Disclaimer

This site contains content of an adult nature, both in written and graphical versions. If you are under the age of consent in your city, state, country, or province, please click here and exit the site.

Site Map

home lotr fanfiction elvish rants inspiration artwork links

Section Links

Canon vs AU/Non-Canon Children and Music The Civil War Debunking Evil!Thranduil Elven Haircolor 101 Elvish Names 101 Elvish Names Continued Elven Population Elven Rebirth Fanon, Part One Free Speech Independence Day Bullshit Musings On The Movie "Supersize Me" The Mysterious Glorfindel Nazi Germany Symbols and Words Voting Rights Act Who Is Gildor Inglorion? Why Gay Christian Is Not An Oxymoron

Essays

symbols and words

I am not sure how I got directed to this particular LJ user's account, since I have never liked them, had no respect for them, and personally find them to be complete hypocrites who refuse to even see how hypocritical they are, but, nevertheless, I found myself there. And a little rant of theirs, coupled with the 77 comments found there, pissed me off and I need to vent some steam.

There is a LJ community I think some people know of called Deleterius. They like to bitch about Mary Sues in Harry Potter and LotR fanfic. I find them to be ... I don't think there is a word for the boring shit they post and bitch about, but hey, to each their own.

They use a term that many have used, and that others have rolled their eyes at, to describe their basic principles: they are Canon Nazis (though the plural for 'Nazi' would not be 'Nazis' since it isn't even an English word, it's also not a German word... but I digress). And, to add to this identity, they have chosen to create a user pic that uses the swastika in it.

This person, along with all the commentors, said how horrific, how terrible the use of such a symbol was, and one commentor even linked to an article where it showed how the European Union was considering the ban of the symbol in Europe. (I will comment on one of the statements found in that article in a moment.)

There is a difference between what things mean and what things are perceived to mean. Just because certain imagery has, over time, become inexorably linked to a certain symbol does not change the meaning of the symbol itself. And it doesn't have to be just a symbol -- a symbol, a word, an idea -- they are not altered simply because of the things that happened around them.

The best example of that is the cross. The Christian cross. *smiles* Of course, I say the "Christian" cross, when the truth is, the cross was used for crucifixion in the Roman Empire long before Christianity existed. But, the Christians came along and took that symbol as a representation of their faith, a deep-seated devotion and reminder of their core beliefs. Now, after the Civil War, this little social group comes along called the Ku Klux Klan... they start taking this symbol, sticking it in people's yards and setting it on fire before dragging these people out, beating them bloody, and hanging them. I'm sure we'll all agree that these are not the acts which the symbol had traditionally been associated with prior to that time. But, there has never been an outcry that the symbol has been desecrated beyond all use because of the acts that it came to be associated with.

On the other hand, we have this swastika symbol that is documented to have existed at least as early as 1000 BC and has been found to have arisen independently in the cultures of early civilizations around the world. It has meant everything from an omen of good luck to the representation of a god. This other group comes along in the 1930's, though, and chooses this same symbol as their sigil. This group, which we like to call Nazis (although that wasn't really their name), had the idea that they could create the perfect utopian society if they first got rid of all those they deemed "undesirable". And they proceeded to carry out this idea on a grand horrific scale. Their sigil meant nothing more or less than it did before their campaign began, but now there is the general outcry by the world that the swastika symbol has been irreparably damaged and must be banned from all use because of "what it means".

The swastika is no more indicative of the Holocaust than the cross is of lynching. The swastika, at its origins, is nothing more than a representation of the radial view of a comet. The fact that it was displayed by people performing acts of unspeakable depravity doesn't change that, nor does it impart that meaning to the symbol.

The second complaint by the journal user was the use of the word "Nazi". It was their opinion that anyone who willingly chose to identify themselves with the word "Nazi" deserved whatever they got. The trouble is that when most people say "Nazi", they are really referring to the Schutzstaffel -- the enforcement arm of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. By 1932, nearly 14 million Germans were registered with the NSDAP; in other words, that's 14 million Nazis. The odds are very slim that every one of those Nazis agreed with every one of the party's 25-point program, were members of the Sicherheitspolizei, or took turns pulling the switches at Auschwitz. It was, to large numbers of them, the lesser of the evils, and the only party that seemed to care greatly for the plight of the working man.

So, most Nazis weren't genocidal maniacs, and the swastika never actually killed anybody. So, the question becomes, why are they so abhorred? In my opinion, it probably has something to do with people's inability to deal constructively with the images that are evoked by these indirectly-related symbols. For some reason, I get the sense that many people have unresolved issues that they try to cover up (unsuccessfully) by aiming this raw hostility at the icon that brought the images to mind. It's a real "Kill the Messenger" mentality, and I don't understand it. People can still look at clowns as amusing even after John Wayne Gacy.... Is it just the scale of the Holocaust that these people cannot mentally cope with? Does anyone else have any input on this one?

*sighs*

Now, these people are not using this symbol or the word to mean anything the things are traditionally meant to mean. This group is also not using them to mean what most people think they mean. When they use the symbol, they are trying to get a rise out of people. But, while they may use the swastika to incite people, I do not believe they (or anyone else who uses the term 'canon nazi') use the term 'Nazi' to mean "someone for the death of millions", but more for what the term is more correctly defined as -- "someone who has a fanatical devotion to a cause taken to an obsessive length". Which, in truth, is what a canon nazi is. It is the same way that Seinfeld used the term 'Soup Nazi', and the term was not done in an anti-Semitic manner.

Getting your panties into a bunch because someone is doing something you don't particularly like is just stupid. I have learned this. This LJ user is someone who frequently bitches about other people and their use of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of expression' -- and their friends typically are all for the suppression of rights because they just don't agree with the topics. *shakes head* Especially since these freedoms and rights do not affect them directly -- their opinions and words are not encroached upon by suppressing these particular rights and freedoms. And it is a sad statement to what this world has come to. I am glad a quarter of my expected lifespan is up; I am not sure I could take more than 100 years of hypocritical, backstabbing, double-standard bullshit.

Lastly, the quote I wanted to comment on from an article that was offered up on this person's LJ comments:

"If you can wear such a symbol -- which stands for the murder of millions -- to a fancy party, then you are not sensitive to what it means." -- Silvana Koch-Mehrin, European Parliment member

This symbol does not stand for the murder of millions, but because I say that does not mean I am not sympathetic or not sensitive to the years of horror that Hilter led the world into. I am sensitive to the events. Just staring at an image of Auschwitz brings tears to my eyes and a pain to my heart, but I do not believe that banning the swastika symbol is going to make anyone who is not sensitive to the horror suddenly understand it all. That symbol does not represent Hitler or the Holocaust, and I find it disgusting that any country, let alone a whole fucking continent, would think to ban such a thing because of the brief period in time the symbol was misused.

My point with this rant is not to defend the Nazi party. What they perpetrated in the 1930's and 1940's was unforgivable, frightening, and so cruel as to defy words. I have seen the pictures, I have read the testimonies, and it always brings tears to my eyes and down my cheeks. But, I also know that I equate that same suffering with that of the Japanese when the US bombed in 1945. I equate that same suffering with that of the Americans when the WTC fell. I equate that same suffering with that of the world during World War One, World War Two, The Korean Conflict, The Vietnam Conflict and so on. What am I saying? I am saying that mankind is a master of atrocities and it is not a right held by one man who convinced a country that they could build a superior race by exterminating those that were not like them. Mankind is evil in nature, is built to horrify itself, but most people like to hold the Holocaust up as the poster child of Evil.

It's not.

It's just gotten the most publicity.


	Disclaimer This site contains content of an adult nature, both in written and graphical versions. If you are under the age of consent in your city, state, country, or province, please click here and exit the site. Site Map home lotr fanfiction elvish rants inspiration artwork links Section Links Canon vs AU/Non-Canon Children and Music The Civil War Debunking Evil!Thranduil Elven Haircolor 101 Elvish Names 101 Elvish Names Continued Elven Population Elven Rebirth Fanon, Part One Free Speech Independence Day Bullshit Musings On The Movie "Supersize Me" The Mysterious Glorfindel Nazi Germany Symbols and Words Voting Rights Act Who Is Gildor Inglorion? Why Gay Christian Is Not An Oxymoron		Essays symbols and words I am not sure how I got directed to this particular LJ user's account, since I have never liked them, had no respect for them, and personally find them to be complete hypocrites who refuse to even see how hypocritical they are, but, nevertheless, I found myself there. And a little rant of theirs, coupled with the 77 comments found there, pissed me off and I need to vent some steam. There is a LJ community I think some people know of called Deleterius. They like to bitch about Mary Sues in Harry Potter and LotR fanfic. I find them to be ... I don't think there is a word for the boring shit they post and bitch about, but hey, to each their own. They use a term that many have used, and that others have rolled their eyes at, to describe their basic principles: they are Canon Nazis (though the plural for 'Nazi' would not be 'Nazis' since it isn't even an English word, it's also not a German word... but I digress). And, to add to this identity, they have chosen to create a user pic that uses the swastika in it. This person, along with all the commentors, said how horrific, how terrible the use of such a symbol was, and one commentor even linked to an article where it showed how the European Union was considering the ban of the symbol in Europe. (I will comment on one of the statements found in that article in a moment.) There is a difference between what things mean and what things are perceived to mean. Just because certain imagery has, over time, become inexorably linked to a certain symbol does not change the meaning of the symbol itself. And it doesn't have to be just a symbol -- a symbol, a word, an idea -- they are not altered simply because of the things that happened around them. The best example of that is the cross. The Christian cross. smiles Of course, I say the "Christian" cross, when the truth is, the cross was used for crucifixion in the Roman Empire long before Christianity existed. But, the Christians came along and took that symbol as a representation of their faith, a deep-seated devotion and reminder of their core beliefs. Now, after the Civil War, this little social group comes along called the Ku Klux Klan... they start taking this symbol, sticking it in people's yards and setting it on fire before dragging these people out, beating them bloody, and hanging them. I'm sure we'll all agree that these are not the acts which the symbol had traditionally been associated with prior to that time. But, there has never been an outcry that the symbol has been desecrated beyond all use because of the acts that it came to be associated with. On the other hand, we have this swastika symbol that is documented to have existed at least as early as 1000 BC and has been found to have arisen independently in the cultures of early civilizations around the world. It has meant everything from an omen of good luck to the representation of a god. This other group comes along in the 1930's, though, and chooses this same symbol as their sigil. This group, which we like to call Nazis (although that wasn't really their name), had the idea that they could create the perfect utopian society if they first got rid of all those they deemed "undesirable". And they proceeded to carry out this idea on a grand horrific scale. Their sigil meant nothing more or less than it did before their campaign began, but now there is the general outcry by the world that the swastika symbol has been irreparably damaged and must be banned from all use because of "what it means". The swastika is no more indicative of the Holocaust than the cross is of lynching. The swastika, at its origins, is nothing more than a representation of the radial view of a comet. The fact that it was displayed by people performing acts of unspeakable depravity doesn't change that, nor does it impart that meaning to the symbol. The second complaint by the journal user was the use of the word "Nazi". It was their opinion that anyone who willingly chose to identify themselves with the word "Nazi" deserved whatever they got. The trouble is that when most people say "Nazi", they are really referring to the Schutzstaffel -- the enforcement arm of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. By 1932, nearly 14 million Germans were registered with the NSDAP; in other words, that's 14 million Nazis. The odds are very slim that every one of those Nazis agreed with every one of the party's 25-point program, were members of the Sicherheitspolizei, or took turns pulling the switches at Auschwitz. It was, to large numbers of them, the lesser of the evils, and the only party that seemed to care greatly for the plight of the working man. So, most Nazis weren't genocidal maniacs, and the swastika never actually killed anybody. So, the question becomes, why are they so abhorred? In my opinion, it probably has something to do with people's inability to deal constructively with the images that are evoked by these indirectly-related symbols. For some reason, I get the sense that many people have unresolved issues that they try to cover up (unsuccessfully) by aiming this raw hostility at the icon that brought the images to mind. It's a real "Kill the Messenger" mentality, and I don't understand it. People can still look at clowns as amusing even after John Wayne Gacy.... Is it just the scale of the Holocaust that these people cannot mentally cope with? Does anyone else have any input on this one? sighs Now, these people are not using this symbol or the word to mean anything the things are traditionally meant to mean. This group is also not using them to mean what most people think they mean. When they use the symbol, they are trying to get a rise out of people. But, while they may use the swastika to incite people, I do not believe they (or anyone else who uses the term 'canon nazi') use the term 'Nazi' to mean "someone for the death of millions", but more for what the term is more correctly defined as -- "someone who has a fanatical devotion to a cause taken to an obsessive length". Which, in truth, is what a canon nazi is. It is the same way that Seinfeld used the term 'Soup Nazi', and the term was not done in an anti-Semitic manner. Getting your panties into a bunch because someone is doing something you don't particularly like is just stupid. I have learned this. This LJ user is someone who frequently bitches about other people and their use of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of expression' -- and their friends typically are all for the suppression of rights because they just don't agree with the topics. shakes head Especially since these freedoms and rights do not affect them directly -- their opinions and words are not encroached upon by suppressing these particular rights and freedoms. And it is a sad statement to what this world has come to. I am glad a quarter of my expected lifespan is up; I am not sure I could take more than 100 years of hypocritical, backstabbing, double-standard bullshit. Lastly, the quote I wanted to comment on from an article that was offered up on this person's LJ comments: "If you can wear such a symbol -- which stands for the murder of millions -- to a fancy party, then you are not sensitive to what it means." -- Silvana Koch-Mehrin, European Parliment member This symbol does not stand for the murder of millions, but because I say that does not mean I am not sympathetic or not sensitive to the years of horror that Hilter led the world into. I am sensitive to the events. Just staring at an image of Auschwitz brings tears to my eyes and a pain to my heart, but I do not believe that banning the swastika symbol is going to make anyone who is not sensitive to the horror suddenly understand it all. That symbol does not represent Hitler or the Holocaust, and I find it disgusting that any country, let alone a whole fucking continent, would think to ban such a thing because of the brief period in time the symbol was misused. My point with this rant is not to defend the Nazi party. What they perpetrated in the 1930's and 1940's was unforgivable, frightening, and so cruel as to defy words. I have seen the pictures, I have read the testimonies, and it always brings tears to my eyes and down my cheeks. But, I also know that I equate that same suffering with that of the Japanese when the US bombed in 1945. I equate that same suffering with that of the Americans when the WTC fell. I equate that same suffering with that of the world during World War One, World War Two, The Korean Conflict, The Vietnam Conflict and so on. What am I saying? I am saying that mankind is a master of atrocities and it is not a right held by one man who convinced a country that they could build a superior race by exterminating those that were not like them. Mankind is evil in nature, is built to horrify itself, but most people like to hold the Holocaust up as the poster child of Evil. It's not. It's just gotten the most publicity.