Should the Swastika still be considered evil?

Note (An important one): I am not discussing if Facism/Racism/Nazism is not evil anymore. I am discussing about the religious symbol that has been used for thousands of years.

The Swastika was used as a symbol of peace, unity and is the main symbol of Jainism, Hinduism and is an important part of many other religions. The word Swastika is based off the Sanskrit word Svastika, loosely meaning 'self-existing'. It was part of many old cultures. However, when the Nazi party adopted it, it became a universal (Apart from quite a bit of Asia) symbol of hate. It has been quite a while since the end of the Nazi party, though, and many religions still use the symbol, so should it be accepted into society as a symbol of peace and unity again?

Well for one thing there's a difference between the Nazi symbol and the original Swastika. The religious symbol has flat sections at the top and bottom not the points and the protrusions face the opposite direction.

Seeing as the two are similar, but actually different symbols overall, I don't see why both sides of this debate can't be correct. The religious symbol can still be a symbol of peace and unity but the Nazi Swastika is always going to represent a genocidal ideology of hatred and segregation.

Well, for starters, the Swastika was never "evil." That's just ridiculous. It is a symbol of peace, and sometimes, you need peace through strength. Such is fascism.

Pmurt Dlanod said:

Well, for starters, the Swastika was never "evil." That's just ridiculous. It is a symbol of peace, and sometimes, you need peace through strength. Such is fascism.

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're not trying to imply that fascism is ever a good idea or that anything Hitler/The Nazi party did was in the name of peace.

Still evil, what with neo-Naziism and far-rightism on the rise.

gimmepie said:

The religious symbol has flat sections at the top and bottom not the points and the protrusions face the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

You could have just said it is rotated 45 degrees. They are no more a different symbol that the US Army star would have been upside down.

Or a better comparison would be the cross, a religious symbol used by the KKK.


As for if it is still evil, no. It's as evil as the color red is for being the choice of communism.

Even if all the racists and neo-Nazi's are coming out in the west because their candidates are winning elections in the west, we shouldn't ruin a symbols good meaning because they misuse it.

Neo nazis are around and still using the symbol, and so are people in parts of the world where it denotes a religious idea or place. If you're in Asian and you see it carved out of stone on a temple wall then you can probably assume it has nothing to do with nazis, but if you see it graffiti'd somewhere (especially in areas where Hinduism, Buddhism, and the like are not and have never been common) then you've got a neo nazi (or some idiot troll) around trying to make people afraid, mad, or uncomfortable. That person isn't making a peace offering. As long as there are people espousing and being sympathetic to or (un)intentionally paralleling nazi ideas the swastika can't ever shake off its racist and deadly associations as a hate symbol.

gimmepie said:

Please tell me you're not trying to imply that fascism is ever a good idea or that anything Hitler/The Nazi party did was in the name of peace.

Click to expand...

Not quite. I don't want to go off-topic here, but genocidal violence isn't the strength I meant. After all, not all fascists are violent (or at least not to that extent). One authoritarian regime gone wrong should not ruin a symbol of peace, like countless terrorist attacks, according to the left, should not reflect upon Islam. Sometimes, authoritarianism, if relatively peaceful, can tame the far-left, and that's needed now.

Pmurt Dlanod said:

Not quite. I don't want to go off-topic here, but genocidal violence isn't the strength I meant. After all, not all fascists are violent (or at least not to that extent). One authoritarian regime gone wrong should not ruin a symbol of peace, like countless terrorist attacks, according to the left, should not reflect upon Islam. Sometimes, authoritarianism, if relatively peaceful, can tame the far-left, and that's needed now.

Click to expand...

Well there's still things in there I definitely disagree with, but that's a fair enough statement for the most part. Might make for an interesting thread in and of itself actually.

Neo-Nazi groups today are still using it in the name of anti-semitism/racism so as far as I'm concerned, yes, it should still be "evil".

As far as the difference between the original sign or w/e... It's too easy to conflate it with the one popularized through nazism so frankly I don't even understand why someone would want to use it.

Speaking only in terms of the United States here. Look at these two pictures.



What would you call this? You'd probably say "that's the Nazi salute." And you'd be right - for the second one. The first one is the Bellamy salute. Without me telling you that, you may or may not have known that they weren't the same thing. If I hadn't known about the Bellamy salute, I wouldn't have been able to guess, and even if you showed me pictures of random schoolchildren doing either the Bellamy salute or the Nazi salute, I would still guess Nazi salute 90% of the time.

This is part of the reason the swastika is still considered evil. If I showed someone this picture:



and they didn't know that it was from Hinduism, they would call it a Swastika. That's why this whole argument about "well it's part of Hinduism" is really irrelevant, at least in the United States. I don't know about other countries and how they would approach something like this, but I know that's how it'd happen here.

Knowledge is important. Knowing the difference between things like the Hindu swastika and the German swastika is important. But it's also important to recognize that most people don't know that difference. Most people immediately associate these symbols with Nazism. That's why it's still considered evil (and should be) despite the origins.

Now, context matters. If you're seeing these symbols in, say, a country that primarily practices Hinduism, it's important to be culturally aware enough to understand the importance behind those symbols so you don't yell at a practicing Hindu child for having a swastika on their head during their Upanayana. Outside of these contexts, though, it's probably not a good idea to argue that this symbol is associated with good things.

The meaning of symbols can change over time, but until something regarding the symbol changes, it still represents evil.

Why shouldn't it, is a better question I suppose? When it's still a hateful symbol still being utilised by hateful people I don't see how you even could arbitrarily change the distinction of it. You can hardly just make a decree that this symbol doesn't represent that anymore considering symbols gain the power of symbolism through cultural & public views on them

The swastika is a symbol of the great evil of fascism, whatever it meant before that is no longer as prevalent as the dark association it now has.

Pmurt Dlanod said:

Not quite. I don't want to go off-topic here, but genocidal violence isn't the strength I meant. After all, not all fascists are violent (or at least not to that extent). One authoritarian regime gone wrong should not ruin a symbol of peace, like countless terrorist attacks, according to the left, should not reflect upon Islam. Sometimes, authoritarianism, if relatively peaceful, can tame the far-left, and that's needed now.

Click to expand...

Yeah those awful far lefties wanting equal rights for all citizens and basic education at a state level that's accessible to all children. And as for helping the homeless? WELL! Thankfully we have authoritarian fascists who would do the humane thing and just lob them all in camps.

Hands said:

Yeah those awful far lefties wanting equal rights for all citizens and basic education at a state level that's accessible to all children. And as for helping the homeless? WELL! Thankfully we have authoritarian fascists who would do the humane thing and just lob them all in camps.

Click to expand...

I think he is referencing the Far-Left as the USSR apologists, Left-Anarchists, communists, and Far-Left parties. Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, and Democrats are not the Far-Left. These ideologies are relatively moderate compared to the Far-Left.

Lets also not forget the death count of the communists in the 20th century. Historically, fascists have killed far less people than Far-Left regimes. Add the total of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, *Pinochet, and Tojo and compare that with the USSR, China, and Cuba (I'm listing the latter as countries because the fascists only had 1 ruler while the communists lasted longer). Even if you compare ruler to ruler, Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

But this is not an argument in favor of fascism. Fascism is responsible for some of the greatest evils of the world including war and genocide. It is inexcusable what fascists have done and fascism should be rejected and shut away.

In short, the evils of the USSR or the Far-Left do not justify the evils of fascism, or vice-versa. The Swastika is still a symbol of Nazism.

*Pinochet is arguably a fascist because he demonstrated characteristics of fascists, such as silencing and killing opposition, running a single-party state, and being authoritarian and nationalistic in nature. However, he introduced free market reforms and abided by the constitution, leaving his position with a democratic vote.

you cant exactly reverse 6 million deaths so yeah

Star-Lord said:

As far as the difference between the original sign or w/e... It's too easy to conflate it with the one popularized through nazism so frankly I don't even understand why someone would want to use it.

Click to expand...

Although I understand what you mean, Jainism uses the swastika for its symbols, and has done it for a long time. I'm not sure that a major religion like Jainism would give up its symbol just because of a brutal regime from an entirely different continent. Hinduism, the fourth biggest religion in the world with 1 billion followers is also not going to give up their symbol so easily.

TheTopHatGhost said:

Although I understand what you mean, Jainism uses the swastika for its symbols, and has done it for a long time. I'm not sure that a major religion like Jainism would give up its symbol just because of a brutal regime from an entirely different continent. Hinduism, the fourth biggest religion in the world with 1 billion followers is also not going to give up their symbol so easily.

Click to expand...

And no one (that I've ever seen) opposes to those groups and their members/followers from using their symbols in that context. But in a Western context, used by white people who are not linked to those religions? Then yeah, it still is, and always will be, a symbol of hate.

I mean obviously there's no problem with them being used that way. Fortunately I know enough about Jainism and Hinduism respectively to understand how the symbol is used, but it's just more a personal musing than anything lol

Unfortunately, we can't expect most Westerners to be culturally aware enough to observe the distinction. As someone who has lived here for his entire life, I can tell you through experience that #mostnotall Americans are really clueless when it comes to symbols relating to any religion that isn't Christianity, so even if they saw a traditional Hindu/Jaini swastika in a Hindu/Jaini context, they'd probably still lose their shit over it.