>... but I don't think we ought to asume that anyone interested in Swastikas is a Nazi, or we'd better put a stop to these Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies at Stonehenge for a start!<
Your not kiddin' Forrester. I've stayed out of the 'swastika' debates on TMA though I did come face to face with the problem in a practical way last year when conserving a Buddhist painting from 17th century Japan.
When conservation to the painting itself was finished the decorative mounting silks that form the outer part of the scroll needed to be chosen. I went through my stock of silks and found a beautiful green damask for the top and bottom and a darker warmer silk for the central surround - both perfect for the painting. The warmer silk had some of the traditional Buddhist motifs woven into it - clouds, parasols, the eight-fold wheel to enlightenment and (you've guessed it) 'sawastikas'. Normally that wouldn't have been a problem (I'd just check with the client if it was OK to use it) but in this case the painting belonged to a little museum in southern <i>Germany</i>! It just wasn't worth the agro so I chose a different silk.
Guess what I'm saying is that the use of the 'swastika' symbol is not <i>always</i> clear cut, even today, even in Europe. The above example may be unusual but other examples are going to crop up now and then and, in a multi-cultural society, we should be aware that sectors of that society (thinking principally of Buddhists and Hindus) will see the symbol differently. Perhaps by using the word fylfot instead of swastika would help distance what is originally an ancient, positive symbol, from its recent negative association with fascism.
I tricky one... and I don't think I'll say any more on the matter.
|