I'm coming to the thought of it like this: people appropriate imagery as a fashion statement without thought to context- so it's equally problematic whether it's the images of the oppressor (nazi skulls on my wal-mart t-shirt? It looks cool!), or the oppressed (Who cares if this is your holiest symbol? It looks cool!).
Some recent discussions have brought up the point of privileging intent of one group over another and how that creates this- "We didn't mean no harm" is greater than "You are doing something which extremely hurtful with a lot of history to it".
The particularly annoying thing to me is it fits into the general US attitude of "Hirohito was fine, Hitler was a monster." I'm sure that the same girl wouldn't have even considered a fascist era German flag (red field, white circle, inverted swastika) on her bag. But Japanese things are cool and, by extension, Japanese-led atrocities are okay.
You never know: I remember a giant customers_suck debate about how not everyone with a swastika tattoo is a neo-Nazi, so don't judge, maaaan! Blah blah occult symbol blah blah reclaiming blah blah. And there was at least one person in there going "Well, why must you be so mean to neo-Nazis". My position, as you might imagine, was not terribly sympathetic.
I think you're probably right in general, though. Just wanting to point out that the stupidity of the average person knows few bounds.
And there's a case to be made for redeeming the swastika. But not for redeeming the reversed swasitika in a white circle on a red field. Generally, we consider Nazism to be socially unacceptable.
Except, apparently, if we are uber-sensitive livejournallers.
I have no idea the answer to your question or why it matters.
yrs-- --Ben
P.S. Uh, perp? Here in the US, we have a thing called "freedom of expression," so it's not a crime except a crime against taste. I realize that this may be an alien concept for you Canadians.
no subject
Some recent discussions have brought up the point of privileging intent of one group over another and how that creates this- "We didn't mean no harm" is greater than "You are doing something which extremely hurtful with a lot of history to it".
no subject
The particularly annoying thing to me is it fits into the general US attitude of "Hirohito was fine, Hitler was a monster." I'm sure that the same girl wouldn't have even considered a fascist era German flag (red field, white circle, inverted swastika) on her bag. But Japanese things are cool and, by extension, Japanese-led atrocities are okay.
no subject
a) Japan as a modern ally
b) the victims of the two
c) what is considered "worthy" opponents, etc.
no subject
I think you're probably right in general, though. Just wanting to point out that the stupidity of the average person knows few bounds.
no subject
And there's a case to be made for redeeming the swastika. But not for redeeming the reversed swasitika in a white circle on a red field. Generally, we consider Nazism to be socially unacceptable.
Except, apparently, if we are uber-sensitive livejournallers.
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
no subject
no subject
Matt
no subject
no subject
:-)
Matt
no subject
no subject
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. Uh, perp? Here in the US, we have a thing called "freedom of expression," so it's not a crime except a crime against taste. I realize that this may be an alien concept for you Canadians.
no subject
Huh.
I don't know if that makes it better or worse.
no subject
I don't think many Americans know what the Japanese did in Asia. I didn't know why my mom hated the Japanese so much for a long time.
Also, when I'm in Turkey and someone says "Holocaust," we're referring to something before WWII. An odd tidbit.