Limits of religious tolerance thread

[The Meromorph]

I wear a Hopi silver medallion of 'The Maze'. It's a deeply meaningful symbol to the Hopi, the Navaho and others, and I've known them get very upset at it's trivial use. Yet a Hopi silversmith made it and sold it and from that point cannot control it's use.
In fact I regard it and treat it as a sacred object, but the maker had no guarantee of that. I'm often asked about it, and always give at least a brief explanation of it's origin and significance (The longer explanation seriously confuses the unsophisticated, I've found  -Not unusual with the Hopi). It's extremely significant to me, and I am never without it for longer than a few minutes (and that under duress - like during an MRI). Interestingly, it's often mistaken at first sight for a Celtic Knot (doesn't look like it to me! ), but once I've explained a little, no-one has ever wanted one 'because it's beautiful', though they do before the explanation.
The slightly expanded explanation "I use it to hold being alone and afraid until I have time to deal with that..." has often produced an instant warm hug  People are very sweet!

[beagle]

Having looked it up I can see why the symbolism might put people off (though I'm not sure if I found the short or long explanation  ).

I'm woefully ignorant on Native American religion and ought to read up on it. So far I only know some of the beliefs very briefly displayed in the film Koyaanisqatsi (and the ones selected might have been cherry-picked to appear particularly portentous).

[Outis the Unready]

Celtic knots, Claddaghs, 'tribal' markings...some of these have meanings extended beyond the  original meaning, through common useage. At what point do symbols again become the exclusive property of one group? And how does one prohibit the abuse of those symbols?

I don't think we can prohibit anything, but we sure can be open and honest about what we use.

[Opsa]

I think it's really up to the potentially insulted person whether or not anything is offensive and under what circumstance.

The other day I was at school picking up my child when a gorgeus little kid came in. She had golden-tan skin and a beautiful mop of ringlets. I said hello to her and that I loved her curls. The woman next to me suddenly said to me (as if the child couldn't hear) that she thought that the term 'African American' was ridiculous and that she just called 'them' blacks. I was flabberghasted and did not reply. Firstly, how rude of her to talk about this child as if she were some sort of object, and right in front of her. Secondly, who was she to decide what was acceptable? I mean, why bother saying anything about the kid's race? She was a charming little kid, that's all that matters. I don't believe I'll be saying much to that woman again.

My older sister (yeah, that one) tried to get me started by insulting the FSM back when she knew I was involved with that movement. I just ignored her comments. I figured she was simply ignorant on the subject, which she was.

[Outis the Unready]

I think it's really up to the potentially insulted person whether or not anything is offensive and under what circumstance.

I respectfully disagree and suggest that there are plenty of things you would find offensive without "choosing" to be offended. I think we all know what things are just blatantly offensive and we refrain from doing them, naturally.
I believe we have to be taught to disregard the feelings of others altogether and that, to bring it back to symbols, we have to be taught it's okay to use something out of context.... I think neither is a natural state of a social animal.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think it is a bit harder to determine. Context helps but while a svastika in India has a very different meaning than in Germany, is it offensive to a German or a Jew if an Indian wears one in the west?

Like the so-called satanic symbols (the inverted pentagram or the up-side-down cross), context may well be relative  (didn't Peter asked to be crucified in an inverted cross because he wasn't worthy to die as Jesus?).

[Griffin NoName]

I think it is a bit harder to determine. Context helps but while a svastika in India has a very different meaning than in Germany, is it offensive to a German or a Jew if an Indian wears one in the west?

Context certainly matters. For example, hand - finger - arm movements- facial movements - all have different meanings in different countries. The sign for yes in one place can be the sign for no in another. Mistaking one for the other could be fatal.

[beagle]

Context certainly matters. For example, hand - finger - arm movements- facial movements - all have different meanings in different countries. The sign for yes in one place can be the sign for no in another. Mistaking one for the other could be fatal.

You've been watching the HSBC adverts again 

The woman next to me suddenly said to me (as if the child couldn't hear) that she thought that the term 'African American' was ridiculous and that she just called 'them' blacks. I was flabberghasted and did not reply.

Certainly a bizarre way to start a conversation.  The annoying thing is it takes you by surprise so you only think of an appropriate rejoinder ten minutes later.  We did have a South African visitor at work during the apartheid years who kept coming out with stuff like that. Eventually when someone asked what the time difference was with South Africa I couldn't resist saying "About a hundred years".

The linguistics in the UK are even more complicated (or simpler, depending how you look at it).  "Blacks" would certainly be unacceptable, but you would need "Caribbean Briton", "African Briton", "Indian subcontinent Briton" just to cover the major ethnic groups if you tried for something on the "African American" model. This tended to confuse visiting Americans at the multi-national where I used to work.  They'd go to use that term,  then find it didn't work on either level.

[Outis the Unready]

I'm just bloody Scottish....except for in Scotland where I am a Canadian.

(Well, until I pull out the blue passport, but, you know, it's legal to use a passport case, and I use a red one.....)

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

It's not always a simple case of someone misappropriating someone else's symbol...

Though it often is misappropriation at those "get your family coat of arms" booths at the mall or the fair.  They tend not to tell people that under British heraldry rules*, a coat of arms is bestowed on an individual, not a family, and is not passed down hereditarily.

Interestingly, if a person co-opts someone else's coat of arms, it could technically backfire: a coat of arms as a mark on an object indicates ownership, and it could be argued that when a person prominently displays a coat of arms in their house, they are declaring that the house belongs to the owner of the coat of arms, or that person's heirs (which would likely not include the homeowner, especially if he or she happened to pick the arms of a non-relative who only happened to share the same name).

Just a pet peeve of mine - I don't like to see people misrepresenting something they're selling.

*Note that this does not include Scottish clan badges, which do rightly apply to the entire clan (when encircled with only a leather belt, as they are normally depicted).

[Opsa]

I do see your points about intent. It's not always easy to tell what people intend with symbols. If they intend to offend, then offense can be claimed. But how do we know when it is?

I don't think the lady in my story meant to be offensive to me and possibly not even to the little girl. I just didn't get why she had to mention race at all in that case, and why the heck she mentioned it to me. Maybe she was seeing if we shared a like mind on the subject. I guess one of us at least found out the answer to that one.

[Outis the Unready]

*Note that this does not include Scottish clan badges, which do rightly apply to the entire clan (when encircled with only a leather belt, as they are normally depicted).

Ha! the comment I would'a made in the footnote. I have my own coat of arms, which of course cannot be recognised by law, as it represents an American. (And is based on the non-Scottish part o' my family, the Cornish ones... It's derived from the Morgan sable griffin)

Anywho.....
I'm sensitive enough about this to make my son wear "Flower of Scotland" at our upcoming re-confirmation of our Domestic Partnership, which will be the last time this branch of the family will don the Campbell tartan.(Unless my as-yet-unconceived daughter or grandchild wants to wear my dress in the future....which is a whole other thing.)

It's really a case about having respect over something that's not a big deal to you...if you're going to use a symbol without some knowledge of its context, then it obviously doesn't matter THAT much to you, so the feelings of those to whom it DOES matter trump yours....

FYI, this is one reason some UEWwies often sport the five-petaled rose with pentagram, as seen at http://www.vircle.org/ instead of the pentacle.

[The Meromorph]

Which is why I used the term 'family crest' to refer to my clan badge (Henderson) rather than 'coat of arms' (damn new-fangled, jumped-up, self-styled 'nobility')  
[/rant]
And don't get me started on those damned Germans posing as British Royalty!

* slowly fades into obscurity, muttering dire imprecations and fulminating about...*

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Which is why I used the term 'family crest' to refer to my clan badge (Henderson) rather than 'coat of arms' (damn new-fangled, jumped-up, self-styled 'nobility')  

Yep, I picked up on the word "crest" in your first post.   

[beagle]

...
FYI, this is one reason some UEWwies often sport the five-petaled rose with pentagram, as seen at http://www.vircle.org/ instead of the pentacle.

Pinch our symbol would they:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_rose

Some people have no respect

Actually their's looks rather more abstract.