Poll: Nazi symbolism

[nitsuj]

I recently took issue with a swastika imprinted into a concrete step at an appartment building I recently moved into.

It was only about 7 inches in diameter, and was imprinted into a concrete step so contrast was low. That being said once noticed, it was always noticed.

Anyways, from asking around I learned it has been there for at least a year.

One email to the property management company along with reference to a by law and the step was repaired within hours.

What a dichotomy, was I that overly sensitive to the symbolism of the graffiti. I appreciate the person who did this probably wasn't even a "nazi" let alone necessarily a racist, but still it's the symbolism of the image that irked me as to why it was there for at least a year.

I noticed a grammar error in the second poll option. "is" shouldn't be there, blame the editor.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Was the symbol parallel to the frame, or was it tilted at a 45 degree angle?

 

[Hobin]

I'm one of those rather young persons who hasn't really seen anything from the war or its effects, and I don't really care about the symbolism. However, I *do* know that there are a lot of people who feel insulted by it, and with few exceptions that really is the most plausable reason people are using the symbolism in the first place, so I don't much like it when I see it.

Nevertheless, I think people should be free to use whatever symbolism they want, as long as they're not destroying other people's property. And, in cases where other people's property is violated, the punishment should be the same regardless of whether some kind of offensive symbolism was used.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Perhaps most people either don't care, don't care enough to contact the apartment manager or care but didn't realize they could get it removed that easily.

Personally I wouldn't care too much is there was a swastika on the step outside where I lived purely because I have other things to be worrying about than a faded bit of graffeti. If I saw the apartment manager or had to talk to them about something more serious I might mention it but it wouldn't be a priority.

in cases where other people's property is violated, the punishment should be the same regardless of whether some kind of offensive symbolism was used.

Surely there is a difference between something like a Banksey work of art on the side of a pub in a cosmopoliton area and a racist slur against an ethnic minority on the side of their church/community centre? I'm not saying the first example is something that should be allowed (purely because it would encourage bad artists to try it out) but the latter is clearly a worse offence.

 

[micromass]

I noticed a grammar error in the second poll option. "is" shouldn't be there, blame the editor.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Hobin]

Surely there is a difference between something like a Banksey work of art on the side of a pub in a cosmopoliton area and a racist slur against an ethnic minority on the side of their church/community centre?

Ah, my apologies for being unclear. I didn't mean cases where people where actually trying to insult a specific person or group of people: a hate-crime, if you will. In those cases, yes, I think there is a very clear difference. What I was talking about was the use of 'general' 'offensive symbolism', such as a swastika on an office building, which has nothing to do with nazis or anything and is generally not intended to accuse people of being nazis, for example.

 

[thorium1010]

What a dichotomy, was I that overly sensitive to the symbolism of the graffiti. I appreciate the person who did this probably wasn't even a "nazi" let alone necessarily a racist, but still it's the symbolism of the image that irked me as to why it was there for at least a year.

First of all swastika as denoted is not a symbol invented by the nazi regime. It was adopted from asian culture by the nazi regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

And swastika is not German or English word, it's a Sanskrit word.

 

[Hobin]

First of all swatika as denoted is not a symbol invented by the nazi regime. It was adopted from asian culture by the nazi regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

I think most people here know this. But let's be realistic here. When people scratch the symbol on someone's wall, they're in nine out of ten cases not doing it to evoke 'shakti', or anything of the sort. They *know* they're insulting people by writing it.

 

[thorium1010]

I think most people here know this. But let's be realistic here. When people scratch the symbol on someone's wall, they're in nine out of ten cases not doing it to evoke 'shakti', or anything of the sort. They *know* they're insulting people by writing it.

Then you should also be knowing that people from asia use this symbol on dooors, buildings etc for good luck. So having overreaction would be a bad habit.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

if someone takes offense, or is annoyed by it, then it should be removed, as long as it's in a public area or whatever

most people who are into doodling swastikas are young fools who are tying to be "edgy" so I don't really see it as any consequence, at least in *most* situations

 

[micromass]

Then you should also be knowing that people from asia use this symbol on dooors, buildings etc for good luck. So having overreaction would be a bad habit.

So you REALLY think that a piece of graffiti of a swastika was being made by some kind of buddhist monk?? Let's be serious here.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

So you REALLY think that a piece of graffiti of a swastika was being made by some kind of buddhist monk?? Let's be serious here.

there's always a chance, which is what I think Jimmy might have been pointing out. However... I think it's also unlikely that some jerk sticking swastikas places is going to be 100% sure of the proper depiction of it. The kinds of people who probably couldn't find Germany on a map are the people I imagine doing this. At least in the USA.

 

[Hobin]

Then you should also be knowing that people from asia use this symbol on dooors, buildings etc for good luck. So having overreaction would be a bad habit.

The difference in design is usually quite obvious. If it's well-designed and has a central place on someone's door, or I know the people living there are 'spiritual' types, I'm not going to assume they made it because of hate. However, we were talking about the obvious big-black-cross type of things, or the ones that've been carbed in a wall by a knife. The people making those *know* (at least, they should) that others are going to associate these with WWII.

 

[jim hardy]

Probably a kid. Around age fourteen the boys are fascinated by power i think it's something to do with puberty. Mother Nature preparing them to leave the nest.

IMHO that's the downside of teaching holocaust in grade school. It presents Nazis as powerful.
Instead kids should be shown movies of Berlin Airlift and "Operation Little Vittles" where kindly airforce pilots dropped handkerchief parachutes loaded with gum and chocolates out their cockpit windows to the German children lining the airfield fences. There is some very touching newsreel footage out there.

Teach cruelty and you'll get cruelty. Teach kindness instead.

just my thought. I remember being fourteen...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Probably a kid. Around age fourteen the boys are fascinated by power i think it's something to do with puberty. Mother Nature preparing them to leave the nest.

IMHO that's the downside of teaching holocaust in grade school. It presents Nazis as powerful.

I don't specifically agree with the statement realting to teaching of the holocaust but I do think you touch on a point of how violence and the military are heroized (for want of a better word) to boys. IMO schools from the moment pupils enter should teach the positives of different cultures throughout history (with appropriate levels of critical thinking) along side teaching various horrific acts that people have conducted.

I remember being about 8 when at school we were studying the Romans. All the boys dressed up like soldiers and had a battle reinacter come and teach us how the Romans fought with their swords and shields. An important part of history perhaps but all it did was fixate in our minds that the Romans were cool and this is the best way to gut barbarians who resist being conquered and subjegated by your empire. Personally I think a more worthwhile lesson would have been to dress us up as Celts or some other tribal people, have us taught to reinact life in a Celtic villiage before having a phallanx of adults dressed as Romans come over the hill, "kill us" and take all our stuff. That would be a better lesson to learn about imperialism. I'm not trying to be overtly PC but there is too much militarism in the culture of western societies IMO and not enough emphasise on diplomacy and humanitarianism.

 

[Hobin]

I don't specifically agree with the statement realting to teaching of the holocaust but I do think you touch on a point of how violence and the military are heroized (for want of a better word) to boys.

Doesn't that just depend on where you went to school/who your parents are? When I was a young kid, I remember being told the exact opposite at school and by my parents: that the military was sucky and takes away your freedom, but that its existence was sadly necessary. I think this might just depend on the 'patriotism' of the average teacher.

Of course, you may be right in that the average person heroizes these things, but that has not been my experience.

 

[thorium1010]

So you REALLY think that a piece of graffiti of a swastika was being made by some kind of buddhist monk?? Let's be serious here.

Lets suppose what you are saying is right , the op has still not described the geometry or shape of the symbol to make any conclusion. Without proper facts it is difficult to say its a nazi symbol. And the Nazi symbol is quite different from the one used by asian culture .

 

[nitsuj]

Lets suppose what you are saying is right , the op has still not described the geometry or shape of the symbol to make any conclusion. Without proper facts it is difficult to say its a nazi symbol. And the Nazi symbol is quite different from the one used by asian culture .

The step is square, the symbol was on about a 45 to being squared with the step.

Given the context it was most definately meant to be a nuasance. Why not good ol' fashioned "f**k". that's offence to all equally.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The step is square, the symbol was on about a 45 to being squared with the step.

In my opinion, it is unlikely that the author of this symbol intended it as a religious one. The haste with which the property managers removed it is indicative of their distaste for the associations it brings. For this I applaud their action. This appears to be an act of desecration and if the guilty party could be identified it would expose them to legal action. Aside from the desecration issue, the symbol itself, upsetting as it is, should not be illegal in my opinion and should fall under free speech protection. From a purely practical point of view, it would be ironic if an authoritarian regime should take over and find that there was no need to impose censorship, such laws already being put in place by their opponents.

 

[russ_watters]

Surely there is a difference between something like a Banksey work of art on the side of a pub in a cosmopoliton area and a racist slur against an ethnic minority on the side of their church/community centre? I'm not saying the first example is something that should be allowed (purely because it would encourage bad artists to try it out) but the latter is clearly a worse offence.

Not in the US or, imo, a country that truly values the concept of freedom of speech. I recognize that some european countries ban public practice of naziism, but such a thing is inconceivable here.

That said, I still haven't written my essay against hate crime laws...

Edit: clarification: the post you responded to said nothing of a specific target of the message. That's harrassment. Lacking a specific target, the two acts are Constitutionally identical.

 

[nitsuj]

Ah ha, I think I'm getting at why I took issue with this.

I totally agree with Russ Watters & Jimmy on the free speech perspective.

That perspective imposed on property that since I moved onto I consider as partly my own. In turn any symbolism on the property is a reflection of me. (not in my backyard reasoning)


Yea super big kudos to the property management company for such a speedy repair. I totally wasn't expecting that.

 

[phoenix:\\]

if someone takes offense, or is annoyed by it, then it should be removed, as long as it's in a public area or whatever

I take offense to the act of women wearing clothing in public.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I take offense to the act of women wearing clothing in public.

touche!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Not in the US or, imo, a country that truly values the concept of freedom of speech. I recognize that some european countries ban public practice of naziism, but such a thing is inconceivable here.

That said, I still haven't written my essay against hate crime laws...

Edit: clarification: the post you responded to said nothing of a specific target of the message. That's harrassment. Lacking a specific target, the two acts are Constitutionally identical.

I contest this, it isn't a freedom of speech issue at all and I'm baffled as to why you brought that up. I do agree that harrassment is a separate issue.

 

[russ_watters]

I contest this, it isn't a freedom of speech issue at all and I'm baffled as to why you brought that up.

Perhaps I misunderstood, so I'll convey my understanding of your post:

You said a Nazi symbol in graffiti is worse than art in graffiti, right? The fundamental difference between the two is the message: one is positive or neutral and the other is hateful. So hateful graffiti would be a different (more serious) crime than artful graffiti due to the included hateful message.

Is any of that a misunderstanding of your post? This implies to me that if the same two pieces of graffiti were instead painted on a canvas and hung in an art gallery, one should still be censored -- as in my understanding, it would be in many European countries.

Perhaps the question I need to ask you is: worse how/in what sense? If the answer is that it is worse because it is posted on a synagogue, then I think you misread the post you were responding to.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Perhaps I misunderstood, so I'll convey my understanding of your post:

You said a Nazi symbol in graffiti is worse than art in graffiti, right? The fundamental difference between the two is the message: one is positive or neutral and the other is hateful. So hateful graffiti would be a different (more serious) crime than artful graffiti due to the included hateful message.

Yes that's my point.

Is any of that a misunderstanding of your post? This implies to me that if the same two pieces of graffiti were instead painted on a canvas and hung in an art gallery, one should still be censored -- as in my understanding, it would be in many European countries.

I don't agree that this follows, also there isn't that much censorship of Nazi behaviour in Europe. In Germany yes but I'm not aware of much elsewhere.

Perhaps the question I need to ask you is: worse how/in what sense? If the answer is that it is worse because it is posted on a synagogue, then I think you misread the post you were responding to.

I used my example of on a pub/church to highlight the difference but regardless of where it is put a hateful symbol is a hateful symbol. The real debate comes with what constitutes a hateful symbol e.g. is taking offence enough? How much should author intent matter? etc

 

[russ_watters]

Yes that's my point.

Ok - well that is what I was disagreeing with. The two acts are, in the US anyway, Constitutinoally identical unless you add to them a specific target of the speech. But the post you were responding to, there was no target. You added that.

I don't agree that this follows, also there isn't that much censorship of Nazi behaviour in Europe. In Germany yes but I'm not aware of much elsewhere.

France as well, but I didn't read through the whole list to see what other countries might have similar censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

I used my example of on a pub/church to highlight the difference but regardless of where it is put a hateful symbol is a hateful symbol.

But that's just it: you didn't highlight a difference, you created one. Adding (changing) a target completely changes the crime. Heck, if you paint a swastika on a synagogue the graffiti charge becomes pretty much irrelevant!

The real debate comes with what constitutes a hateful symbol e.g. is taking offence enough? How much should author intent matter? etc

That's my point: in the US, taking offense is not enough. It has to have a target to be a worse crime than ordinary graffiti.

 

[Hobin]

France as well, but I didn't read through the whole list to see what other countries might have similar censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

Something I think might be relevant to your point: Laws agains Holocaust denial.

Note, though, that I'm from Europe myself, and I don't particularly like this. Personally, I think people should be able to say the Holocaust didn't happen - most sensible people will then either laugh at them for being stupid or ignore them because they're being awfully rude. Criminalizing such opinions, however, sets an extremely bad precedent! While I don't care so much about this particular case, it's one of those things that under the 'right' circumstances can be used to implement a law that forbids opinion X, and that I dislike.

 

[ThomasT]

Imho, graffiti, in general, is a rather ugly and inefficient way of communicating. If somebody really has something important to say, then I think they should say it in well reasoned and researched letters, essays, treatises, books, etc.

So, yeah, in general, I'm in favor of the removal of any and all graffiti from public surfaces. It's just a rude and sort of violent intrusion on our implicit (and to a certain extent, publicly mandated) agreement to treat each other with respect.

As for Nazi graffiti, I don't recall ever seeing it. And I've lived in several highly populated urban areas.

So, just from my personal experience, which isn't all that extensive, there doesn't seem to me to be much of a Nazi or Nazi graffiti problem in the US. But of course I don't really know.

EDIT: I'm not sure why the WWII Jewish holocaust was mentioned, but I'll just say that there seems to be a rather large body of physical evidence supporting the contention that it in fact occurred and that it was a deliberate sort of ethnic cleansing carried out by the ruling Nazi party in Germany and in adjacent regions during the '30s and '40s.

A similar thing occurred wrt Native Americans in the US. So, it would seem that historically astute Americans should be able to identify with and understand this sort of thing ... while, hopefully, not condoning it.

 

[Borg]

It wouldn't matter to me what kind of graffiti it was either. I would report it or remove it myself. If you let it go, it breeds.

 

[russ_watters]

So, just from my personal experience, which isn't all that extensive, there doesn't seem to me to be much of a Nazi or Nazi graffiti problem in the US. But of course I don't really know.

It isn't a huge problem, no, but it does happen. And other types of hateful graffiti also happen and are relevant. The US has, due to our slavery history and its aftermath, a hateful act of cross burning, which is similar in characterization.

In looking for a cross burning case I knew about, I stumbled on one I didn't that exactly answers the question of this thread and my discussion with Ryan, from an American legal perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

In this case, a group of white teenagers burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. They were charged in accordance with a law that stated:

Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

In other words, the law says that the content of the message contained in graffiti can elevate a crime beyond just a property crime. The USSC ruled unanimously that this law is unConstitutional even as it pointed out that the act of burning the cross on that particular lawn did constitute a threat and could have been prosecuted under a different law.

This also has implications for the scope of hate crime laws.

 

[ThomasT]

It isn't a huge problem, no, but it does happen. And other types of hateful graffiti also happen and are relevant. The US has, due to our slavery history and its aftermath, a hateful act of cross burning, which is similar in characterization.

In looking for a cross burning case I knew about, I stumbled on one I didn't that exactly answers the question of this thread and my discussion with Ryan, from an American legal perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

In this case, a group of white teenagers burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. They were charged in accordance with a law that stated: In other words, the law says that the content of the message contained in graffiti can elevate a crime beyond just a property crime. The USSC ruled unanimously that this law is unConstitutional even as it pointed out that the act of burning the cross on that particular lawn did constitute a threat and could have been prosecuted under a different law.

This also has implications for the scope of hate crime laws.

You raise a problematic, for me anyway, point. Can we, should we, legislate against what we call hate? I'm not really sure. Haven't thought it through. Though my personal belief is that hate is a self-defeating emotion of sorts. I grew up in the separate but equal era, during which the prevailing belief among European Americans, my heritage, was that African Americans (as well as Native Americans, and Jews, and Asians, etc.) were essentially inferior to Europeans (especially the English ... I'm German/English). I'm 64 now, have known, personally, dozens of African, Asian, Hispanic, and Native Americans, and can state, without any doubt whatsoever, that they're not, as racial classes, in any way inferior to any other racial class ... as far as I can tell.

Anyway, I sense that you might have something interesting to say about hate crime legislation that I might not have thought about.

 

[Hobin]

Can we, should we, legislate against what we call hate?

Personally, I think legislation against hate is rather pointless. The people who think something is hate are going to ignore or avoid the people spouting it, anyway. In other words, if the majority of people think something is hate, it's a matter of just ignoring those few who're being rude - you have rude people everywhere, after all. If the majority of people *don't* think it's hate, well, legislation won't save you, because in a democratic system you some support for that. So, the best way of dealing with the problem is, in my humble opinion, to ignore the rude people in the world, and to promote equality and respect. Let's leave legislation out of it.

(The exception to this is of course when people start physically abusing people out of hate, or something similar. At this point it's a crime, and can no longer something that can be ignored.)

 

[mheslep]

...there isn't that much censorship of Nazi behaviour in Europe. In Germany yes but I'm not aware of much elsewhere.

Not for lack of trying.

MPs[/PLAIN] [Broken] urge government to ban sale of Nazi memorabilia

Call for Europe-wide swastika ban