[soc.religion.christian] Swastika

henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl Weiss Henning) (03/13/91)

>>I believe that the swastica is an American Indian sign. Does anyone
>>know if this is true?

A hooked cross figure (I can't answer to whether the orientation of
the hooks is the same as the received "swastika", or reversed, at this
time) is listed in a dictionary of Chinese-derived ideographs used in
the Japanese language, edited by A. Nelson.  There is no information
in this source as to the antiquity of its use among the Chinese (the
Chinese writing-system was introduced to Japan -- with Buddhism -- via
Korea, somewhere between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries of the
Common Era [I forget exactly when]).

This does not refute the use of the symbol by American Indians, of course;
it should be pointed out that very few (none?) of the North American
tribes used anything like written language before the advent of the True
White Brother :-)

Also, I hesitate to ascribe great ethnographical accuracy to the caucasified
Indian-lore of the Boy Scouts of America.

At any rate, it is palpably ridiculous to ascribe implicit, nascent evil
to a mere writing-symbol.  There is nothing intrinsically "evil" in or
about the swastika, but people (who seem to prefer to eschew the rigors
of thought) associate (understandably) the evil deeds associated with
Nazism, with the Nazi's chosen symbol.  "There is no expedient to which
a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking" -- but
/feeling/ well, that's as easy as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance ... :-)

"evil" is something people /do/.  When one says "so-and-so is evil", it's
an excuse to hate that person, and to dismiss everything that person says
as "lies".

Thus, the rhetoric about Hitler or Saddam Hussein being "embodiments
of evil" is verbal hyperbole, and not "spiritual truth".  Hitler was
certainly a bad man, and a sick one ... and one could feel sorry for such
a man, if the understandable horror against the evil he committed during his
reckless and destructive career permitted;  Saddam Hussein is (seemingly)
merely quite a bad one, but he is only a man.

As (notwithstanding his current popularity) is George Bush, e.g.

kph
-- 
"The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject,
both determine and act upon it drunk;  by which means a world of cold and
tedious speculation is dispensed with."  -- Washington Irving

[I think this discussion has gone about as far as is useful..  --clh]

gowj@gatech.edu (James Gow) (04/17/91)

[Back when we were discussing Satanic symbols, Tom Blake mentioned
>Back at the time when the war was breaking out in Europe, the "Corn
>Palace" in the US covered their facade with a series of "Native
>American" symbols.  One of them was the swastika.  The terrible faux-pas
>was pointed out to them and the swastika was removed quite swiftly.  (I
>learned of this while touring the Corn Palace).
--clh]

The symbol is a fylfot and the arms go counterclockwise so that the rotation
would appear to be clockwise. It represented the sun. The swastikas' arms go
clockwise so the rotation appears to go counterclockwise. It is still a
pagan symbol but interestingly enough the sun was the object of worship soon
to be our Son.
linc
james

sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (04/18/91)

uflorida!novavax!gowj@gatech.edu (James Gow) writes:

>The symbol is a fylfot and the arms go counterclockwise so that the rotation
>would appear to be clockwise. It represented the sun. The swastikas' arms go
>clockwise so the rotation appears to go counterclockwise...

The German language shows the swastika for what it is: their word for it
is "Hackenkreuz", i.e., "hooked cross".

A German man once explained to me the difference between the swastika and
the American Indian symbol (fylfot, thanks James) as follows: when turned
in the "natural" direction of rotation, i.e., clockwise, the American Indian
symbol has a "stroking" effect, whereas the swastika has a "tearing" effect.

This may be another reason why one is a positive symbol, and the other one
is a negative symbol.

Regards,
Mark Sandrock
--
BITNET:   sandrock@uiucscs	        Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu   Chemical Sciences Computing Services
Voice:    217-244-0561		        505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL  61801

pingali%gaia@cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (04/21/91)

In article <Apr.18.03.24.00.1991.7342@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:

>A German man once explained to me the difference between the swastika and
>the American Indian symbol (fylfot, thanks James) as follows: when turned
>in the "natural" direction of rotation, i.e., clockwise, the American Indian
>symbol has a "stroking" effect, whereas the swastika has a "tearing" effect.

The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit (su (good) + asti (is) ).
The swastika in India rotates clockwise (as, apparently, does the
Native American one) and is a symbol of beneficience. "Swasti" is a
Sanskrit word that appears frequently in chants as a blessing and the
symbol has been widely used for centuries now.

Sridhar Pingali 

mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (04/21/91)

In article <Apr.18.03.24.00.1991.7342@athos.rutgers.edu>,
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:

> in the "natural" direction of rotation, i.e., clockwise, the American Indian
> symbol has a "stroking" effect, whereas the swastika has a "tearing" effect.

This has only the most tangential relevance to soc.religion.christian, but
I wonder WHAT the ??? you mean by "natural" direction of rotation?  The
way our (analogue!) clocks turn is essentially an arbitrary choice of one
of two possibilities.  If you turn fylfot & swastika the OTHER way, then
which one is "stroking" and which "tearing" is suddenly different.

As a mathematician, observing the "urrotation" of t -> exp(it), I would
have to say that the "natural" direction of rotation is widdershins --
but that too is dependent on the way we apply coordinates arbitrarily in
the complex plane.  Do you mean to suggest that because Hebrew writes from
right to left that God wants angles to increase in the opposite sense, and
Bishop Berkeley was right about me and my colleagues being "infidels?" Ah,
all this calculus is a sad mistake!

(The Chinese, who invented the compass, and named it the "south-pointing"
device will also have come up with your "natural" direction of rotation
had they gone on to invent complex analysis as well; yet another indictment
of the infidel mathematicians of Christendom -- must be a satanic plot.)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
...!att!attunix!mls		and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
m.siemon@ATT.COM		a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.

dweinste@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) (04/22/91)

In article <Apr.21.01.43.00.1991.19319@athos.rutgers.edu> mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes:
#In article <Apr.18.03.24.00.1991.7342@athos.rutgers.edu>,
#sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes:
#
#> in the "natural" direction of rotation, i.e., clockwise, the American Indian
#> symbol has a "stroking" effect, whereas the swastika has a "tearing" effect.
#
#This has only the most tangential relevance to soc.religion.christian, but
#I wonder WHAT the ??? you mean by "natural" direction of rotation?  The
#way our (analogue!) clocks turn is essentially an arbitrary choice of one
#of two possibilities.  If you turn fylfot & swastika the OTHER way, then
#which one is "stroking" and which "tearing" is suddenly different.

It isn't nearly so "arbitrary" as you make it out to be. "Clockwise" in 
analogue clocks is the direction it is because that is the direction of the
shadows on a sundial in the northern hemisphere. Since (if I am not mistaken)
both the fylfot and the swastika are sun symols, assigned a sunwise rotation
isn't a terribly "arbitrary" decision...


--Dave
--
Dave Weinstein                            Internet: dweinste@isis.cs.du.edu
Disclaimer: You aren't serious, are you?            dweinste@gnu.ai.mit.edu
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be Light."
And there was still nothing. But, you could see it.