# Store owner defends selling Nazi trappings



## Powermetalbass (Sep 2, 2012)

New Westminster store owner defends selling Nazi trappings

History is history. Just because someone might use it for a bad purpose, does not make the person who created or sold it a bad person. Also if we're going to teach history to the world, both sides should be taught not just history written in the style of "history is written by the winners"

For example. Just because a scientist discovered how to put plutonium and uranium together and creates large amounts of energy. Someone else comes along and uses that idea to create nuclear weapons. The scientist is not too blame. The person who uses the ideas and science for a negative purpose is to blame.

The guy states clearly in the article "I'm trying to promote history, and that's all I'm trying to do,"


----------



## The Uncreator (Sep 2, 2012)

Some people cant appreciate the knowledge and insight history has to offer


----------



## Deadnightshade (Sep 2, 2012)

Everybody and his butt gets offended nowadays...

That being said,having t-shirts with the swastika symbol (even if nazis copied it from the hindu symbol) is unnecessary,and carries no actual message for people that aren't nazis and wear it.On the other hand,nazis aren't that stupid to wear it in public if there's not a gathering of their like-minded,I suppose...

What I'm against though,is the gas masks for CHILDREN.I can understand having one as memorabilia in your house,or even wearing it in concerts when playing with your band,if you feel it conveys a message through your music.But why have a replica specifically made for a child?If it's just for historical awareness,a simple decorative mask somewhere in the house is enough.The child doesn't have to play with it.The passive state of wearing such a mask goes a little further than the plastic toy guns,IMO..


----------



## Electric Wizard (Sep 2, 2012)

Well the article says that the gas masks are authentic. So, assuming that's right, they aren't modern repros meant for kids to play with, they're actual units from a time when there was sadly a need for such a thing. Personally I think that such a piece is fascinating, since it shows that total war was truly happening.

As for the nazi t shirts, I kind of think that's a stretch to call them memorabilia. A reproduction uniform sure, but a swastika tee? Not that I think it matters, as there's no question the guy should be able to sell them. Calling them memorabilia and claiming that no one in particular buys them seems a bit fishy though. Maybe the guy's telling the truth, I just don't know what regular people would do with nazi shirts.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 2, 2012)

Anyone else find it odd (and slightly amusing) that the Nazi Swastika was taken from Hindu symbolism? Just seems nuts. The literal meaning of the Swastika is "to be good" and it just seems odd that the Nazis adopted it from a religion that they probably weren't very fond of.


----------



## Powermetalbass (Sep 2, 2012)

Hitler was a bit of a "mystic" nut. If you do some research you'll find that the word 'Aryan' has nothing to do with white Nordic people, but is a race of ancient people from Northern India.


----------



## kevdes93 (Sep 2, 2012)

history major reporting. it really rustles my jimmies to see people freaking out over Nazi memorabilia. i saw recently on pawn stars this guy wanted to sell rick some nazi plates taht his grandpa took from hitlers summer home. rick wanted nothing to do with the stuff saying its "bad mojo"

i dunno, trying to bury history no matter how bad bugs the heck out of me.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 2, 2012)

I can see why it would offend some people, but as long as no one actually backs the ideals the Nazi party represented then it's not a big deal. Besides, say what you want about the Nazis but they had style.


----------



## Nile (Sep 2, 2012)

I support this store owner fully.


----------



## Mexi (Sep 2, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> say what you want about the Nazis but they had style.



not gonna lie, this has been something I've though to be true for some time. German efficiency extended to their tailors too, I suppose.



> "In itself, the symbol is not against the law," Det. Const.Terry Wilson said.


I think it is unfortunate that the swastika, as a symbol, has been bastardized by the Nazis. It's a 4000 year old symbol used across human history, and just because some crazy assholes use it too, somehow some people think there is something inherently bad about it. ignorance








Secret Nazi basketball team or Navajo team circa 1910?


----------



## wlfers (Sep 2, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Anyone else find it odd (and slightly amusing) that the Nazi Swastika was taken from Hindu symbolism? Just seems nuts. The literal meaning of the Swastika is "to be good" and it just seems odd that the Nazis adopted it from a religion that they probably weren't very fond of.



The swastika has been used my multiple peoples and religions for thousands of years including the Germanic tribes during the migration periods. So no, it wasn't just arbitrarily taken by from the Hindus by the Nazis. 

Good for the store owner. Over here you can find WWII memorabilia at many gun stores and military surplus stores too. The WWII relics in shops aren't meant as a special stop for skinheads or anything of the sort, they're just right next to the WWI memorabilia, the Civil War... the list goes on.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 2, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Besides, say what you want about the Nazis but they had style.



They did have style coming out of their behinds.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 2, 2012)

That said, when one symbol is thoroughly wedded to the systematic murder of millions (no matter its prior significance) it kind of turns anyone who wants to own or wear the symbol into a douchebag.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 2, 2012)

As someone of Jewish decent, I'm totally okay with this stuff being sold. 

I do hold the right to think anyone who buys any of it is a jackass though.


----------



## wlfers (Sep 2, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> That said, when one symbol is thoroughly wedded to the systematic murder of millions (no matter its prior significance) it kind of turns anyone who wants to own or wear the symbol into a douchebag.




Coin collector:




Douche



Stamp collector:




Douche



This baby:




...


I only include that last one since you say 


> no matter its prior significance


The people selling war relics are not making any moral statements or supporting genocide. At least most of them..

Edit: In addition, what about religious symbols that some people associate with events like the crusades and inquisition?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 2, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> As someone of Jewish decent, I'm totally okay with this stuff being sold.
> 
> I do hold the right to think anyone who buys any of it is a jackass though.



Thank you, for basically stating my point more clearly


----------



## Nile (Sep 3, 2012)

This is in the top things I hate, when a symbol or object or anything like that is hated on because of some idiot that adopted it.


They Nazis did indeed have some style though. Absolutely cannot lie about that.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 3, 2012)

Can hardly fault the guy for selling swastika t-shirts, just like the Nazis used to wear.


----------



## tacotiklah (Sep 3, 2012)

People will complain about anything these days. That time/energy would be better spent building a bridge and getting the fuck over it. 

Clearly the antagonist here (guy who complained) seemed to have forgotten that he wandered into a military supply store that sold WWII merchandise, which includes things made by the Nazis. That's like going into a McDonalds and complaining about the fact they sell cheeseburgers that are fattening. Don't like it? Don't go there. For fucks sake the owner is Jewish himself, so it's not like he is trying to fund a neo-nazi group or anything...


----------



## kochmirizliv (Sep 4, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Anyone else find it odd (and slightly amusing) that the Nazi Swastika was taken from Hindu symbolism? Just seems nuts. The literal meaning of the Swastika is "to be good" and it just seems odd that the Nazis adopted it from a religion that they probably weren't very fond of.



Well as far as I know the "original" swastika is on the oposite side 






And Hitler uses it as this 






I dunno why is that so,but there is a difference


----------



## cwhitey2 (Sep 4, 2012)

Cant learn from the past if we bury it.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Sep 4, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> For fucks sake the owner is Jewish himself, so it's not like he is trying to fund a neo-nazi group or anything...


I was thinking about this. At first I was ambivalent about selling t-shirts with nazi imagery. However I realized that the owner has a good thing going. People buying the shirts are effectively showing the guy that they hate him by paying him money.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 4, 2012)

kochmirizliv said:


> Well as far as I know the "original" swastika is on the oposite side


 
I don't think that's necessarily true, given even evidence on this very page: The swastikas on the vintage basketball players' uniforms and the one being painted on the baby's head are both facing in the same direction as the one the Nazis used. One picture actually predates the Nazis, and one is from a religious ritual whose symbolism likely predates them as well.

I'm sure there could be some significance to the direction which a swastika is facing in some situations, but the idea that when it's facing one way it's Nazi and another way it isn't, or is the "original" one, seems a bit suspect to me. I've done absolutely zero research on the matter, though, so take that with a grain of salt .

Come to think of it, nearly all the Buddhist temples I came across here have swastikas on them. I should pay attention to which way they face the next time I see one.


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 5, 2012)

Wow.. He'd go to jail within minutes if he had his store in Germany/Switzerland/Austria.

And actually I find that this is how it should be done anywhere else, too.
Firstly, all that "It's a very old religious symbol"-stuff is a joke, since the svastika is clearly in a nazi-context on all the products this guy sells.
He isn't exactly selling buddha-statues, right? THEN it would be ok.

Secondly, I need to say that I am generally all for the "freedom of opinion"-thing, but freedom needs to be restricted when the freedom of one takes away the freedom of another, or as in this case, discriminates someone.
That's not an opinion, that's just hatred, and no one needs that.

And yeah, he seels jewish stuff also. Nice try, really! Are people that easy to fool? For fucks sake, he makes money by satisfiing the needs of rassistic people. Enough for me to close his store.
Why should the law make a difference because he's jewish? That would be rassism again.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 5, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> Secondly, I need to say that I am generally all for the "freedom of opinion"-thing, but freedom needs to be restricted when the freedom of one takes away the freedom of another, or as in this case, discriminates someone.
> That's not an opinion, that's just hatred, and no one needs that.



How is he, the store owner, "taking [takes] away the freedom of another"? Or if just referring to those who sympathize with Nazi ideologies, they are still free to think that. 

Living with freedom is more important than getting a little offended. 

Once again, I am of Jewish decent and members of my family have died at the hands of the Nazis in both concentration camps and the battlefield.


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 5, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> How is he, the store owner, "taking [takes] away the freedom of another"? Or if just referring to those who sympathize with Nazi ideologies, they are still free to think that.



They are free to think whatever they want, but I can't justify it if they spread their word or their ideology, since it is discriminating people for no rational reason. And that's what they do, if they wear a t-shirt with a svastika. 
And to think that entire races should be erased because they are inferior to others isn't "getting someone a little offended".

And I'm sorry for your loss.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 5, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> They are free to think whatever they want, but I can't justify it if they spread their word or their ideology, since it is discriminating people for no rational reason. And that's what they do, if they wear a t-shirt with a svastika.
> And to think that entire races should be erased because they are inferior to others isn't "getting someone a little offended".



But if all they do is think of hateful, despicable things they aren't actually hurting anyone, so yes it is that people are just getting offended. 

If they act on those thoughts in a physical way, then by all means they should be put to justice. Until that happens though, they are allowed to think what they want to think. 

The idea of "thought crimes" is WAY too slippery of a slope for my tastes. If the precedent is set, what is stopping someone who doesn't agree with your ideologies to oppress you? There are people fundamentally opposed to science, birth control, vaccination, etc.


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 5, 2012)

If you wear a t-shirt with a symbol on it that stands for the approval of genocide, you are no longer just having despicable thoughts, but are in essence trying to convince others to think the same.
I don't see how this is just "getting people offended" - this is calumny on an entire population. It's not like birth control or vaccination, where you are only condemning a certain ACT, but condemning human beings just because of their existence! 

And where I live, that actually is prohibited, by law. But that's of course because of our geographic closeness to where it all happened. And that also has an influence on our sense of ethics, so let's just name it cultural differences and agree to disagree.


----------



## Nile (Sep 5, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> If you wear a t-shirt with a symbol on it that stands for the approval of genocide, you are no longer just having despicable thoughts, but are in essence trying to convince others to think the same.



The Swastika isn't the approval of genocide, its a symbol of an ideology. Also by wearing a Swastika shirt, you aren't having despicable thoughts, your just wearing a shirt. And how is it convincing others to think the same?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 5, 2012)

Nile said:


> The Swastika isn't the approval of genocide, its a symbol of an ideology. Also by wearing a Swastika shirt, you aren't having despicable thoughts, your just wearing a shirt. And how is it convincing others to think the same?



I dunno about that first point. Its the symbol of an ideology, steeped in hate, that culminated in genocide. Wearing a shirt like that is an endorsement, essentially saying "I agree with this party that committed mass murder."

Also, keep in mind many places don't actually have the freedom of speech (look at the UK) and many others that were hit particularly hard by Nazis (Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, etc.) have in fact banned the memorabilia. So there is a fundamental difference in culture and opinion here.

EDIT: Mistyped; I meant to say "have the freedom of speech as strong as the US"


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> *Also, keep in mind many places don't actually have the freedom of speech* (look at the UK) and many others that were hit particularly hard by Nazis (Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, etc.) have in fact banned the memorabilia. So there is a fundamental difference in culture and opinion here.



Ah, I'm not sure that that's accurate, there are small limitations, so it is not complete freedom of speech, but it would be foolish to say that there is no freedom of speech.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 5, 2012)

Wait... I don't have freedom of speech? What? When did this happen?!


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 5, 2012)

I guess I should clarify that it's not nearly as complete nor as strong as the US version when it comes to certain forms of speech


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Wait... I don't have freedom of speech? What? When did this happen?!



I am as chocked as you....
Here I have been living my life, and a bombshell like this explodes




TemjinStrife said:


> I guess I should clarify that it's not nearly as complete nor as strong as the US version



In many ways stronger in for example Sweden as, even though hate speech is not legal, our court system is extremely restrictive with law-suits. A person suing another person is almost unheard of


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 5, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> I guess I should clarify that it's not nearly as complete nor as strong as the US version



Really? Care to elaborate or post links or the like? I'm honestly taken aback by this.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 5, 2012)

Quickest and easiest read I can find: Freedom of speech by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The UK has far broader exceptions and exemptions to that freedom than the US does.


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 5, 2012)

Nile: ...fine by me, so then it is the symbol of an ideology - which as itself approves (and actively supports) genocide. 
By wearing a Swastika shirt, you are obviously carrying out your views to the public, and explaining them as the right ones. (You wouldn't support them otherwise, would you?).

Imagine there were some US-senators (I know, it's getting hypothetical now) founding a party which sets itself the goal to systematically hunt down all citizens of Minnesota, since they all somehow seem to be inferior subhuman beings according to some weird stupid thougts, and that they actually succeeded to kill a major part of your state's whole population some years ago. Would you really advocate the sale of t-shirts which are essentially saying that the train of thought that lead to these actions were right and legitimate?

And TemjinStrife: At least the western part of Europe definitely has the freedom of speech, no matter what an American Wikipedia article says. At least as much as a mentally sane citizen can use it.
And, to be exact, Switzerland wasn't hit by the Nazis at all, it is the only Central-European nation that was never involved in any battles, nor conquered by Germany.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Quickest and easiest read I can find: Freedom of speech by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The UK has far broader exceptions and exemptions to that freedom than the US does.



And there you can see that my country has a lot fewer exception to freedom of speech than the US has. You are on the other hand allowed hate speech, if you would feel like it



Guitarwizard said:


> And TemjinStrife: At least the western part of Europe definitely has the freedom of speech, no matter what an American Wikipedia article says. At least as much as a mentally sane citizen can use it.
> A*nd, to be exact, Switzerland wasn't hit by the Nazis at all, it is the only Central-European nation that was never involved in any battles, nor conquered by Germany.*



This is important, both Sweden and Switzerland was neutral in the war, and thus not directly affected by the nazis. Yet we both have laws against hate speech.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Sep 5, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And there you can see that my country has a lot fewer exception to freedom of speech than the US has. You are on the other hand allowed hate speech, if you would feel like it



Yeah. I became aware of this when a London-based friend of mine noted that the WBC could easily be banned from protesting funerals in the UK and many parts of the EU


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Yeah. I became aware of this when a London-based friend of mine noted that the WBC could easily be banned from protesting funerals in the UK and many parts of the EU



They'd be sentenced to prison here, we've already done it before with a pastor by the name of Åke Green (different spelling of "twig", not the colour). Apparently that is why, according to the WBC, god hates Sweden


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 5, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> Imagine there were some US-senators (I know, it's getting hypothetical now) founding a party which sets itself the goal to systematically hunt down all citizens of Minnesota, since they all somehow seem to be inferior subhuman beings according to some weird stupid thougts, and that they actually succeeded to kill a major part of your state's whole population some years ago. Would you really advocate the sale of t-shirts which are essentially saying that the train of thought that lead to these actions were right and legitimate?


 

I'll do you one better: Imagine there is an entire federation of states in the US that secedes from the rest of the country because of their disagreement with the federal government on things such as their right to enslave an entire race of humans and buy and sell them like cattle, not granting them any of the same rights as those they don't think are worth less than a "real" human. Imagine that starts a long and bloody war that tears the country apart and pits brother against brother, and leaves a full half of the country in shambles. For over a hundred years afterwards, continuing until today, the symbolism of that federation of states is associated with racism, hatred, and advocation of slavery.

Would the sale of shirts (and stickers, posters, swimwear, _cars_...) be advocated in this country by supporters of free speech, same as swastika shirts?








Perhaps...


----------



## devolutionary (Sep 5, 2012)

Look up the following;

- Nordic origins of the Swastika (it was not taken from Hindu by the Nazis, though it may well have originated there a long time ago)

- Finnish Hakaristi (hooked cross, still in use today in some areas of their military) and the Winter War (where the Allies ignored Finland's plight against the Soviets, so they got assistance from the Germans instead - oh yes, the Allies are so nice)

- Anti-semetism in the 1800's and early 1900's (here's a hint - France were the biggest douchebags in this regard, with Russia running a close second)

- Swastika as a simple (VERY SIMPLE) geometric design


History deserves our respect and understanding. Humanity does a disservice to history when it refuses to speak of the distasteful and hides behind the tasteful. The distribution of history and knowledge of the causes is what drives human development, more so than anything. It is the past which provides impetus and context. The application of the past by an ignorant few is a terrible excuse for the world to ignore it or cover it in a blanket of shame and silence. In my view, the distribution of WWII items and replicas, much like any horrific regime and after, is the distribution of history. What the individual does with it is up to them, but never should that effect the spread of humanity's experience.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

devolutionary said:


> where the Allies ignored Finland's plight against the Soviets, so they got assistance from the Germans instead - oh yes, the Allies are so nice



The allies actually kept Sweden from assisting Finland. *Brofist* Finland.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 5, 2012)

Some ppl just need a reason to bitch.


----------



## devolutionary (Sep 5, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'll do you one better: Imagine there is an entire federation of states in the US that secedes from the rest of the country because of their disagreement with the federal government on things such as their right to enslave an entire race of humans and buy and sell them like cattle, not granting them any of the same rights as those they don't think are worth less than a "real" human. Imagine that starts a long and bloody war that tears the country apart and pits brother against brother, and leaves a full half of the country in shambles. For over a hundred years afterwards, continuing until today, the symbolism of that federation of states is associated with racism, hatred, and advocation of slavery.
> 
> Would the sale of shirts (and stickers, posters, swimwear, _cars_...) be advocated in this country by supporters of free speech, same as swastika shirts?



This is an example of common ignorance (not an unreasonable thing, but people focus too much on some stuff about the American Civil War). For starters, that flag is the battle flag of the army of North Virginia. The Confederate national flags were quite different, though two iterations iirc did include the design in the flag.

Secondly, slavery was NOT the issue. It was state rights. The Confederates saw it as a state's right to govern themselves, the Union saw otherwise. Oh there were other concerns, such as taxation and slavery, but the core matter were the rights of the state. Ever notice how America (and Australia for that matter) have states, where as most other countries use the term state to indicate a nation? New Zealand is a state with Provinces - there is a single government body. Canada is a state, much like New Zealand. Now take those, mash them up, and give them a super government. That's a federation. The Confederate states wanted to retain their independence from federal dictates (loosely speaking, I'm simplifying dramatically) and the Union wanted the entire nation under one governmental body. I don't know all the details about this, that, and the other, so don't ask.

Also, the Emancipation Proclamation was a laugh, since it only freed slaves in the Confederation. Unfortunately, there were several states that were neither Union nor Confederate, rather they were courted by both sides. It was a political device. Slavery may have been disliked by politicians in the north, but the biggest night of lynching happened in the Union, not in the Confederacy.


----------



## devolutionary (Sep 5, 2012)

Jakke said:


> The allies actually kept Sweden from assisting Finland. *Brofist* Finland.



Best fucking army in the war *brofist* I've done a lot of study on Finland 

And yes, stupid fucking allies. Didn't stop Finland from miraculously "finding" some obsolete Swedish equipment.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

devolutionary said:


> Best fucking army in the war *brofist* I've done a lot of study on Finland
> 
> And yes, stupid fucking allies. Didn't stop Finland from miraculously "finding" some obsolete Swedish equipment.



And for some reason a lot of swedish soldiers, doctors and nurses decided to have a vacation in Finland at the same time (a friend of my father's was one of them). Funny these coincidences..

We have nothing but respect for Finland over here, not many countries could have done the same thing.


----------



## kochmirizliv (Sep 5, 2012)

Isnt that jew acting bad when he says "no,you cant do that its bad dont sell them" I mean the owner can sell whatever he wants (if its legal of cource) And that guy comes in and says that this is not right and he cant sell them?nice.







Guitarwizard said:


> And where I live, that actually is prohibited, by law. But that's of course because of our geographic closeness to where it all happened. And that also has an influence on our sense of ethics, so let's just name it cultural differences and agree to disagree.



You know that your country stored the gold for Germany and led trains with those people cross the country? ))


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

kochmirizliv said:


> You know that your country stored the gold for Germany and led trains with those people cross the country? ))



Yeees.. But would you really be neutral if you played favourites? We might have a hard time to see why Switzerland and Sweden where neutral, but we also have to remind ourselves that we weren't there


----------



## Nile (Sep 5, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> Nile: ...fine by me, so then it is the symbol of an ideology - which as itself approves (and actively supports) genocide.
> By wearing a Swastika shirt, you are obviously carrying out your views to the public, and explaining them as the right ones. (You wouldn't support them otherwise, would you?).
> 
> Imagine there were some US-senators (I know, it's getting hypothetical now) founding a party which sets itself the goal to systematically hunt down all citizens of Minnesota, since they all somehow seem to be inferior subhuman beings according to some weird stupid thougts, and that they actually succeeded to kill a major part of your state's whole population some years ago. Would you really advocate the sale of t-shirts which are essentially saying that the train of thought that lead to these actions were right and legitimate?



So your saying if I wear a "Hail Satan, Cuddle Kittens" shirt, I'm carrying out my views as a Satanist and lover of cuddly kittens, even though I'm just wearing a shirt and have no intention of being a satanist? By wearing a shirt, it doesn't automatically make me a supporter of what ever image or idea is presented by the shirt.

And if the t-shirts actively supported the killing of my fellow Minnesotans and displayed fully that is what the intention of the shirt is, then yes. But if the t-shirts just had an image of the hypothetical party's symbol, and nothing more that would be advocating the devastation in any way, then no, not at all, which is what the Swastika t-shirts the man is selling is doing. It is displaying a symbol that was used by a party, and nothing more as to advocate what they did, its just their symbol. I know it having the symbol on the shirt is kind of like how people have brand symbols on their shirt because they like them is what this discussion is kind of about, but it doesn't mean the wearer is advocating it in any way, leave out what they think until they explain what their views are. They aren't thinking hateful thoughts or provoking it or for the most part supporting it by just wearing the shirt, unless they say so.

Basically what I'm saying is, don't think that a person is of this ideal that is presented by a shirt, when they could be wearing it for the fucks of it, ask them if they believe what the shirt implies, then may you pass judgement.


----------



## devolutionary (Sep 5, 2012)

Neutrality back then was... scary. Face it, of all the neutral nations, Sweden and Switzerland only remained that way because they were friendly in some way to all of the powers. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc. were all fucked up royally despite being neutral at the commencement of hostilities.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

^Indeed, we benefited greatly by having strong historical ties to both Germany, England, and France.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 5, 2012)

devolutionary said:


> This is an example of common ignorance (not an unreasonable thing, but people focus too much on some stuff about the American Civil War). For starters, that flag is the battle flag of the army of North Virginia. The Confederate national flags were quite different, though two iterations iirc did include the design in the flag.
> 
> Secondly, slavery was NOT the issue. It was state rights. The Confederates saw it as a state's right to govern themselves, the Union saw otherwise. Oh there were other concerns, such as taxation and slavery, but the core matter were the rights of the state. Ever notice how America (and Australia for that matter) have states, where as most other countries use the term state to indicate a nation? New Zealand is a state with Provinces - there is a single government body. Canada is a state, much like New Zealand. Now take those, mash them up, and give them a super government. That's a federation. The Confederate states wanted to retain their independence from federal dictates (loosely speaking, I'm simplifying dramatically) and the Union wanted the entire nation under one governmental body. I don't know all the details about this, that, and the other, so don't ask.
> 
> Also, the Emancipation Proclamation was a laugh, since it only freed slaves in the Confederation. Unfortunately, there were several states that were neither Union nor Confederate, rather they were courted by both sides. It was a political device. Slavery may have been disliked by politicians in the north, but the biggest night of lynching happened in the Union, not in the Confederacy.


 
Thanks for the history lesson and everything, but I wasn't ignorant to _any_ of that. I'm fully aware of the various issues at play leading up to the civil war, and that the confederacy used a large variety of flags. However, that does _nothing_ to change the fact that to most people today, the Civil War was about slavery, and the "Confederate Flag," wether or not you or anyone else accepts it as such, represents its advocation. You can ramble on until you're blue in the face about the historical veracity of those beliefs, but that doesn't change their relevance in the context of a conversation about whether or not it's acceptable to sell items bearing symbols that are associated by many with very negative ideals.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Sep 5, 2012)

^ What Tim said. The causes of the civil war from a historical standpoint and from a popular historiographical standpoint are not the same, and unfortunately it's the latter that is of more importance when considering the contemporary meanings of civil war symbols. Correct or not, it's what many people believe.


----------



## devolutionary (Sep 5, 2012)

You miss the point. History should be treated on a factual basis. Common ignorance and misconceptions should be challenged - truth must be advocated and falsity discouraged. At no point did you say that the conception about the battle flag was wrong, so it read as though you were treating it as gospel, which in turn relates to this store owner and his business. It is challenging the misconceptions and falsehoods around a geometric design and its role in history, as well as what it really has meant to numerous cultures. So yes, I responded with factual information operating under the assumption that you were not aware because you didn't indicate it. I apologise if I offended your knowledge on the subject, but I felt the need to ensure that the history was made apparent, more so than the misconception.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 5, 2012)

devolutionary said:


> At no point did you say that the conception about the battle flag was wrong, .


 
The thing is, _that doesn't matter_, because the common conception of the ideals behind the Confederate flag (or battleflag of the Army of Tennessee, Dixie, Rebel Flag, Stars and Bars, however you feel most comfortable referring to it) is what it is, and that's what would cause some people to be opposed to the sale of merchandise branded with it.




devolutionary said:


> I apologise if I offended your knowledge on the subject, but I felt the need to ensure that the history was made apparent, more so than the misconception.


 
I'm fine with wanting to expand on the actual history of the symbol and/or the Civil War in its entirety, I suppose what I took (perhaps unjustified) umbrage with was starting off the whole thing with calling me ignorant. I realize Americans don't exactly have a reputation for being the most educated people on the planet, even in regards to their own history, but give me some credit . I didn't say slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War, after all. I like to cover my ass with qualifiers, hence I threw in the "things _such as_" bit, haha.

At any rate, no hard feelings on my end.


----------



## Jakke (Sep 5, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I didn't say slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War, after all. *I like to cover my ass with qualifiers*, hence I threw in the "things _such as_" bit, haha.
> 
> At any rate, no hard feelings on my end.



Well, out of a sample of you and me, who doesn't?


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 6, 2012)

Nile said:


> Basically what I'm saying is, don't think that a person is of this ideal that is presented by a shirt, when they could be wearing it for the fucks of it, ask them if they believe what the shirt implies, then may you pass judgement.



I see your point, and I think we both expressed our views on this in enough detail. I just refuse to see a svastika-shirt as the same thing as a band shirt, or any other thing. It's just crossing a line.

Come on, honestly, who's going to wear a svastika just because he thinks it's beautiful or interesting or anything? Of course, technically you can, 
but I don't think there are too many people dressing in Nazi fashion without any ideological intentions - therefore I think we can take the small loss of freedom there, for the greater good, so to speak. 

And yes, I know very well that it is still a symbol used by many religions, countries, and so on, but we're still talking of a svastika in a Nazi-context. 
I have a buddah statue in my livingroom with a svastika on it's chest.

And *kochmirizliv*, I know very well about the role of my country during WWII. I don't see how this is related with the topic, and neither the point of any post-war muckracking about whose country behaved better than others during the war.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2012)

devolutionary said:


> This is an example of common ignorance (not an unreasonable thing, but people focus too much on some stuff about the American Civil War). For starters, that flag is the battle flag of the army of North Virginia. The Confederate national flags were quite different, though two iterations iirc did include the design in the flag.
> 
> Secondly, slavery was NOT the issue. It was state rights. The Confederates saw it as a state's right to govern themselves, the Union saw otherwise. Oh there were other concerns, such as taxation and slavery, but the core matter were the rights of the state. Ever notice how America (and Australia for that matter) have states, where as most other countries use the term state to indicate a nation? New Zealand is a state with Provinces - there is a single government body. Canada is a state, much like New Zealand. Now take those, mash them up, and give them a super government. That's a federation. The Confederate states wanted to retain their independence from federal dictates (loosely speaking, I'm simplifying dramatically) and the Union wanted the entire nation under one governmental body. I don't know all the details about this, that, and the other, so don't ask.
> 
> Also, the Emancipation Proclamation was a laugh, since it only freed slaves in the Confederation. Unfortunately, there were several states that were neither Union nor Confederate, rather they were courted by both sides. It was a political device. Slavery may have been disliked by politicians in the north, but the biggest night of lynching happened in the Union, not in the Confederacy.



Well slavery was a huge part whether or not it was the sole reasoning. The biggest rub was when Abe won office and when free states outnumbered slave states. They wanted state rights to protect their assets from the "union" saying no more slaves and other economical decisions. Obviously there were more reasons like America moving to more of an industrial over farming country as well, and other such things. All of it revolved around the economy and state rights, but here's the thing slavery was their economical crutch and state rights was there way of protecting that crutch. History as written isn't free of bias. I'm sure British history of the colonial days don't sound nearly as eloquent as the American version of that history. Our history books in Grade School greatly downplay the Native Americans story for the same reason.



Nile said:


> So your saying if I wear a "Hail Satan, Cuddle Kittens" shirt, I'm carrying out my views as a Satanist and lover of cuddly kittens, even though I'm just wearing a shirt and have no intention of being a satanist? By wearing a shirt, it doesn't automatically make me a supporter of what ever image or idea is presented by the shirt.
> 
> And if the t-shirts actively supported the killing of my fellow Minnesotans and displayed fully that is what the intention of the shirt is, then yes. But if the t-shirts just had an image of the hypothetical party's symbol, and nothing more that would be advocating the devastation in any way, then no, not at all, which is what the Swastika t-shirts the man is selling is doing. It is displaying a symbol that was used by a party, and nothing more as to advocate what they did, its just their symbol. I know it having the symbol on the shirt is kind of like how people have brand symbols on their shirt because they like them is what this discussion is kind of about, but it doesn't mean the wearer is advocating it in any way, leave out what they think until they explain what their views are. They aren't thinking hateful thoughts or provoking it or for the most part supporting it by just wearing the shirt, unless they say so.
> 
> Basically what I'm saying is, don't think that a person is of this ideal that is presented by a shirt, when they could be wearing it for the fucks of it, ask them if they believe what the shirt implies, then may you pass judgement.



The logic against selling the shirts are the same ones I've heard for death metal bands from uptight parents.


----------



## wlfers (Sep 6, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> Come on, honestly, who's going to wear a svastika just because he thinks it's beautiful or interesting or anything? Of course, technically you can,
> but I don't think there are too many people dressing in Nazi fashion without any ideological intentions - therefore I think we can take the small loss of freedom there, for the greater good, so to speak.



That's it right there though, what good is achieved? You subjectively think that it is good to ban the ownership and display of a geometric design.

If I understand correctly: the crime you think it commits is one of thought. It represents or puts ideas of a regime that committed atrocities in the mind of the observer, which to most is offensive. Why should this be illegal? Maybe I'm just spoiled as an American but I never understood hate speech laws in other countries or any kind of thought crime. If you're not harassing somebody or being violent, you should be able to think and say whatever you want.

It is a terrible historical event, but guess what there are plenty of those. It is funny which ones we get to draw the arbitrary line "oh THIS one is the one that laws need to be made about". As far as I know we (America) don't even officially recognize the Armenian genocide because of our beneficial alliance with Turkey. 

If some jackass in America says slavery never happened or even goes as far as to glorify it, everybody will recognize that guy as a moron. You do not need laws to help us understand that, he's just a jackass plain and simple and everybody will know that without him going to jail or getting fined for hate speech. But that is kind of OT..


----------



## flexkill (Sep 6, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> And *kochmirizliv*, I know very well about the role of my country during WWII. I don't see how this is related with the topic, and neither the point of any post-war muckracking about whose country behaved better than others during the war.



Yeah, we have France for that!  I keed I keed


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 6, 2012)

athawulf said:


> That's it right there though, what good is achieved? You subjectively think that it is good to ban the ownership and display of a geometric design.



As stated before, it's about a geometrical design in a certain context, which is then being a demonstration of certain beliefs.



athawulf said:


> ...I never understood hate speech laws in other countries or any kind of thought crime. If you're not harassing somebody or being violent, you should be able to *think and say whatever you want*.



I agree with thinking, but not with saying. Because by saying, you are indirectly threatening the race(s) you are against.
Threatening and aspersion, I believe, are a crime in most countries.



athawulf said:


> If some jackass in America says slavery never happened or even goes as far as to glorify it, everybody will recognize that guy as a moron. You do not need laws to help us understand that, he's just a jackass plain and simple and everybody will know that without him going to jail or getting fined for hate speech. But that is kind of OT..



Sadly, there are always enough morons which are easily accessible for propaganda and hatred. There are right-extremist parties throughout all three German Speaking countries, and they are growing (especially during hard economic times). I think the remembrance of the events during WWII is extremely important, but to ensure that such a thing will never happen again (what I wouldn't find that impossible) it should at the same time be enforced that no one is able to spread his thoughts in order to gain anymore fellow ideologists.


----------



## CannibalKiller (Sep 6, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Anyone else find it odd (and slightly amusing) that the Nazi Swastika was taken from Hindu symbolism? Just seems nuts. The literal meaning of the Swastika is "to be good" and it just seems odd that the Nazis adopted it from a religion that they probably weren't very fond of.



Someone might have already pointed this out, but I think the Hindu symbol is the other way round, meaning 'peace'. Hitler reversed it, to mean war.


----------



## CannibalKiller (Sep 6, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well slavery was a huge part whether or not it was the sole reasoning. The biggest rub was when Abe won office and when free states outnumbered slave states. They wanted state rights to protect their assets from the "union" saying no more slaves and other economical decisions. Obviously there were more reasons like America moving to more of an industrial over farming country as well, and other such things. All of it revolved around the economy and state rights, but here's the thing slavery was their economical crutch and state rights was there way of protecting that crutch. History as written isn't free of bias. _I'm sure British history of the colonial days don't sound nearly as eloquent as the American version of that history. Our history books in Grade School greatly downplay the Native Americans story for the same reason._



I'm not quite sure I know what you mean, but as an English schoolboy I would say what we learn in History isn't glossed over at all. If that is what you were implying.


----------



## flint757 (Sep 6, 2012)

CannibalKiller said:


> I'm not quite sure I know what you mean, but as an English schoolboy I would say what we learn in History isn't glossed over at all. If that is what you were implying.



I'm implying historical bias, not glossed over, but that people who write history write it with a slant. (mostly minor slant, but I'm sure there have been extreme cases)

As an example the revolutionary war is something America is very proud of and is reflected as such in textbooks. You can take the same set of facts and they can have there own spin put on it to make it sound better or worse. I'm not implying glossing or people making things up, what I'm implying, or rather saying, is those who record history record it with their own unintentional (or sometimes intentional) bias. In relevance to the civil war comment I was responding to I was pointing out the fact that it is convenient to say slavery had nothing to do with it basically and that the same facts can be spun several ways and still be technically true.

As the saying goes there are 3 sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth.


----------



## Guitarwizard (Sep 6, 2012)

CannibalKiller said:


> Someone might have already pointed this out, but I think the Hindu symbol is the other way round, meaning 'peace'. Hitler reversed it, to mean war.



Oh, as far as I can imagine, Mr. Hitler didn't really care about what it originally ment. I mean he probably wasn't the smartest guy when it came to any history, apart from the one he invented on his own. 
It's just a symbol, with a high recognition value, and a somehow hypnotizing appearance. It could've been anything, apart from things like a hemp leaf or a hello kitty.


----------



## Powermetalbass (Sep 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I'm implying historical bias, not glossed over, but that people who write history write it with a slant. (mostly minor slant, but I'm sure there have been extreme cases)
> 
> As the saying goes there are 3 sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth.




There is a bias in every stry be it History, Science, Religion, Politics, etc.

History is written by 2 people. Historians and Pseudo Historians. Historians attempt to get to the truth, though they as everyone do have a bit of a bias. Pseudo Historians write history for entertainment and profitability. They write alternative historical possibilities in the course of a year in an attempt to make a buck.Historians do full research and writing in a 6-10 year period.


----------



## Randy (Sep 7, 2012)

Nazi military surplus, for history's sake, is one thing but freshly printed swastika t-shirts is another. 

Not something that should be banned or legally taken away but I could definitely see a moral quandary over producing/stocking such items.


----------



## wlfers (Sep 7, 2012)

Guitarwizard said:


> I agree with thinking, but not with saying. Because by saying, you are indirectly threatening the race(s) you are against.
> Threatening and aspersion, I believe, are a crime in most countries.



There already are laws against threatening people like you just pointed out- which leads to argument that owning war relics constitutes a threat against anyone. I disagree with this. Having a swastika stamp or a wwii era gas mask is not explicitly implying that the owner wants harm to come to another race. 




Guitarwizard said:


> Sadly, there are always enough morons which are easily accessible for propaganda and hatred. There are right-extremist parties throughout all three German Speaking countries, and they are growing (especially during hard economic times). I think the remembrance of the events during WWII is extremely important, but to ensure that such a thing will never happen again (what I wouldn't find that impossible) it should at the same time be enforced that no one is able to spread his thoughts in order to gain anymore fellow ideologists.



But the ability to own a swastika does not augment the power of the new national socialist parties. The fact that they are growing is indicative of some other problem, it seems to easy to pick at the surface and blame imagery and propaganda but I'm confident their rise in elections does not come from that.

Once again, I completely disagree with the notion that the banning of swastikas and other relevant wwii speech laws has any bearing whatsoever on the ability for the holocaust to repeat itself. It's the whole blaming violence on video games and movies argument. The person that cannot distinguish imagery (anything from new national socialist propaganda to violence in popular media) from a real application of how they should interact in our social construct of civilization already has a problem to begin with.

censorship sucks


----------



## flint757 (Sep 7, 2012)

Yeah it is one of those things where they were going to do that no matter what. Censorship isn't going to stop them.


----------



## BornToLooze (Sep 7, 2012)

I'm all for selling Nazi stuff from World War II, just like I am for selling American, British, Italian, and Japanese stuff. I think it would be cool to have something that was a part of history. And just because you collect Nazi stuff, doesn't make you a Nazi, I mean







Lemmy collects Nazi stuff, and he isn't a Nazi, It's just like he said. The bad guys are usually the one's with the coolest uniforms. Or something to that extent.

As for shirts with a swastika on them, I probably wouldn't buy one if I was a Nazi, because then people would know you're a Nazi and treat you like a nutjob. And it might just be me, but it would probably be easier to get people to follow your ideas if they don't think you're a nut. I think most of the people that are buying them aren't Nazis, they're just doing it for shock value like Sid Vicious did.


----------



## creep66 (Oct 14, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Thank you, for basically stating my point more clearly



plus 1


----------

