ATM but I'll go and look for some in a bit and re-post. Ultimately, the interesting thing to me about the symbol globally is it is always representative of the sun and/or a wheel to the cultures that originate them. Certainly not an evil symbol in my book. Unfortunately, tainted with the association to Nazism, its most recent and most famous use gives it some very bad intentions. The first thought when you see one is not of its uses outside of this very specific one.

[Greendruid]

Quite a good Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) on the topic actually. I had no idea of its use in Kabbala either! That changes everything. Regardless, a very ancient symbol pan-globally.

[Michael]

I discovered the multiple meanings of the swastika when I was a child on my first visit to the local museum here. There in one of the atriums stands (or rather sits) a VERY LARGE stone Bhudda (30' tall) - adorned with a swastika symbol necklace.

I asked about it and got very unsatisfactory answer from the teacher/tour-guide, so I looked it up when I got home. The symbol definitely has very ancient traditional usage in India.

As for usage, I think that context is everything. If the symbol is used in a traditional context, no problem. Using that symbol otherwise, in western countries is a defacto statement of racism and hatemongering and will be treated accordingly.

[The Drunk Guy]

It is a religious symbol, first and foremost. Even Hitler used it as such. Nazism was as much a cult as a club for the nastiest villains of the modern era.

I wouldn't call it evil as it is just a symbol, but I won't be wearing it around my neck anytime soon.

[Americano]

It is a religious symbol, first and foremost. Even Hitler used it as such. Nazism was as much a cult as a club for the nastiest villains of the modern era.

I wouldn't call it evil as it is just a symbol, but I won't be wearing it around my neck anytime soon.

Charles Manson has one tattooed on his forehead right between his eyes. He was certainly a cult leader.

[Michael]

Charles Manson has one tattooed on his forehead right between his eyes. He was certainly a cult leader.

Charlie Manson deserves a picture, if only because he's still alive!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tHyVWN_FhI0/TTMVL41jCmI/AAAAAAAABHE/G1vIGy1hEfc/s1600/charles%2Bmanson_frie.jpg

[Greendruid]

Wasn't that Charles Manson tattoo originally just an X? I have to look that one up. My only objection to the Wiki article is its complete Indo-Euro-centric question of looking for the origins of the symbol ... while ignoring any uses outside of the Indo-European spectrum. Typical.

[Greendruid]

Ah yes. Here is an excerpt from this Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson):

Originally, Judge William Keene had reluctantly granted Manson permission to act as his own attorney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se). Because of Manson's conduct, including violations of a gag order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order) and submission of "outlandish" and "nonsensical" pretrial motions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28legal%29), the permission was withdrawn before the trial's start.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#cite_note-bugliosi-1):200–202, 265 Manson filed an affidavit of prejudice against Keene, who was replaced by Judge Charles H. Older (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Older).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#cite_note-bugliosi-1):290 On Friday, July 24, the first day of testimony, Manson appeared in court with an X carved into his forehead. He issued a statement that he was "considered inadequate and incompetent to speak or defend [him]self" — and had "X'd [him]self from [the establishment's] world."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#cite_note-bugliosi-1):310[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#cite_note-58) Over the following weekend, the female defendants duplicated the mark on their own foreheads, as did most Family members within another day or so.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#cite_note-bugliosi-1):316 (Manson's X was eventually replaced by a swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika). See "Remaining in view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#Remaining_in_view)", below.)

[MeMyselfAndI]

Wasn't that Charles Manson tattoo originally just an X? I have to look that one up. My only objection to the Wiki article is its complete Indo-Euro-centric question of looking for the origins of the symbol ... while ignoring any uses outside of the Indo-European spectrum. Typical.

What happens is, certain groups would take a symbol, twist around its meaning, and adapt it to their, often not so good, values and ideology.

Like with Kolovrat.

As I said, Pagan Wheel of Fire
http://stat17.privet.ru/lr/091d75c107d4111187b06042ca2fd0d3

Represents Sun-God Jarilo
http://drevnerus.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/yarilo.jpg

Many normal, law-abiding pagans wear colovrat pendants
http://www.thepaganfront.com/utgard/images/ukrash/kulony/kolovrat1.jpg
Just like Orthodox Christians wear ones with the crucifix.

But the symbol is now used also by rock group Kolovrat
http://news.nswap.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/452.jpg
This group is known nationalist and neo nazi sympathizers, their songs are about Slavic supremacy, Orthodox Christian nationalism, white power, and stuff like that; and their concerts are attended mostly by skinheads.

Many pagans, actually, are angry that one of their most important symbols is being used this way. In Republic of Karelia, recently, a massive crowd of local pagans disrupted a Kolovrat concert, tore their posters off the walls, and tried to beat them up, fought with skinheads and nationalists who defended them. Hundreds of OMON troops had to go there to drag them apart... It is good to see :)

[JHC]

It is a religious symbol, first and foremost. Even Hitler used it as such. Nazism was as much a cult as a club for the nastiest villains of the modern era.

I wouldn't call it evil as it is just a symbol, but I won't be wearing it around my neck anytime soon.

Oh yeah! Good point!

[MeMyselfAndI]

Oh yeah! Good point!

Offensiveness of symbols, particularly religious symbols, is a matter of argument.

In Italy, just recently, they decided it is okay to have crucifixes on walls of schools (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12791082)

A ridiculous thing to me, why would a cross offend someone. But it had to take Europe's Human Rights Court to decide it...

[The Drunk Guy]

Offensiveness of symbols, particularly religious symbols, is a matter of argument.

In Italy, just recently, they decided it is okay to have crucifixes on walls of schools (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12791082)

A ridiculous thing to me, why would a cross offend someone. But it had to take Europe's Human Rights Court to decide it...
There is a thin line separating offensiveness and inappropriateness. ;) The cross may not be offensive, but I hardly see how it is appropriate in a secular classroom.

[Michael]

A ridiculous thing to me, why would a cross offend someone. But it had to take Europe's Human Rights Court to decide it...

A cross on the wall is a specific religious symbol. A classroom is a taxpayer funded secular institution that is meant to serve for all citizens, regardless of their religious views. A cross on the wall in that context signals that religion as the 'official-state-sanctioned' religion - and conversely - asserts that all other religions are not state-sanctioned.

Ergo, any religious symbol displayed in any taxpayer funded institution that serves the public is obnoxious.

Us western nations suffered 300 years of serious religious violence and religious intolerance before we managed to work out the secular rules that ended that shit and allows our societies the kind of civil peace, freedom and prosperty that we take for granted over here and few places on the globe actually have.

[Americano]

Us western nations suffered 300 years of serious religious violence and religious intolerance before we managed to work out the secular rules that ended that shit and allows our societies the kind of civil peace, freedom and prosperty that we take for granted over here and few places on the globe actually have.

Ended the public portion of that shit. Active religious intolerance is alive and thriving in many US Bible Belt States, much of Texas and all of Utah.

[Michael]

Ended the public portion of that shit. Active religious intolerance is alive and thriving in many US Bible Belt States, much of Texas and all of Utah.

That's specifically an American and recent phenomenum, dating from the early 1950's. Indeed, the rise of the US religious rightwing appears to correlate closely with the rise of the US M-I-C at the same time.

[MeMyselfAndI]

There is a thin line separating offensiveness and inappropriateness. ;) The cross may not be offensive, but I hardly see how it is appropriate in a secular classroom.

A cross on the wall is a specific religious symbol. A classroom is a taxpayer funded secular institution that is meant to serve for all citizens, regardless of their religious views. A cross on the wall in that context signals that religion as the 'official-state-sanctioned' religion - and conversely - asserts that all other religions are not state-sanctioned.

Ergo, any religious symbol displayed in any taxpayer funded institution that serves the public is obnoxious.

Us western nations suffered 300 years of serious religious violence and religious intolerance before we managed to work out the secular rules that ended that shit and allows our societies the kind of civil peace, freedom and prosperty that we take for granted over here and few places on the globe actually have.

Well, as a Russian, I have a different view, from our history.

First, my father is a Old Believer, a Dukhobor, a Old Way Orthodox Christian. His ancestors, just 100 years ago, were persecuted for their faith. In fact, just recently, he helped a long-lost relative, Arseniy, and his family resettle in Russia, in my parents' town, as they returned from exile in South America
http://ddtsovremennik.spb.ru/old/Otdely/FE/gornitsa/semya/img/19.jpg
Thousands of Old Way families are returning to Russia every year. Their ancestors ran away to Australia and the Americas from the Tsars and their endless wrath.

Their religion, and their way of life (in which their religion played a large part) were banned. Their settlements were attacked by Cossacks and other pro-government, pro-mainstream Orthodox Church zealots. They were robbed, raped, killed. Their homes and places of worship ransacked and burnt.

Why? Because they cross themselves with 2 fingers, not 3, like the mainstream Orthodox. Also, Old Way does not require a intermediery between yourself and God, there is no clergy, you just pray yourself, directly. That's bad for the official Church, obviously. :) That's why the church still dislikes them, but Putin restrains them today. He likes Old Wayers: they are good success story for his demography policy, have large families; plus, they are stoic and hardworking, maintain large farms, in East Siberia, they grow half that region's potatos now.

Anyway, that's my one point. My number two is, when the Bolsheviks came to power, all religion was banned. All of it.

http://img0.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/0//44/790/44790572_hrama_Hrista_Spasitelya_vzruyv.jpg
That's Bolsheviks blowing up the original Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. Iconic photo today. Enlarged one hangs in the lobby of the new Cathedral. A sort of 'never again' type of thing.

Repression of religion leads to nothing good, my friends. Godless regimes do not last. USSR fell. China is now loosening restrictions on Buddhism, Taosim, Confucianism, and even somewhat on Islam, for Uighurs and Huis.

I am a secular person, but I do not support repression of religion, banning religion from schools. I am concerned that in this country, people are sometimes becoming too religious. But, that is a whole other discussion. ;)

[Greendruid]

That's specifically an American and recent phenomenum, dating from the early 1950's. Indeed, the rise of the US religious rightwing appears to correlate closely with the rise of the US M-I-C at the same time.

Not sure if you're referring to the religious intolerance or the public portion Americano cited. Either way, both of these thrive in rural Canada. Public schools here regularly hold Christmas pageants and Easter parades. I hoping we can put the funds together to send our son to a private school. I never thought I would have to come to that but the discrimination here is overt and disgusting. The bizarre thing is that there is no separate school board like there is in Ontario. Perhaps this is the root cause of the problem.

[Michael]

Not sure if you're referring to the religious intolerance or the public portion Americano cited. Either way, both of these thrive in rural Canada. Public schools here regularly hold Christmas pageants and Easter parades. I hoping we can put the funds together to send our son to a private school. I never thought I would have to come to that but the discrimination here is overt and disgusting. The bizarre thing is that there is no separate school board like there is in Ontario. Perhaps this is the root cause of the problem.

I was specifically referring to the public portion of civil society.

Smaller rural communities in the 'outback' tend to be close-minded and provincial by definition and always have been. Nothing unusual there. The poorer they are, the more close-minded it seems. You don't have those problems in the larger cosmopolitan cities and their surrounding suburbs - where the vast majority of the population actually lives.

Btw, I don't think separate school boards are the solution at all - that is a retrogressive step that is more reflective of political comprimise rather than an admirable policy. The Catholic School Board in Ontario is popular and successful (amongst non-Catholics) because the regular School Boards are so badly run by the politicians and education bureaucrats engaging in social engineering games and ignoring old school education priorities. The Catholic School Board also benefits from the 'cherry-picking' game that makes Charter schools also look good. All the worst cases are always left for the public school board to deal with.

The real problem is the parochial traditions of religious discrimination upon which many of these small rural enclaves were built on. Defending such parochialism and discrimination is part and parcel of celebrating and maintaining local culture, customs and tradition.

It does seem as if religious tolerance requires a 'critical mass' to become effective. That is present in the larger cities - it is not usually available in smaller, isolated or rural communities where religious discrimination is practiced if only because it is part of the traditional culture of the place.

[Greendruid]

It does seem as if religious tolerance requires a 'critical mass' to become effective. That is present in the larger cities - it is not usually available in smaller, isolated or rural communities where religious discrimination is practiced if only because it is part of the traditional culture of the place.

The real problem lies in the fact that it's completely illegal in this country under the charter. The Catch-22 of it all comes down to this - who wants to make their child a poster-child for their religious freedoms? It's my fight, not his. The opposition knows this and it drives me mad.

[MeMyselfAndI]

I was specifically referring to the public portion of civil society.

Smaller rural communities in the 'outback' tend to be close-minded and provincial by definition and always have been. Nothing unusual there. The poorer they are, the more close-minded it seems. You don't have those problems in the larger cosmopolitan cities and their surrounding suburbs - where the vast majority of the population actually lives.

Btw, I don't think separate school boards are the solution at all - that is a retrogressive step that is more reflective of political comprimise rather than an admirable policy. The Catholic School Board in Ontario is popular and successful (amongst non-Catholics) because the regular School Boards are so badly run by the politicians and education bureaucrats engaging in social engineering games and ignoring old school education priorities. The Catholic School Board also benefits from the 'cherry-picking' game that makes Charter schools also look good. All the worst cases are always left for the public school board to deal with.

The real problem is the parochial traditions of religious discrimination upon which many of these small rural enclaves were built on. Defending such parochialism and discrimination is part and parcel of celebrating and maintaining local culture, customs and tradition.

It does seem as if religious tolerance requires a 'critical mass' to become effective. That is present in the larger cities - it is not usually available in smaller, isolated or rural communities where religious discrimination is practiced if only because it is part of the traditional culture of the place.

Well, as far as rural vs urban, and traditions vs discrimination, here is a interesting case for you.

One of the best mountain skiing areas here in Russia are the Altai mountains, in Southern Siberia, near Mongolia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynqWzoS371Y

Many skiers go there every year, from all over Siberia, and all around the country.

The biggest and best one is the Belukha mountain
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/2006-07_altaj_belucha.jpg

The ethnic Altai people are the indigenous population in the area, around 70,000 of them in their tiny Altai Republic
http://www.birdsandpeople.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1512.jpg

In recent years, the Altai have increasingly protested skiing activities on Belukha, or as they know it in their language, Muztau.

They say that is a sacred mountain. 'Home of Ulgen, the kind Creator Spirit' or something of that sort. Their shamans do not allow them to even look at it
http://s45.radikal.ru/i108/0902/ec/820509861236.jpg

So to them, people skiing on their Muztau is as offensive as, in the words of shaman Ignas Shendekov, pictured above, as if 'I went to Moscow, climbed on the roof of Cathedral of Christ the savior, and started dancing and jumping around up there. Orthodox people would not like that very much, yes?'

What do you think of that? Should the beliefs of a ethnic group trump large tourist profits for a region? :)

[Michael]

What do you think of that? Should the beliefs of a ethnic group trump large tourist profits for a region? :)

I'm a democrat. The will of the majority, or the power of the market, will both overpower such a micro-minority.

[MeMyselfAndI]

I'm a democrat. The will of the majority, or the power of the market, will both overpower such a micro-minority.

Well, you'd be surprised, my friend. The Altai are a small nation, but a proud, studdorn, and resilient one, as we have found out particularly in the last couple of years.

Back in 2005, another small indegenous Siberian nation, the Evenki, lost their autonomous territory, Evenk Autonomous Okrug, Evenkia, as it became a part of the new huge Krasnoyarsk krai. The 10,000 Evenki people were mixed into the new territory with 3 million Christian Slavs. Today, they complain that their culture is being destroyed, their language is becoming extinct.

Well, in 2008, Putin wanted to untite the Altai Republic, a population of 200,000 with 70,000 ethnic Altai, with Altai krai, population 2.5 million, 98% Christian and Slavic. The Altai decided this must not happen. They must be allowed to live on their lands, with their lifestyle and culture. They do not mind that they are a minority in their own republic, as most Slavs who live there have made friends with their Altai neighbors, adopted many of their customs and traditions, and some even their shamanist faith, which the youth finds more interesting than Orthodoxy :) But, they feared that among two and a half million Slavs, the 70,000 of them would dissolve like sugar in tea.

So, they protested. By the thousands they took to the streets; blocked a Federal roadway, and the main railway; wrote letters to Putin, to Medvedev who'd just become President then, to Duma members, etc. Well, eventually Putin said to leave them alone. They'd prevailed, against Moscow.

Earned the respect of the rest of the country too.

Don't underestimate them :D

[Michael]

Well, you'd be surprised, my friend. The Altai are a small nation, but a proud, studdorn, and resilient one, as we have found out particularly in the last couple of years.
You don't have a democracy, therefore your rulers have no moral authority to rule. That makes ruling very difficult - it means playing endless games of balancing regions, egos and political strongmen - and making 'theater' of political decisions.

Actual democratic willpower can steamroller over those things - and it does it with the righteousness of absolute moral authority that forces the losers to apologize for it.

[Non Sequitur]

You don't have a democracy, therefore your rulers have no moral authority to rule. That makes ruling very difficult - it means playing endless games of balancing regions, egos and political strongmen - and making 'theater' of political decisions.

Actual democratic willpower can steamroller over those things - and it does it with the righteousness of absolute moral authority that forces the losers to apologize for it.

moral authority to rule? :confused:

[Donkey]

moral authority to rule? :confused:

Divine right of kings and whatnot. :D

[Michael]

moral authority to rule? :confused:

What else should one call it?

Putin, like most dictators, rules entirely based on the implied threat of force.

Western leaders are able to rule based on the rule of law - and the moral imperative that the law is right. Citizens follow the law not because of the implied threat of violence, but because respecting the law is the morally right thing to do.

[Michael]

Divine right of kings and whatnot. :D

That dogma has been defeated. Only the demos has that divine right now. All other claims of right are spurious.

[Americano]

What else should one call it?

Putin, like most dictators, rules entirely based on the implied threat of force.

Western leaders are able to rule based on the rule of law - and the moral imperative that the law is right. Citizens follow the law not because of the implied threat of violence, but because respecting the law is the morally right thing to do.

The US, with by far the largest per-capita number of incarcerated citizens of any developed nation, hasn't had much success in legislating morality to impose respect. There's far too much money to be made in imprisonment from law enforcement through the judicial system and prisons. Why use violence to gain respect when a wide swath of society can be enriched at government expense? Corruption has many facets.

[Michael]

The US, with by far the largest per-capita number of incarcerated citizens of any developed nation, hasn't had much success in legislating morality to impose respect. There's far too much money to be made in imprisonment from law enforcement through the judicial system and prisons. Why use violence to gain respect when a wide swath of society can be enriched at government expense? Corruption has many facets.

That all may be true, but I respectfully submit that the USA would be entirely ungovernable and chaotic if the vast majority of the people didn't live their lives according to the rule of law.

As long 80-90% of the people follow the law, just because it is the law, then the state can focus its enforcement efforts entirely upon the 10-15% of society that habitually seeks to ignore or abuse the law and/or law-abiding citizens.

Given a nation of several hundred million people like the USA, that small minority percentage would count in the tens of millions. There is plenty of room for institutional graft there.

[aquariusmediaa]

Good thread. I like the suggestions and views of all the members. Thanks for sharing it with me.Keep sharing.