I asked if you could put what I said in context. I think it's a bit pathetic that you go to the trouble of putting it
out of context.
What I wrote there was in response to (and to challenge) a specific assertion by you. So I described how I, me, might personally process what the swastika represents (so, not talking about a wider cultural view of it or negating that at all, although in fact taking it in) to me.
bambooneedle wrote:selfmademug aka Mechanical Grace wrote:The meaning of symbols is decided by the entire culture, or large chunks of it, and unless you think we're on the brink of divesting the swastika of its (much deserved) instant association with genocide, I don't think it's up to you to say 'it's so dumb it doesn't scare me' or something similar.
Mug, you surprise me. What is a culture made up of but of individuals? The meaning of symbols is obviously decided by individuals first and foremost. What the swastika should mean to me personally is for me to decide. [... etc]
Yes, if I were under attack and some people wanted to pointedly remind me of the potential for human hate with symbols, they could. But what would be behind their intentions, I would ask. Weakness, fear, stupidity, shallow conformity, trying to entertain themselves for lack of imagination. ... I don't deny that I might experience some fear, but that would just be because I'm human. ...
You say individuals can make meaning of symbols for themselves as individuals, and assign them as much or as little power as they personally see fit.
And then in desperation you try to make it seem like something else, seem like some delusional thing... Why bother?
Well, I don't think they're such different topics at all; the power of a symbol lies in the flexibility or inflexibility of its meaning. One that is quite inflexibly evil is bound to be powerful.
I agree if by power you mean ability to polarize and cause a strong emotional reaction. But what about the ability to conjure a sympathetic sense of identification for large numbers of people (and alienate lots of others). There is no other symbol that can match the power of a cross on those terms in western culture. It's powerful because the meaning that can be derived from it across denominations etc is broad yet the meaning derived from it by a person who identifies with it is very specific and personal to them in how they identify with it - what they supposedly hold most precious. Even if you don't particularly identify with it you probably innocently associate it with goodness (it's so pervasive).
But putting it dominantly on a record cover is not innocent, far from it. It would almost certainly have been discussed including what people would reasonably or would most obviously assume about it or could read into it - that it's there for identifying with it, that she was targeting her market with it, etc (what I said). Even if she was pretty thoughtless about it she must have intuited it at some level, she can't have been totally ignorant of those things. And she went along with it. The boldness of the gesture renders whatever possible precious intricate personal reasons
she might possibly have had, that
can't be read into from, virtually irrelevant in comparison.
But despite that, I'll say sorry for bullying, and you win, etc. and so on and so forth. Cause I'm bored now.
For the record, I didn't feel bullied. I'm much too macho for that. I'm tough n' rough and I never give up, so give up while you're behind.
