In a recent news article regarding a homeowner’s use of his yard to create landscaping into the shape of a swastika, many have criticized the man for using Hitler’s symbol – therefore, promoting hatred?

The man, has claimed the swastika was a Tibetan symbol before Hitler’s use of it for his war campaign. Yet, many believe the man should not display it because of Hitler’s use “hijacking” of the graphical symbol. 

Well, lets see here.

Historically, this graphic does have multiple historical usages. A search online will reveal it as so.

So the argument is: If a graphical image previously defined in time to symbolize a particular meaning, as what the Tibetan’s used it for, and then another individual or entity such as Adolph Hitler comes around and uses the same image very different than the previous user, that is for his war campaign, then, the image is forever enslaved to represent Hitler’s later use, of that graphical image. That is, hijacking the meaning?  

Now, just because Hitler’s symbolic use of the swastika was flown while he committed terrible acts, does that necessarily mean one is to surrender the previous symbolism of the swastika accordingly?

I think not.

To permit Hitler’s particular use of the swastika to “hijack” the previous or alternate use of the swastika symbol appears to be a surrendering one’s belief and use of the swastika symbol over another’s, albeit more popularly marketed and historically recorded use of that symbol. What does that say about the strengths of one’s believe of any symbol, to have the symbolism of a graphic image taken over merely by another’s use of that symbol. What if it were a use not so terrible, such as to promote a food chain?  

Along those same lines. Remember when Travon Martin, while wearing a hoodie walking around a Florida neighborhood, was targeted by George Zimmerman years ago as a suspicious character, which ultimately led to a deadly confrontation whereby Zimmerman killed Martin after a confrontation? From that point forward, the hoodie garment took on, all kinds of meanings after that.

Along the same lines. What about the Confederate flag?

Some people interpret the Confederate flag as having a certain meaning. Others claim the flag represents a negative time in history. So, just as the argument that claims the swastika image should never mean anything else but Hitler’s use of it, the same logic should be therefore applied toward any display of the Confederate flag.

Hum? To permit one’s self to be “locked” into a particular mindset of how to interpret a graphical image, due to another’s use of that symbol, indicates perhaps one may need to build a more resilient integrity of his or her thinking strengths so has not to be lulled into how to interpret a particular graphic.