Today on Blogcritics
Home » Swastika Flap is a Flop

Swastika Flap is a Flop

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

An interesting news report out of Wolfeboro, New Hampshire tells a tale of ignorance on the part of both parties.

A federal judge has sided with education officials who suspended a high school student after he wore a patch depicting a crossed-out swastika. The court says officials at Kingswood Regional High School did not violate Paul Hendrickson’s free speech rights when they asked him to remove the patch. Hendrickson was suspended last year after he refused to remove the patch. He says the crossed-out swastika was intended to express a message of tolerance. Superintendent John Robertson says the decision was always about student safety, not free speech.

Both Hendrickson’s assertion that the patch he wore bore a symbol of tolerance and the federal judge’s siding with school officials’ citing safety as the primary reason for suspending Hendrickson are wrong. Safety was an issue only because the pursuit of knowledge was put on the back burner; hell, it was knocked off the stove completely. Neither party took the time to find out what the symbol means. Had either of them done so, perhaps Hendrickson wouldn’t have incorrectly justified his wearing of the patch, he wouldn’t have been suspended, and school officials would’ve taken the opportunity to expand their own horizons as well as that of their students.

The truly alarming issue here is that grown people — educators of our youth and a federal judge — sent the message to the youth in their charge and the population in general that not only is free speech randomly applied (it’s okay for some), half-knowledge is a perfectly valid tool in a decision-making process. What a great impromptu history and civics project this could’ve been, but no. Instead, the preferred course of action by both school officials and the judge who sided with them was to err on the side of ignorance. No one bothered to tell the minor student Hendrickson that the symbol on his patch was a message of intolerance, not tolerance – presumably because no one else knew either.

[ADBLOCKHERE]Hendrickson’s right to free speech, as a minor, is subjective. The patch he wore that resulted in his suspension, is not. Wolfeboro school officials and the federal judge who ruled in the case confused Hendrickson’s patch with the outright display of the swastika.

The symbol in question is popular among many youth. It is marketed openly and legally here in Germany. Displayed alongside pins, stickers, and t-shirts bearing the same and similar messages, the meaning of the symbol is Gegen Nazis. In English this means Against Nazis. Conversely, displaying the Hakenkreuz (swastika) or any Nazi symbol is illegal in Germany except for educational purposes. Additionally, vendors found to be selling any Nazi symbol and/or memorabilia on German soil — even aboard United States military installations in Germany — are subject to confiscation of their merchandise and can be punished under the German criminal code, Strafgesetzbuch.

Curiously, Nazi symbols are openly displayed and both Nazi symbols and memorabilia are available for purchase with constitutional protection in the United States – the same country where Hendrickson lives and was suspended from school.

Admittedly, the swastika can be seen from a fair distance, regardless of its size, and often cringed upon at first sighting – red slash or not. The knowledgeable person’s second glance of any Gegen Nazis symbol reveals a message of zero tolerance – a favorite kind of tolerance, especially among Americans.

Apparently there is now a zero-tolerance for knowledge as well.

Powered by

About Diana Hartman

Diana is a USMC (ret.) spouse, mother of three and a Wichita, Kansas native. She is back in the United States after 10 years in Germany. She is a contributing author to Holiday Writes. She hates liver & motivational speakers. She loves science & naps.
  • Lance

    try doing a bit of research before typing more random crap.

    My interpretation of his meaning was ‘no to nazism’ nazi’s were not tolerant of the jews therefore: he is tolerant.

  • RedTard

    The thought police, since they haven’t found a way yet to get inside your head and criminalize the thoughts themselves they can only criminalize it’s symbols. It really sets a bad precedent, could communist thought or capitalist thought be the next outlawed thing?

  • TheLegace

    This is pissing me off, cuz im Hindu, that the fucking nazis stole the symbol of peace and new beggininging and turned it into the most hated symbol in the world.

  • Sparda

    The Swastika is a symbol that none of you understand. You are all corrupted, and your view on life is skewed because you are filthy jews or corrupted by them. The Swastika meant hope for White people, but the jewish parasite helped you destroy yourself and White people around the world.
    The jews are not part of the White race, they are a fake race with the sole purpose of manipulating others to eliminate White people. Our Society will eliminate them all! Hail Victory!

  • RedTard

    If no one understands it does it then cease to be a symbol?

  • P dog

    Sparda, intolerant people like you are the reason the world is destroying itself. [Edited]

  • http://n/a Fizour

    yo, im from Vancouver, Cananda and I had a similar situation to this incident. First, in grade 12 (just last year), I was in class learning and school stuff. For some reason this hot girl (who im friends with) drew a swastika on my back and 3 other people in that class. We didn’t know it was drawn for half the day, and in 1 class I had went too, the teacher told me to take it off for the next day. Being older and not caring much about school, I go home and immediately take my clothes off and change into fresh ones. Next day, put my same clothes back on from the carpet and goto school. The teacher see’s us 4 with the swastikas on our backs and he goes and tells the principal for this. We get in major trouble for this girl writting it on our backs, suspended for 1 day and had to goto a Jewish community centre during the christmas break!!!Another inncident involved me and my friend in computer class. We had to make a powerpoint on anything we wanted (even WWII). My friend and I starting playing around with Powerpoint, making a picture of Hitler spin fast and also the swastika. The teacher catches Me (ONLY ME, when my friend is beside me) and tells the principal and other school staff. I was labbelled as a Nazi for not even intending the write it for any hate reason at all, just to get a laugh. Its unbelieveable these days where older people think that the Swastika is a absolutely eveil symbol. Students from my school did not feel that the symbol was evil and in our time, we just joke around with that stuff. We know what happened in WWII, we will never forget it, but its not as big to us as it was to people in earlier times.

  • Ficus

    As a resident of New Hampshire, I assure you all that you’re missing the smaller picture here.

    Locally, there’s a conflict between two groups of people, one of which claims to be some type of a “Neo-Nazi” organization (despite the fact that they are just a bunch of redneck fucktards who don’t understand what a Nazi really is and just want to be assholes because their mothers don’t love them enough). The other group believes that the “Neo-Nazis” are a bunch of redneck fucktards who don’t understand what a Nazi really is and just want to be assholes because their mothers don’t love them enough.

    The issue that the school had with this was that external conflicts (of a near gang-type nature (about as much of a “gang” as you can have in New Hampshire, not including deer herds)) were appearing to creep their way into the school, which could incite a conflict between the two groups of people. Wearing a patch of this nature could have rather easily sparked a conflict, and the school administrators don’t particularly want violence of this nature to occur in the school (though outside of the school, they don’t really seem to give a shit).

    It was with this intent — to prevent a violent clash between two groups of rival “gangs” (again, sans deer) which caused the school to request that the student remove the patch.

    To contrast, imagine that the symbol was not a swastika — what if a student wore a shirt bearing his gang’s insignia on it to school? Or, more applicably, a student wearing a shirt depicting Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) urinating upon a rival gang’s symbol. Surely such things, while being free speech, are about as subtle as wearing a shirt that says “Would you please be so kind as to beat the living shit out of me.”

    While I personally support free speech (and, honestly, am not entirely sure where I stand on this particular instance), I do think that taking the context of the ruling into consideration is rather important. This isn’t about the swastika specifically; what the symbol stands for (or has stood for in the past) is moot.

  • deathventure

    If some of ya’ll look a little more, the Nazi Swastica is NOT the swastica of other religions. The tines are reversed. So saying that they STOLE it from the Hindu religion is ignorant. What the Nazi’s and Hitler did was wrong, yes, but he was an ingenious person, although demented as hell. And you all fighting over this crap only proves that ignorance is the reason for intollerance. Learn from the mistakes, don’t FIGHT over the mistakes. If the kid was seen with that in certain area’s, he would be shot by one of the Neo-nazi or white supremicist groups. But he could very well be shot by somebody that see’s just the Swastica, not giving any attention to the small red line through it.

  • http://patfish.blogspot.com/ Pat Fish

    Mr. Ficus,

    That was the funniest comment I’ve ever read.

    Thanks for the insight, the whole story was baffling me.

    And you are one of my favorite trees.

    It was the bit about the deer that did me in.

  • deathventure

    Oh, and the Swastika was NOT created by Hitler. The swastika has existed for centuries before Hitler even existed. A Dentist that was involved with some of the forhanded political parties actually developed the image for Hitler, but Hitler chose to use the reverse of what the dentist drew, the left handed tines. Which some saw as a bad sign. In oriental countries, the left handed swastika associates death, or the mooon, while the right handed means life or the sun. The true origins of the Swastika, although now to most people they only think of Nazi’s when they see them are from ancient times, some meaning the Male gender, power, sundials, a regular cross even. The only reason it’s seen as it is now is because of Hitler, but association doesn’t make the insignia evil, it just means you’re all intollerent. You think just because he used it, it is evil. Noooooo, don’t use that, it means your a Nazi. Just like the pentogram, we associate it with Satanism, which was derived from withcraft which was considered Devil Worship by the Intollerant Christians of the time. Intollerance is evil. Not these signs and insignias that have meanings that most people refuse to understand because of what people made them out to be.

  • Sidereal

    1) Wikipedia isn’t an academically accepted reference source. Use that on a college term paper and watch your prof laugh at you. It’s a “people’s encyclopedia,” and with it comes all the subjective crap people load in with what little factual knowledge you find. Granted, it’s great for trivia, but really nothing else. Just wanted to clear that up, as well as the tolerance issue being discribed by the first poster. I really don’t follow your logic. Showing intolerance of a group concerned with persecution and intolerance does not make one “tolerant” regarding other groups. Secondly, “tolerance” should never be someone’s objective. “Understanding” or “acceptance” should be. Tolerance is just a nice way of saying, “I’m not going to persecute you, even though I don’t agree with what you think.”

    I agree with the concern for safety with wearing the protest patch. It’s the same reason kids get sent home for wearing gang colors. You’re making yourself a mark for anyone who supports your opposition. All that kid needed was to run into a bunch of pro-white rednecks and get curb stomped, like a previous poster mentioned.

  • random jewish guy

    anyone has the right to wear a swastika.

    that doesnt mean i wont break thier legs for wearing it.

    Anyone telling me that they hate me and want to kill all my people, deserves to have thier legs broken, and in court… the law would be on my side, not the wearer. :)

    So anyone that sees a neo-nazi is welcome to inflict grievious bodily harm because he was thretening you directly by wearing that shirt. You are just defending your honour and your right to religon.

  • C.P.T.L.

    I haven’t seen White Power statements on blogs until this past year – ever. On a tech blog, an entertainment blog, a political blog. Things like ‘what we need is a white history month.’ I don’t know if those folks are growing in numbers or feeling more bold about saying that stuff in public or both. There was a report about a Fox News Anchor who posted regularly on the Stormfront website which I visited, read, saw her posts, and read a number of links that I found there. Each was a sophisticated, attractive, first class site that continually made the point ‘we are not racist, we just care about the white race,’ and proceeded to outline racist views. All meticulously avoided the hate and violence side of it and pushed a ‘we’re all good people concerned about this important issue’ angle. I’m a zero-tolerance-for-racism kind of person. I understand what Paul Hendrickson’s message was and good for him. The problem to me, was the swastika. If he can wear it in any guise then why can’t others? And even if they aren’t allowed to, his would be another public display of one and that legitimatizes it. It is that kind of slow creeping mechanism that has to be guarded against. The message has to be loud and clear ‘we don’t stand for that kind of thing here.’ It is reasonable to ask him to make his statement in a differnet and polite fashion. And I do NOT accuse Diana Hartman of being racist or one of the movement, but I do warn that the White Power movement is extremely sophisticated in crafting their message, and if I found out that she was part of it, and that the aim of her blog piece here was to advocate for the public anti-use of the swastika to eventually achieve the pro-use of it, I would not be surprised.

  • Lance

    to Sidereal (#12) I know that wikipedia isn’t all true but you’ll find that 99% of it is, and is open to be critisied and proven wrong. However in this case it clearly isn’t.

    As for being tolerant / intoleranetc. If you read the article he states

    ‘No one bothered to tell the minor student Hendrickson that the symbol on his patch was a message of intolerance, not tolerance — presumably because no one else knew either.’

    Of course it is neither, but the guy’s INTERPRETATION of it was ‘no to nazi’s.’ who were not tolerant (that’s ‘intolerent’ to you who clearly can’t understand) of the jews *sigh* it’s not a hard logic to understand really.

  • Monty Honestly

    I agree with the Hindu dude. you’re the only one on point. Hartman points out the knowledge factor and goes into this whole spiel of hers, but honestly, before its plagiarized emblematic implementation, the Hakenkreuz (hook cross/broken cross) was a far east symbol of exactly what the Hindu dude mentioned. svasti- and ka, supposed to represent eternal luck or good fortune. it’s been found in other cultures as well. so actually, the kid’s an idiot, judges are parasites of position and principles and teachers are afraid of kids and their parents, and subsequently are idiots also. out of all the teachers I ever had from middle school up, 1 or 2 of them were worth a hoot in each grade level. and that’s because they believed in the curriculum and left social protest to bloggers. well back then it was the cars we all egged. pissed on, slashed the tires of. you get the point. oh yah and wikipedia is edited before it is allowed to be posted, there’s actually people qualified in each field of each entry that look it over and research it before they release it to the public, so you’re an ass and so is any college professor who doesn’t at least allow it as a supportive works cited. must be a community college. and while I’m on it, Neo-Nazis in America makes as much sense as American Nationalists anywhere in the world except America. Nazi is short for Nationalist in German, a party that represented the parties’ rightful ideas of a German Nation without any outside influences corrupting it. and should never have been persecuted for killing anyone they wanted to within Germany actually. Remember they killed off the Romans way back when and no Italian is asking for reparations decades later, there was no war tribunal, and no crimes against humanity; something to think about. Our American Ideals are different and an American Nationalism would include everyone that arrived here as the same. displaced foreigners. not Germans necessarily, which most Neo-Nazi’s don’t even have a shit wrenched sprinkle of blood ounce wise of, so they have nothing to say and have no part in anything except their own idiotic self-consuming agenda.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Ficus posts: “To contrast, imagine that the symbol was not a swastika — what if a student wore a shirt bearing his gang’s insignia on it to school? Or, more applicably, a student wearing a shirt depicting Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) urinating upon a rival gang’s symbol. Surely such things, while being free speech, are about as subtle as wearing a shirt that says “Would you please be so kind as to beat the living shit out of me.”

    The school uniform addresses and resolves a good many of the dress issues. American public schools adopted the idea of individual expression — and have lamented the results of individual expression ever since.

    Sidereal posts: “I agree with the concern for safety with wearing the protest patch. It’s the same reason kids get sent home for wearing gang colors. You’re making yourself a mark for anyone who supports your opposition. All that kid needed was to run into a bunch of pro-white rednecks and get curb stomped, like a previous poster mentioned.”

    America, home of the free – as long as you’re bigger, stronger, faster, and disagree with what someone else says or does. Free to get your ass kicked, free to kick someone else’s ass. Free to be ignorant, free to ignore knowledge.

    Okay, so there’s a safety concern. Take the school’s way of addressing the safety concern and apply it across America. In many ways and in many places this has already been done: “Dismiss knowledge, react accordingly, pander to the most ignorant, and instead of holding violent people accountable for both their intentions and their actions, eliminate their triggers.”

    Protect those who have the right to non-violently express non-violent messages? No.

    Outlawing the outright display of the swastika because of what it represents to so many people who are not violent but are adamantly opposed (for good reason) is more than reasonable. This would be why the outright display and sale of said symbol is illegal in Germany. Outlawing or sidelining the crossed-out swastika because of the violent people it might incite is not reasonable. Violent people are already violent. They are already looking for something to get pissed off about and will seek until they find – a crossed-out swastika, a military recruiter, a Hanukah display, a poodle. They don’t care what they get violent about; so long as there is something to get violent about, they’re happy campers.

    How about enforcing the law and sidelining the actions of those who would (threats) and have become violent?

    It defies all logic that the same country allowing Neo-Nazis to parade about in full view of the public would not allow an anti-Neo-Nazi message. It doesn’t defy logic, however, if the real message America is trying to convey is that Neo-Nazis have rights above and beyond those who protest the Neo-Nazi message.

    random jewish guy posts: “anyone has the right to wear a swastika. that doesnt mean i wont break thier legs for wearing it. Anyone telling me that they hate me and want to kill all my people, deserves to have thier legs broken, and in court… the law would be on my side, not the wearer. :) So anyone that sees a neo-nazi is welcome to inflict grievious bodily harm because he was thretening you directly by wearing that shirt. You are just defending your honour and your right to religon.”

    The crossed-out swastika is not a message of tolerance. It is a message of intolerance. It says “I will not tolerate Nazis.”

    There is a difference between the swastika and the crossed-out swastika. The red slash is popular among the young as many of them aren’t sure of what they stand for but are very sure of what they don’t stand for (interestingly, most of their anti-messages equate with tolerance and peace, but hey, one peace symbol isn’t as flashy as a jacket covered in anti-patches).

    If a crossed-out swastika can be reasonably interpreted as being in any way pro-Nazi, then we should all be on the lookout for people smoking in non-smoking areas displaying the crossed-out cigarette sign, go ahead and park where ever we see a sign with a crossed-out car, take our dogs into restaurants displaying a sign of a crossed-out dog, and enter where ever the word “entry” is red-slashed.

    While it may be preferred to developing communication skills and realizing that not every perceived slight is an invite to confrontation, the idea that one has the right to beat the shit out of someone else based only disagreement is savage. There are many more people in the world that one might not agree with but that don’t live in one’s immediate area. Unless one is prepared to travel the world over in an attempt to eliminate all opposed, one would do well to adopt and hone additional skills for dealing with disagreement. If one does travel the world over in this attempt, one should be prepared to be aligned with the likes of those who are already doing this — terrorists, leaders of warring nations, etc.

    C.P.T.L. posts: “All meticulously avoided the hate and violence side of it and pushed a ‘we’re all good people concerned about this important issue’ angle. I’m a zero-tolerance-for-racism kind of person. I understand what Paul Hendrickson’s message was and good for him. The problem to me, was the swastika. If he can wear it in any guise then why can’t others? And even if they aren’t allowed to, his would be another public display of one and that legitimatizes it. It is that kind of slow creeping mechanism that has to be guarded against. The message has to be loud and clear ‘we don’t stand for that kind of thing here.’ It is reasonable to ask him to make his statement in a differnet and polite fashion. And I do NOT accuse Diana Hartman of being racist or one of the movement, but I do warn that the White Power movement is extremely sophisticated in crafting their message, and if I found out that she was part of it, and that the aim of her blog piece here was to advocate for the public anti-use of the swastika to eventually achieve the pro-use of it, I would not be surprised.”

    While stating that you do not accuse me of being racist, the accusation is meticulously loud and clear. The giveaway would’ve been the qualifier, “but.” Conjunctions and other words of note (ie: but, if, however, regardless, as long as, etc) used to dismiss the former part of one’s statement in favor of the latter part of one’s statement is passive-aggressive — a trait oft found in those hiding their anger, insincerity, and judgement behind a veil of “polite fashion.” Try again.

    Hendrickson did nothing violent and in fact wore a patch that sends a message of being opposed to those who are violent. A swastika in “any form” is not the outright display of a swastika any more than a red-slashed cigarette is permission to smoke or a sign of a crossed-out dog means dogs are allowed.

    Hendrickson’s patch depicts a message of intolerance towards hate and violence. I didn’t address the hate and violence of those who are hateful and violent because they weren’t part of the article – directly. The safety issue, as endlessly harped upon as justification to squelch the young man’s expression, is not a safety issue at all. It’s an issue of fear and hiding on the part of adults who, instead of holding the hateful and violent responsible for their own actions by suspending those who would (threats) or have become violent, laid the responsibility for the actions of others directly on the shoulders of Hendrickson – who did nothing hateful or violent.

    Again, if a crossed-out anything means support for that which is crossed-out, then break out those cigarettes and get those cars in gear because the smoking lamp has been lit all across the likes of California and Ireland, and we can park where ever we want!

  • http://patfish.blogspot.com/ Pat Fish

    The crossed-out swastika is not a message of tolerance. It is a message of intolerance. It says “I will not tolerate Nazis.”
    ==============
    I dunno, Diana. First, you left that bit with your literal interpretation of the symbol out of your original post. As you explained, the symbol was an icon of “intolerance” but this confused me. “Intolerance” being a bad thing as I see it. Yet you were saying it’s a good thing.

    But I did get it, living in a country where signs with slashes across them mean “NOT”. So I figured it meant “NO NAZIS”.

    That being said, Ficus explained the controversy from the New Hampshire point of view, complete with deer, and as a “gang” type of thing it could lead to violence, dunno.

    Your insight on how it is in Germany was intriguing. In that the “NOT NAZI” is allowed whereas the original symbol is not. Frankly I think the original Nazi signed should not be outlawed, freedom of speech and all that. But I can understand why it would be in Germany I suppose. Your argument that the educators jumped to unlearned conclusions is not true, if Ficus’ post is to be believed. And still….well that “NOT NAZI” sign is so totally unnecessary, don’t you think? I mean everyone is against Nazis, right? If a “NOT NAZI” sign is somehow an expression of something it’s a waste of time.

    As for school uniforms, bring it on. I’d looooove to have American school kids wear uniforms. It would sure save a lot of grief.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Pat fish posts: “I dunno, Diana. First, you left that bit with your literal interpretation of the symbol out of your original post. As you explained, the symbol was an icon of “intolerance” but this confused me. “Intolerance” being a bad thing as I see it. Yet you were saying it’s a good thing.”

    Intolerance of Nazis is a good thing, yes. That is how I see it. That you see the word “intolerance” and its meaning as a bad thing without regard for the context doesn’t mean everyone does or that this is even a correct interpretation of the word. Context is everything. Tolerance of evil hardly makes “tolerance” a good word in this context. “Intolerance” and the much hyped “zero tolerance” mean the same thing, yet there’s been no guff about the latter. That would be most easily explained by two things: 1) the contexts in which the phrase “zero tolerance” have been used (no tolerance for negative behaviors) and 2) many a person’s ignorance of basic vocabulary. “Zero tolerance” is the word “intolerance” all dressed up and ready for someone’s agenda/campaign-made-palatable. Bottom line: they mean the same thing. One is not more, dare I say, tolerable or intolerable than the other. That there are those fooled into thinking one is better than the other just because one sounds better to the ear doesn’t mean we need relegate certain words to the bin of negative vocabulary, nor does it mean we need dress up words that hit someone’s ear as negative just so they will feel better about the intention.
    I did explain the symbol’s meaning in the article. That I paraphrased the explanation in the comments doesn’t mean it wasn’t included in the article; it means there are those who don’t understand one set of words but do understand another set of words. Let’s hear it for multiple learning styles! (Something I’m all for, especially with mathematics.)

    “That being said, Ficus explained the controversy from the New Hampshire point of view, complete with deer, and as a “gang” type of thing it could lead to violence, dunno.”

    Gang members are often criminals. There are no gangs of singers or gangs of flower growers. Gangs consist of people intent on criminal action. Their agenda is often random and spins around the notion of territory — and rarely do they have the deed to anything they claim to be theirs. Pandering to gangs by not inciting their members is ridiculous. Being the intellectuals they are, gang members often telegraph their intentions via the grapevine and rumor network. Especially in a school setting, it isn’t difficult for school systems to track the intentions of schooled gangs and stop them before they act — and then take action by suspending those involved. Suspending someone with no criminal intentions simply because they might incite those who do have criminal intentions is to give sway to the violent among us. This is the same mindset that has the bullied changing schools while the bullies continue unhindered. To extend this mindset into mainstream society is to banish freedom of speech in favor of peace at any cost — and those who have done nothing wrong pay that cost. This would create a rigid society where only might makes right and the pen is broken across the sword. This is already the situation in many countries where freedom of speech has been extracted, often physically, from its citizens, and in countries where freedom of speech never existed.

    “Your insight on how it is in Germany was intriguing. In that the “NOT NAZI” is allowed whereas the original symbol is not. Frankly I think the original Nazi signed should not be outlawed, freedom of speech and all that. But I can understand why it would be in Germany I suppose. Your argument that the educators jumped to unlearned conclusions is not true, if Ficus’ post is to be believed. And still….well that “NOT NAZI” sign is so totally unnecessary, don’t you think? I mean everyone is against Nazis, right?”

    No, not “everyone is against Nazis.” There are plenty in full support of everything Hitler stood for and their expressions are constitutionally protected in the United States.
    I don’t think the outright display of the swastika should be disallowed either — in the United States. I’ve always though it best to allow freedom of speech, even in all its ugliness, as this is the best way to most clearly and effectively identify nutcases. Why should we have to go looking for them? Let them shout, “I’m an idiot” from the rooftops — then we know where they are.

    “If a “NOT NAZI” sign is somehow an expression of something it’s a waste of time.”

    As would any sign indicating a “not” (smoking, animals, parking, etc)? There is a myriad of anti-somethings but this is one a good many people take issue with — curiously suggesting that the “anti” part of the message is somehow lost in the very symbol the message opposes.

    “As for school uniforms, bring it on. I’d looooove to have American school kids wear uniforms. It would sure save a lot of grief.”

    Indeed!

  • Colin

    Actually what you might not know about this symbol, although it is an anti nationalism symbol, it is very widely used as a pro communism symbol. Communisms main rival in europe is facism or nationalism. At many communist protests and rallies you can find this antiswastika symbol on tshirts and stickers alongside of CCCP shirts and Che Guevera scarves. Obviously since the communist movement is not very large in america, most americans do not know this.

%d bloggers like this: