GuitarBizarre

The question is, why does there NEED to be a positive representation?

Yes it's a common, simple symbol used by a lot of people for a lot of things, yes it has a lot of history, and admittedly, in terms of timescale, its been a positive symbol for far longer than its been a negative one.

But WW2 and the Holocaust have literally shaped the world we live in today in a far more direct and irrevocable way than any other single event I know of. Everything from American Patriotism and status as a superpower, to nuclear power, popular culture, everything, stems from midwar and postwar culture.

The 50s American "Golden Age" wouldn't have happened without the American postwar need for entertainment and economic growth which was spurred on by huge advancements in American manufacturing. The way to the east would likely have remained closed and japan would be a very different place also. All of Europe would be unrecognisable. Russia would be ungodly powerful. China and Asia's positions in the world economy as manufacturing centers with cheap labour, would have developed differently and likely far more aggressively, etc etc.

I don't agree that there needs to be some movement that diminishes the importance of the symbols new meaning. Symbols and representations are a language and they evolve. Over time, being fat has gone from being a symbol of wealth and importance to a sign of impoverishment and reliance on cheap fast food. Wearing purple has changed from an opulent fashion trend reserved for the wealthy, to being a commonplace thing nobody would think twice about.

World War 2 changed completely the primary associations of that symbol. Much like obesity as a signifier of wealth and stature, it's prior connotations are now only of interest historically - there is no practical value to be gained from trying to change its meaning in the present day.

Yes, there are groups and religions of benign and presumably good people who still cling to older traditions that venerate the symbol for peaceful causes, and they should be afforded consideration - But to drag them into an argument about nulling the present-day meanings of their symbol does them a disservice - you're essentially asking them to defend their symbol at the cost of nulling the meaning the symbol currently carries - That of not only the huge worldwide impact of WW2, which shapes every tiny element of our lives, whether we're aware of it or not, but also the simpler meaning that, should it be forgotten, would be equivalent to forgetting millions of innocent people being murdered for the gain of a tyrant.

__________________