From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Moderation (was pentagrams)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:17:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.144643.1474@mercury.cair.du.edu> wjones@diana.cair.du.edu (WILLIAM D. JONES) writes:
>
>(A response to Hal Ravn comments)
>
>You are the 
>second to raise the question of the swatica (sp?) I  realize 
>that many people have gut reactions to many symbols be they
>archaic or modern($).  The events of fifty years ago under-
>standably bring to the surface many feelings in many different
>people.  But once again I must insist that it is _unreasonable_
>for people to vent thier anger for said events on a helpless
>geometric figure. 

I think the issue is more one of the feelings that are brought to the
surface by the open display of the sysmbol--rather than the symbol
itself.  For instance, in a museum dealing with the history of WW II,
one would expect to find swasticas and fasces displayed--but it an
much more emotionally neutral context.  First--one would expect to
find them there.  One would also expect to find exhibits making it
plain *why* the reaction caused by displaying the symbols is so great.

Perhaps some of the reaction to the fylfot is because many
people--both in and out of the SCA--are unable to tell the intent with
which it is being displayed.  One can easily claim that one is using
it simply as a quite ancient and pleasing decorative motif, but there
will be an undercurrent of suspicion that ulterior motives are
present--to wit: sympathy for the goals and beliefs espoused by the
German National Socialists.  You can talk until you are blue in the
face, but some people will remain unconvinced that you are using the
symbol innocently.  As a greater fraction of both the SCA and the
general public post-date WW II, this sort of reaction will probably
decline, but I would not expect it to be possible to use the fylfot
for at least another 50 years and quite possibly considerably longer
(especially if the neo-Nazis continue to be active).

>   I don't argue the BoD's ruling.  I do feel that, given the
>nature of our socity(the big one),  we need to bend with the 
>breeze.  I do feel that the motivation for the ruling is something 
>we all need to work on.  

What do you think would be an appropriate motivation?

>  If there are any of you out there who really do find the pentacle or
>other such charge offensive, why don't you tell us why here.  

*I* do not find the pentacle offensive, but I *do* find the swastica
offensive--primarily for the reasons I gave above, plus the continued
existence of groups that publically espouse the more barbaric beliefs
of their German predecessors.  Bad science used to justify horrific
social policy is indefensible--and it was done undar that particular
banner.  Had a similar reaction occured over Turkish actions in 1915,
then the wanton destruction of disliked minorities during WW II might
have been forestalled--and the swastica would be realtively neutral.
History didn't occur that way.  to paraphrase Stephen J. Gould, the
damning of that particular symbol is a contingent fact of history.

>And
>while you're doing that think about whether or not your arguements
>imply that the offending object should be removed or the offense taken
>should be.  

Is there anyone who is familiar with the internal policies practiced
by the Nazis who can look at that symbol and not at least shudder--at
act to make sure such actions do not recur?

>  (Next time I think I'll post on a philosophy/political thread.
>    sorry to take up your time.) 

I think the exploration of underlying philosophy is a valuable process
for us all.  While I think I have been reasonably clear in my reasons
for agreeing that some symbols need to be banned from use in the SCA,
I also think that taking the time to explore these and other
controversial issues is beneficial--and that the discussions *need* to
be revisited from time to time, if only because the cliamte may change
and some policies may need revision or removal at a later date.

Indeed, I find the broad philosophical discussions to be one of the
most valuable types of discussions that occur here.  (I think those
that fall under 'Inter-Kingdom Anthropology' are another.)

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare