Talk:Swastika

Direction of movement, Vinča & modern use

"The investigators put forth the hypothesis that the swastika moved westward from the Indian subcontinent to Finland, Scandinavia, the Scottish Highlands and other parts of Europe."

This is backwards to the apparent dates of the inscriptions found e.g. it appears in Ukraine ~10,000bce, then Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia ~3,000 to 6,000bce, then Iran ~5,000bce, then the Indian subcontinent ~3,000bce, indicating it was moving Eastward. The introduction of the article also suggests appropriation of the symbol from the East, despite the archaeological evidence suggesting the opposite.

The article should probably discuss the Vinča archeological finds more in the prehistory section. It's worth noting that archaeological surveys unearthed Vinča symbols around the end of the 1800s and start of the last century. It was in use as a flag emblem by the National Christian Union party, led by Alexandru Cuza, in Romania, in 1922. 14 years prior, Vinča archaeological finds had been made in Serbia. Evidence suggesting that it was selected as an emblem as a result of its presence in the archeological finds can be found in the article pertaining to Cuza himself; e.g. Cuza mentions the Swastika and "signs were found on our soil", an apparent reference to the Vinča archaeological finds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.56.5016:40, 1 May 2024 (talk)

The Swastika was not appropriated from Asian cultures

The Swastika (Hakenkreuz) has a deep European history, and it is misleading to claim it was appropriated from outside of Europe. Hitler's own sketches for the NSDAP logo labelled it the "cross of the Teutons". 114.77.179.191 (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Teutonic cross is not "hooked". But I agree that Swastika and Hooked-cross (Hakenkreuz) are used interchangeably which is a problem. The article should bring that Nazi's symbol is Hooked-cross and not Swastika. Unless we educate the people about the difference, we will see too much of hatred against genuine religious symbol Swastika. 72.53.205.154 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's patronising ill-informed nonsense. See the answer to Q2 of the FAQ above in which there is a quote from Hitler in which he explicitly says the Nazis consciously took their symbol from the Indian swastika. You need to accept the fact that the Nazis did that, but it doesn't invalidate the original meaning of the swastika or that the Nazis perverted that meaning. Pretending it wasn't appropriated is just ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that reading at all. The quote seems to me to be saying that this symbol (which was present in ancient inscriptions in Germany) was also found in India and Japan. Hitler would go on to postulate a link between these two areas of usage and a supposed racial meaning to this. But saying "this symbol which we have here, is also found there" is quite obviously not appropriating anything. You cannot appropriate what you already have. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

True but Hitler appropriated as insignia for the Nazi party. I think you are being to limited in your definition of the word. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not appropriation, that's adoption. The definition of "appropriate": "take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission" (from Google's English dictionary provided by Oxford Languages). As the symbol already existed in German culture, it could not be taken from some other "owner". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "appropriated" has been used many times to describe how the Nazis took the symbol and changed its meaning to evil. The Los Angeles Times used it that way in 1995. The Telegraph used it that way in 2015. Also in 2015, HuffPo wrote that "Nazis used it for but 20 years yet they seem have to appropriated (the) swastika totally, like cultural colonizers." Even this year, Pschology Today used the term. These are just a few examples out of hundreds. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't help it that those authors misused a word. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The word is more flexible than you suppose, proved by multiple authors. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Appropriation means taking for oneself something belonging to someone else. That's what the Nazis did even if your point (which is dubious) that they took it from (just) earlier German/European culture not Asian culture. To make that even start working you have to go with the offensive and wrong-headed notion that the Nazis were somehow the "heirs" or owners of that culture. In any case, I note your points are source-free. DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

1) yes, the Nazis (as well as non-Nazis) in Germany were heirs to the preexisting European culture). How is this offensive? Nothing is being said here about the morality of that previous culture. And many criminals have been heirs of virtuous men. 2) The source is the meaning of the word. When we find a word misused in a sorce, we don't blindly copy their error. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So, all Europeans are the same, are they? I'd like to see the source that says Nazis are one and the same culture as the pre-modern Europeans who had used the Swastika. That the Nazis were just restoring a symbol of their culture. That Hitler simply adopted the insignia of his ancestral heritage. Aberrant nonsense. The symbol used by earlier Europeans "belonged" to the Nazis no more than the symbol used by Asians. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

But equally, the claim that it was appropriated from Asian cultures is uncited and uncitable. I have removed it for that reason and I don't see that the article is any them poorer for it.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It may be uncited, but uncitable? The "Aryan" validation that Hitler sought from using the symbol is widely discussed (eg [2]. I don't think finding an appropriate work to cite whould be too difficult.) DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As has been discussed above already, the provenance is very mixed: the device was certainly in use in Europe long before British India, let alone the Nazis. But given the association with Troy (Turkey in Asia, so yes, Asia, just not the Indian subcontinent), Asia is certainly in the narrative somewhere. As 2600:8802:170A:7100:5C15:42F5:C5B1:1EC observes (13:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC), above) it is a long and complicate story and it really would be WP:undue to give it the space in this article that it would need. We have adequate citations for the fact that the Nazis appropriated it; we don't need to get bogged down in the lead as to which cultures they pillaged. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Consolidating the history sections

It seems to me that the table of contents is bloated with repetitive lists of regions where these symbols have been used. If you want to read about, for example, the Navajo whirling log, it's not clear which section you should go to because the same symbol was used historically, in the 19th century, in the early 20th century, and in the modern day.

It seems to me that "Meaning", "Prehistory", "Historical use", "19th century", "20th century", and "Contemporary use" should all be consolidated into one section, which I would call "Uses" or "Pre-modern uses" or "Historical uses". This should be broken up into the different cultural contexts in which the symbol is used. I would have subsections for "Prehistoric", "Indian religions", "East Asia", "Classical Europe", "Medieval Europe", "Scandanavia", "Western Europe", "Eastern Europe and Caucasus", "Russia", "Africa", "North America", "Panama", "Tajikistan", and "New religious movements". I would also move section 9.2 "Western misinterpretation of Asian use" into section 8 "Association with Nazism. This would put related information closer together and greatly reduce the length of the table of contents.

Thoughts? Justin Kunimune (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Any re-organization which improves reading comprehension is okay with me. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with any suggestion that a dedicated heading for 19th-century use is superfluous. Dividing into regions is worse than by periods. Why would Tajikstan and Panama merit dedicated sections of their own? Why would "Russia" be separate from "Eastern Europe and Caucasus" and why would "Scandinavia" be needing a different section to "Western Europe" or "Medieval Europe" for that matter? What is special about "Classical Europe" that would not be true of other parts of the classical Mediterranean or Black Sea basins? Why would "Indian religions" need a separate section to "East Asia" if the "Indian religions" already encompass the prevailing religions of East Asia? The main divisions, as far as cultural significance, would be between decorative swastikas and swastikas as symbols, whether religious or political. The evolution of the latter two elements over time ought to guide the history section's layout.

Nicholas II's use of the swastika has less to do with his Russianness than with his being part of the post-Schliemann scholarly-and-popular fad for swastikas, a phenomenon of the 19th century (and after). The adoptions of swastikas by Rudyard Kipling and by Heineken have nothing to do with being in Scandinavia or in Western Europe; they belong to the same phenomenon as the czar. Trying to split this phenomenon under different regional sections is futile. The use of swastikas by new religious movements also began in the 19th century, and their use cannot be separated from the older religious traditions on one hand or on the other from the newer political movements that since then have adopted them. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this context is useful. The subsections I proposed were mainly based on the subsections currently there, but from what you're saying it sounds like they're much too finely broken up as-is (in particular it sounds like Britain, Denmark, Russia, and the Finnish military don't all need their own subsections). At the same time, I still think a top-level heading for "19th century", "Early 20th century", and "Contemporary" is suboptimal. It's clear that the early 20th-century Navajo use of swastikas is more or less identical to the contemporary Navajo use of swastikas, and I think those pieces of information should go together.

Would a structure more like this (fewer subsections, somewhat more temporal but still partially spatial) be better?

• Historical uses
  • Southern and eastern Asia (the original Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain meanings, and the association with 《万》)
  • Classical Europe (the Greek, Roman, and Illyrian uses and the discovery of Trojan swastikas by Schliemann)
  • Early 20th century in Europe (the post-Schliemann fad and the new religious movements)
  • World War II (use by the Nazis and Allies)
  • North America (the Mississippi, Navajo, Tlingit, and Guna uses)
  • Africa (the Akan adinkra symbol)
• Modern controversy
  • Post-World War II stigmatisation
  • Use by neo-Nazis
  • Western misinterpretation of Asian use

Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This article has a fallacy; Nazis did not steal it from Indians, the swastika is a 4-points simple thing you can draw, even on mistake.

The claim about Nazis appropriating it from Indians is fallacious, and I implore any academic or journalist to publish an article exploring this and for Wikipedia to remove this fallacy in the article or address them as merely discussion or as the fallacy it is. Many of the citations, people in talk, or in general hadn't even ever considered how easy it is to make a swastika. It is no doubt viewed as luck because you can make it easily, or on mistake. It is transformable. Knownforit838432 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you take time to read the article, you will find that it says no such thing. It says that the symbol was used widely across Eurasia, specifically including at least Scandinavia, eastern and central Europe – and that the Nazis knew that to be the case. The appropriation was to make it their party insignia, thus forever damning it in the eyes of most of the world. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what appropriation is, but besides that, sure. Knownforit838432 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The word "appropriation" is widely used to describe the Nazis taking the swastika from India to use for their own purpose.

In 1920, Hitler himself acknowledged that the Nazi swastika was seen earlier "carved in the temple pillars" of India and Japan. It's the same symbol, not a different one. He took it from the Orient. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, not just. Trying to read the mind of a psychopathic megalomaniac is a mug's game but it was part of a fantasy that claimed a superior Aryan culture from Scandanavia to India. See previous discussions for details but the key point is that their off-the-wall theory is outside the scope of this article. The fatuous "logic" that Nazis used to choose it for their insignia really doesn't matter. All that matters is that they did. We haven't found a better word than "appropriate" to describe the effect of that choice. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

the 3d/4d of the swastika shape has scientific uses

Here's one source of several that I found that are related unrelated but have still had the same point at the simple has multi uses in this modern world we live in today. perfect shape for microchip technology Spetznaz88mm (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is really about the totemisms and implied meanings that the symbol has, rather than very incidental happenstances like that one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"there has been a movement by indigenous peoples" whose?

in the as Distinct section, there's a sentence that it was pushed by Hindu, Buddhist, "Indigenous Peoples", etc.. Following the link and immediately at the lead there's "no generally accepted definition of Indigenous peoples", and then lists groups of people self-identifying as indigenous within their country. Worldwide. Not exactly helpful to narrow down which (not helped with the fact that it also list Israeli Jews as indigenous, even if hotly disputed).

Meanwhile, following the citation directly after the sentence, the only mention of "indigenous" are in effect of Western Europe's ancient use of the symbol, nothing about an indigenous group actively championing against its (complete) vilifiation, let alone all over the globe. Perhaps it's in the Symbol Beyond Redemption? book, but I don't have the money to ship in overseas books right now.

So, I must ask, for specificity-- Which people are these people? Terrabalt (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the cited source didn't back up a lot of that paragraph, I added a new source I found and trimmed the text down to match. That source lists Indians, Chinese, Japanese, and "Native American elders" as those behind the movement. Justin Kunimune (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Broken link

Can't edit myself, sorry - in the sidebar box that reads "The appropriation of the swastika by the Nazi Party is the most recognisable modern use of the symbol in the Western world.", the "appropriation" link doesn't resolve. Should probably point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Use_in_Nazism Lilychxi (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted, thank you. Somebody changed a section title without mitigating the unforeseen consequences with an {{anchor}}. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Upper lede not encyclopedic

The following existing text should be shifted to the upper lede: The swastika is a symbol of good luck and prosperity in Hindu, Buddhist and Jain countries such as Nepal, Tibet, India, Thailand, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, China and Japan, and carries various other meanings for indigenous peoples around the world, such as the Akan, Hopi, Navajo, and Tlingit peoples. Afterwards, since the Nazi appropriation/use of the symbol is recent history, add some existing relevant text like this: In the Western world, it is more widely recognized as a symbol of the German Nazi Party who appropriated it for their party insignia starting in the early 20th century. Period. End of upper lede. These shifts of text make the article more focused, factual, neutral, and therefore encyclopedic. Metokpema (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. It would be wise to show a draft of a complete lede that integrates your proposal. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

“Change “German Nazi Party who appropriated it for their party insignia starting in the early 20th century. The appropriation continues with its use by neo-Nazis around the world” to “German Nazi Party who appropriated it for their party insignia (The Hakenkreuz or ‘Hooked Cross’) starting in the early 20th century. The appropriation continues with its use by neo-Nazis around the world” 110.144.149.133 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done See the FAQ at the top of the page. German: Hakencreuz is not English: "hooked cross" is its literal translation but the word used in English is swastika. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

But Swastika isn't an English word, right? ĀDITYA 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's as English as pajamas which comes from Urdu. Many English words are from other languages, they are still English. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Right! Sushi is of course Japanese but now it is also an English loan word. Swastika is the English word for this symbol, ever since 1878, 1880 and 1881 when English language research was published about it. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

See also List of English words of Hindi or Urdu origin (lots!); List of English words of Dravidian origin (including Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect/opinionated translation

In list of reference at 261, the translation/ transcribe of hitler's speech to follower in English have translation of "Hackenkreuz" as "Swastika" that is a personal opinion of Reginald H. Phelps. In original German speech we can see Hitler didn't directly used word "Swastika".

Allowing this kind opinionated translation or information on Wikipedia without further context of information feels inappropriate. After 100 years of new data we can expect ourselves to evolve and embrace new informations.

As per this source it started from NY time - https://cohna.org/hakenkreuz-not-swastika/#:~:text=It%20was%20around%20March%2019,a%20changed%20terminology%20that%20has

It's well known that USA and Europe have widespread racism against Asians and non white and back in days of 1940 we cannot deny the possibility of subconscious bisesnes from Reginald H. Phelps while translation.

Again just to highlight the point of topic, I'm saying the translation is opinionated rather than hitler directly using word "Swastika". If today someone translate a word in their language however they want, should we just blindly accept it? I'm just advocating for a clear information to users so they can see the word "Swastika" is translation of "Hakenkreuz" that can be opinion of translator. 2405:201:5C18:6057:AC3B:D016:D97D:9BA6 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The correct English translation of hakenkreuz has been "swastika" ever since the 1880s when several scholarly research articles were written about it in the English language. It is not the "personal opinion of Reginald H. Phelps." No actionable request here. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No competent translator would do a literal word for word translation: the translation is from colloquial German into colloquial English. For the past nearly 150 years the name of the symbol in colloquial English has been swastika. The translator would have been incompetent had he used any other word. See also FAQ at the top of this page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)