Who said a thing about shoving your observation anywhere?

I stand by what I said: For Americans to rudely complain about foreigners getting foreign jobs is a dick move.

That’s the Christian spin on why Jesus was crucified, not the legal or secular or factual reason.

You don’t think that when the judgment against him was read they said “Jesus of Nazareth is hereby condemned to death for the sins of the world.”, do you?

Oh, and one could argue that the “sins of the world” he was supposedly dying for? That originally referred to the sins of those who had condemned him to death (“Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.”), not everyone on Earth.

It all depends on interpretation and who wants to use it toward what end.
It all depends upon just who “them” and “they” refer to, and that is open to interpretation.

As for other symbols, I didn’t bring up the Cross, just responded to the ongoing conversation.
However, I always find the Star-Spangled Banner resonates well with me, even though the American patriotic poem was set to the tune of a popular British drinking song, written by John Stafford Smith for the Anacreontic Society, a Men’s social club in London. “The Anacreontic Song”.
I also like “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”, set to the tune of “God Save the Queen”.
Two tunes appropriated and used with new meaning. Not physical symbols, but art used for a new purpose and to impart new meaning/message nonetheless.

Again…as I said before above…”My intent was to point out to you that symbols of all kinds can easily be appropriated and used to mean whatever the “speaker” would like them to mean.”

I think I’ve clearly supported my point several times, and been unusually nice about it in doing so.
This is an old thread, so respond if you must, but I’m moving on.

Nor do I think the cross is exempt from manipulation. I used it as an example because it has a long-lasting emotional resonancy in America, which I think makes it harder to manipulate in America, meaning that contexts in which it can mean something different are narrower in America . It has a weird relationship with government, despite separation of church and state, and is often seen as a necessary identifier of political morality. I find it weird. One thing I however, I think, changes what symbols mean the fastest is when the people in power create an emotional resonancy for them. So for instance, if America became a Christian theocracy, the symbol of the cross would change to whatever people thought of the theocracy quicker, in a broader context and more widely than it would for simply a terrorist group.

As far as a I know, Christ on the Cross was being punished for the sins of the world, in the world’s stead. Still a symbol of punishment. I think it is also conflated with redemption and hope for some people big time, but the punishment for the world’s sins is a big meaning also.

I see knee-jerk reactions as more of survival techniques than lack of empathy. But seeing the deeper contextual meanings behind events is something we should all aspire to.

If you know any extremely emotional resonant symbols in America that have also been appropriated to mean something else besides the cross, let’s debate that too.

As a side note, swastikas are all over Greek pottery from the Geometric era. Most think it most probably was influenced by interactions with the Persians and other easterners. The pottery is really pretty, I think, because of its simplicity.

Kublai Khan or was it Ghengis, kind of did it the other way, didn’t he? Though I don’t know if he got to India, but he did get to what we now know as Iraq (and burnt their libraries) and Iran. Seems India was untouched, but not Afghanistan.

I better step out of this history lesson now

That’s the short version, of course…Stalingrad ate up a huge amount of German resources in the northern route, and India would still be on the other side of Iraq, Iran and “the Stans”.
No one has done all of that since Alexander the Great.

In fact, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met in Tehran in 1943, so there wasn’t much threat to India’s west from Germany.

Japanese expansionism also meant that Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and so on were involved in the war. Those countries were under colonial rule, not just British colonial, and Japan’s excuse for invading was that it was freeing South-East Asia from colonial rule. I don’t know if the locals saw it the same way, but after the war, it is true, direct European colonialism mostly phased out over time. The war histories say that they were probably looking for resources, so, I think in many ways that people from North-East Asia (Chinese, Koreans and so on, who were under Japanese colonialism) and South-East Asia had no choice but to be involved as the invaders were on their doorstep, whether or not their countries were under the auspices of British colonial rule (which could not protect them). Thailand, for example, was not under any overt colonial rule.

I have lived in Japan and I have great respect for the country, and appreciate the people and their warmth and kindness. In war, though, it seems all atrocities that can be imagined are committed, particularly with an official seal.

My country (Australia) is responsible for its own underhand tactics with its indigenous population, and also in various wars, and at the bidding of companies, of course – I think that is what foreign policy equates to, right? History is written by the victors. I am glad that The United Nations evolved from the debris of WW2. Of course, it hasn’t stopped wars and human rights abuse from occurring but in theory it is a great idea.

The Germans were in the Middle East, though, CB, which is also very close to India – but I know you have studied war history a lot more than I have.

I, for one, want to learn more about oi’s swastika and belief system. I am always open to educating myself and this is a great example of the damage that propaganda can do. Oi, thank you for opening my eyes! You are one incredible person.

Yes, it was a World War, but not everyone was facing the same threats from the Axis powers.
The Ethiopians were more concerned with the Italians than the Japanese.
Or did you forget that Italy was an Axis power? Still, no reason not to spend tourist dollars in Rome, right?
Who cares how many Ethiopians the Italians killed?

Just saying…history class…US education.

I never ever said that if you see a Swastika on anybody you should assume it’s a Hindu symbol.
My point is and was if you know about Swastika’s original meaning (Hindu) you should not go around saying Swastika is evil. If you say that I am going to assume that you do not know about original meaning. I never said that just because you know the original meaning you should put aside your judgement of situation based on context. Actually I am with you on that one. Please base your judgement about Swastika’s meaning depending on context and individuals. If you see Swastika on Indian’s home’s doorstep then in that case you can be 99.99% certain that guy has nothing to do with Nazism. 0.01% is there because if you don’t him personally then you can’t be certain.
Also I wanted to say that I live in US right now and I don’t have a Swastika tattooed on my arm or on my door step. (that’s where traditionally Swastika are displayed as a sign of grounded and stable home which welcomes you) because I know that by doing that I would offend so many people who don’t know about Swastika’s original meaning. Sure I can explain if they ask me but I want to respect the prevalent meaning here in US and don’t want to insult people. I think i am showing reasonable amount of respect towards this culture it’s not unreasonable for me to expect the same in return, that is you show respect to Swastika by not calling it evil if you know the original meaning.
Even though I know Swastika’s other meaning but because Hitler was a jerk I am not going to look at it any other way argument does not sit with me.