What does this sign mean? [Archive]

Earthborn

4th July 2004, 05:19 PM

When I first heard about the meaning the sign had according to the designer, I was quite surprised. In this corner of the world the sign is known as the 'Ban The Bomb' sign, and I had always assumed it simply depicted a stylised archetype of a military missile, with those stabilisation wings, in a circle like a traffic sign showing what is prohibited. Like this:

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/banbomb.gif

I never imaged that it had anything to do with the letters N and D, and I can't see those in the symbol anyway.

Jeff Corey

4th July 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I never imaged that it had anything to do with the letters N and D, and I can't see those in the symbol anyway.
"N" is the two flags pointing at an angle toward the ground and "D" is one straight up, the other straight down.
Superimpose the two, you get ND.

Earthborn

4th July 2004, 06:30 PM

I don't get it. Your description doesn't help much, Jeff. "One straight up, one straight down", doesn't that make a straight line instead of a D?

Is this the N?

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/n.gif

and is this the D?

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/d.gif

Or this?

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/sd.gif

And what is wrong with a nice W?

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/w.gif

Or P?

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/p.gif

How about a Q?

http://member.prolinea.org/~joan/q.gif

I find it easier to see a picture in it. I can see the hemispheres of the brain in it, with the cerebellum below them. Perhaps people using their brain are assumed to be against nuclear weapons?

Or perhaps the head of an insect, with large facet eyes and its jaws, showing the only thing that can survive a nuclear conflict? I dunno...

flyboy217

4th July 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't get it. Your description doesn't help much, Jeff. "One straight up, one straight down", doesn't that make a straight line instead of a D?

Is this the N?
(snip)

Er... he's speaking about military semaphores:

http://www.questacon.edu.au/html/assets/pdf/Captains_Code_-_Semaphore_Flags.pdf

(see page 2)

Earthborn

4th July 2004, 07:24 PM

Aha! (Erlebnis...)

Thanks.

Virgil

4th July 2004, 07:28 PM

some fundies think it is the invertied Xian cross and broken.

that means it is the sign on the devil etc.

Virgil

Jeff Corey

4th July 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Aha! (Erlebnis...)

Thanks.
Sorry, should have been more specific. People don't use the semaphores much anymore. Nor Morse code.
... .... .. _ !

Nyarlathotep

4th July 2004, 10:12 PM

It may not have originated as a generic sign for peace, but that is what it has come to mean.

In the Illuminatus trilogy, you find out that it is an ancient Atlantean torture device that the Illuminati made into a peace symbol out of a sense of irony.

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by flyboy217
Trick question?

Trick question. :)

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now you are dis-covering that history is in a state of constant change. It is purely a figment of imagination.

Peace.

As usual, you get it wrong. We are not talking about history (which is not a figment of imagination, but a careful study of accumulated evidence of past events), but the interpretation of a symbol.

Originally posted by Earthborn
When I first heard about the meaning the sign had according to the designer, I was quite surprised. In this corner of the world the sign is known as the 'Ban The Bomb' sign, and I had always assumed it simply depicted a stylised archetype of a military missile, with those stabilisation wings, in a circle like a traffic sign showing what is prohibited.

That's a new one! But I can see how you got it.

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
"N" is the two flags pointing at an angle toward the ground and "D" is one straight up, the other straight down.
Superimpose the two, you get ND.

And then, the circle, meaning "Total". Total Nuclear Disarmament. Not Peace.

Originally posted by flyboy217
Seems most ppl think it means peace.
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
It may not have originated as a generic sign for peace, but that is what it has come to mean.

And this is my point: Can we, over time, accept a change in the meaning of symbols, and if so, when should we do it?

In this case, the change seems not to have been deliberate, but is it possible to use, say, the Swastika in some other form, changing the meaning it has today? The Swastika was merely an old sun sign, before Hitler chose it as a symbol for his movement.

MRC_Hans

5th July 2004, 01:00 AM

After some deliberation, I voted yes. I'm old enough to know the original meaning, but any symbol has the meaning people attach to it. Here is one example where appeal to polularity is actually valid.

The swastica is a good example. An age-old symbol that has probably been tainted forever.

Hans

steenkh

5th July 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The Swastika was merely an old sun sign, before Hitler chose it as a symbol for his movement.
But the Nazi swastika was mirror-inverted, so the old hindu sign can - and is, AFAIK - still be used.

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
But the Nazi swastika was mirror-inverted, so the old hindu sign can - and is, AFAIK - still be used.

Go check again. The symbol was used turning either way.

http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-can3.htm

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
After some deliberation, I voted yes. I'm old enough to know the original meaning, but any symbol has the meaning people attach to it. Here is one example where appeal to polularity is actually valid.

Why?

Originally posted by steenkh
The swastica is a good example. An age-old symbol that has probably been tainted forever.

Perhaps. It will sure take longer than your generation and mine to become dust before we (well, not "us", because we'll be dust...duh!) can see beyond the use of the Nazis.

MRC_Hans

5th July 2004, 04:00 AM

Why? Well, I think that is obvious. A symbol is a means of mass communication (unless it's a secret symbol, of course ;)), and it communicates whatever the masses understand it to mean. If the majority of the population understands the old ND symbol as meaning "peace", then that is the meaning it will convey.

A thought experiment: Put a row of swasticas on the rear of your car, and see if you can convince anybody that "But it's an old sun symbol!"

.... BTW, put them on your left car door, right under the window, and it will convey an entirely different meaning ;). Symbol communication is an interesting thing.

Hans

ceptimus

5th July 2004, 04:06 AM

I and, I think, most British people know the symbol as the logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I never heard of it being used as a general 'peace' symbol before today.

Darat

5th July 2004, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
I and, I think, most British people know the symbol as the logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I never heard of it being used as a general 'peace' symbol before today.

I'm going to have to go with ceptimus here.

Certainly with my background of political activism I can’t see it being anything but the symbol for the CND.

These threads can be so interesting - I'd never realised that it had come to be a generic "peace" symbol. When I've seen it carried in peace protests from other countries I'd just believed it was part of the CND and allied organisations general policy of protesting.

You live and learn

As an anecdote I remember in the 1980 s campaigning against the USA air forces in this country that had USA cruise missiles. On one particular "bases tour" (tour being the politically correct non-militaristic version of a "march" - peace organisations don't do marching!) I was nearly evicted from the march when I admitted that I was 100% against USA nuclear weapons on British soil but totally for British nuclear deterrents.

It was a dilemma for the organisers, the "tour" was about the campaign to get rid of the USA cruise missiles, which I was vehemently opposed to, yet the CND and the vast majority of people on the tour were against all nuclear weapons. I stayed and fought for my distinctly minority viewpoint.

I've never quite fitted in anywhere. ;)

MRC_Hans

5th July 2004, 04:37 AM

Possibly, there are some regional differences (wouldn't be the first time a symbol had different meanings in different places). In Denmark, I think the entire younger generation see it mainly as a peace sign.

Hans

Mendor

5th July 2004, 05:07 AM

I'm pretty young and British; I do know that it's CND's symbol, but only because I came across that at the ironically-titled Wikipedia article Peace symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_symbol). Had I not found that, I'd have gone on my merry way thinking that it meant just "peace".

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

We are not talking about history (which is not a figment of imagination, but a careful study of accumulated evidence of past events)

You cannot replicate history without a time machine, Claus. It all depends on record and memory. As you know, both are subject to distortion. Humans tend to select which bits of these recollections suit them best. So how can you ever be sure of 'history'?

The Don

5th July 2004, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You cannot replicate history without a time machine, Claus. It all depends on record and memory. As you know, both are subject to distortion. Humans tend to select which bits of these recollections suit them best. So how can you ever be sure of 'history'?
Finally something you say that makes sense. One small suggestion though.

Even with a time machine, you wouldn't be able to have a definitive answer on the grounds that, as the observer your evidence would be tinged with your own point of view, impressions of the world and bias (that's for all observers, the you means one).

So we're left to do what we always do. Construct the best picture we can of the past by combining information from multiple sources and giving the weight to each that we think due. Of course this is a major point of contention. Person A may think Source 1 is unimpeachable whereas Source 2 is not to be trusted. Person B may have oppising views of each.

My own guidelines for a good source would include:

- Objectivity (someone who has an axe to grind often does not make a good witness)
- Consistency (if their recollection tallies with mine on a event we both experienced)
- Rationalism (if their account agrees with my preconceptions)

Of course that's just a good source for me

MRC_Hans

5th July 2004, 06:50 AM

Bottle or the Gun

5th July 2004, 06:51 AM

I thought it was an older symbol than the 60's. The Cross of Nero (http://www.of-worth.com/ea/PeaceSign.htm) or something.

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, I think that is obvious. A symbol is a means of mass communication (unless it's a secret symbol, of course ;)), and it communicates whatever the masses understand it to mean. If the majority of the population understands the old ND symbol as meaning "peace", then that is the meaning it will convey.

So, if a majority understands the "n-word" (sorry, this is an American board, we can't speak freely as in Denmark ;)) as something positive, we should be allowed to use it as such?

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
A thought experiment: Put a row of swasticas on the rear of your car, and see if you can convince anybody that "But it's an old sun symbol!"

It could be, to me. But I see the problem... :)

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
.... BTW, put them on your left car door, right under the window, and it will convey an entirely different meaning ;). Symbol communication is an interesting thing.

OK, you lost me. Huh?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You cannot replicate history without a time machine, Claus. It all depends on record and memory. As you know, both are subject to distortion. Humans tend to select which bits of these recollections suit them best. So how can you ever be sure of 'history'?

Same as with science: We can't be completely sure, but we can become more and more certain. And we do it, not because of what people imagine, but what people find: A Roman coin is found in a Danish bog, and we learn just a bit more about those days. How we interpret it, will always be based on what we know.

What, other than dogma, can you ever be sure of?

Jeff Corey

5th July 2004, 07:52 AM

Claus,
Think WWII airplane dogfights. The number of Nazi aircraft you shot down is indicated by swasticas on the side of the plane in front of the pilot.

MRC_Hans

5th July 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, if a majority understands the "n-word" (sorry, this is an American board, we can't speak freely as in Denmark ;)) as something positive, we should be allowed to use it as such?

Actually, if the majority (in the culture where it is important) thought it was a positive word, would it ever have been disallowed? Thing is, they don't. ...Mmmm, I don't like "what if" arguments ;), but suppose some real popular black role-model fellow started to use it about himself and his fellow blacks, what's the betting that it would end up PC?

The Danish word for gay, bøsse, used to be a derogatory term, but now it is perfectly acceptable. Once the gay community started to use it, the symbolism changed.

*snip*

OK, you lost me. Huh?

Placing a row of swasticas under the driver door would mimick victory marks of a WWII (allied) fighter pilot. People might still take offence, but for entirely different reasons (sorry for going off a tagent here, but I find symbolisms so d*mn interesting).

*Snip*

Hans

Bikewer

5th July 2004, 08:37 AM

I used to frequent a gun store here in St. Louis which was run by a rather radically-to-the-right sort of guy. (he was arrested by the feds for fudging paperwork)

They had a lot of bomb and missile casings out front as decorations. Inside was the above-mentioned symbol, with the legend, "Footprint of the American Chicken".

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus,
Think WWII airplane dogfights. The number of Nazi aircraft you shot down is indicated by swasticas on the side of the plane in front of the pilot.

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Placing a row of swasticas under the driver door would mimick victory marks of a WWII (allied) fighter pilot. People might still take offence, but for entirely different reasons (sorry for going off a tagent here, but I find symbolisms so d*mn interesting).

Ah....I use skull & bones.... :D

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Actually, if the majority (in the culture where it is important) thought it was a positive word, would it ever have been disallowed? Thing is, they don't. ...Mmmm, I don't like "what if" arguments , but suppose some real popular black role-model fellow started to use it about himself and his fellow blacks, what's the betting that it would end up PC?

The Danish word for gay, bøsse, used to be a derogatory term, but now it is perfectly acceptable. Once the gay community started to use it, the symbolism changed.

Yeps. However, black rap artists have used the term (n****r, not gay) for years, but it seems that only blacks are allowed to use it. There seems to be a difference, but I can't put my finger on it...

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
That is not the same as it being a figment of imagination. History (the past) exists

Where, exactly, does history 'exist'?

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

A Roman coin is found in a Danish bog, and we learn just a bit more about those days. How we interpret it, will always be based on what we know.

How can you be sure the Roman coin was not located there in recent times? How can you be sure of the authenticity? Do you accept some things and not others, because of your own beliefs in what is and what is not acceptable, to you?

5th July 2004, 09:05 AM

Darat

5th July 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Ed

...snip...

You might check out the eminently readable, and Sainted, P. V. Glob for a nice introduction to Northern Archeology. His book, The Bog People" is really wonderful.

I had that book in my toilet (sorry bathroom for you USAers) for many years.

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Presumably because Danish Archeologists do science. Don't go pulling an Ian now and declaring complete ignorance of the diciplines that are relevant here.

You might check out the eminently readable, and Sainted, P. V. Glob for a nice introduction to Northern Archeology. His book, The Bog People" is really wonderful.

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

Earthborn

5th July 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
How can you be sure the Roman coin was not located there in recent times? How can you be sure of the authenticity? Do you accept some things and not others, because of your own beliefs in what is and what is not acceptable, to you?You show very well why history and archaeology are interpretive sciences, and not exact sciences.

An exact science finds facts. This does not mean that they find the ultimate truth, but they are able to find truth within a measureable and quantifiable margin of error.

Interpretive sciences, which include all social sciences, cannot find facts to this degree. They have no method of quantifying how far they are from the ultimate truth. Instead of facts they provide us with interpretations. The best interpretations are most consistent with the facts found with more exact methods.

If an archaeologist finds a roman coin somewhere, he must interpret the situation it is in: how old the the soil? Is it real? Based on these facts he can interpret how it might have gotten there. If someone finds facts that contradict this interpretation, he'll have to change it.

Good historians are well aware that their interpretations depend very much on their own prejudices, their own beliefs and also from the choices they made what to preserve and wat to ignore. Exact sciences suffer from this problem a lot less.

RichardR

5th July 2004, 09:34 AM

I think it is semaphore for CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), aka the peace sign.

richardm

5th July 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
I and, I think, most British people know the symbol as the logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I never heard of it being used as a general 'peace' symbol before today.

I must admit, I was aware that it is now a generic symbol, but whenever I see it I think "CND".

There's some interesting info from CND itself about what the symbol means and how it came to be created and adopted here (http://www.cnduk.org/pages/binfo/logo.html) . Apparently the semaphore is just ND, with no C involved.

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn

If an archaeologist finds a roman coin somewhere, he must interpret the situation it is in: how old the the soil? Is it real? Based on these facts he can interpret how it might have gotten there. If someone finds facts that contradict this interpretation, he'll have to change it.

Indeed. This why I say that history is in a constant form of change.

Ratman_tf

5th July 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

Indeed. But I don't have much truck with letting the uncertain nature of history paralyze me into inactivity.

You just aknowledge the margin for error and move on, open to new data in the future.

Are you suggesting academic paralyzation since we can't know the past (or anything, for that matter) with 100% certainty?

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
How can you be sure the Roman coin was not located there in recent times? How can you be sure of the authenticity? Do you accept some things and not others, because of your own beliefs in what is and what is not acceptable, to you?

You're not listening. I said we can never be sure, but we can work towards an increased certainty.

If we dig down, and haven't found any other sign that people have been there in recent times, then we can say with as much certainty as we can possibly achieve that the coin was placed there at the time when the other artifacts were also placed there.

As for authenticity, we have plenty of Roman coins to compare with. Can we find similar coins in the countries between Rome and Denmark? Does the evidence support other evidence? If so, then it strengthens the evidence.

Digging in a bog is not like digging in a sand dune: It leaves tracks.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

Thanks for proving my point! The PM was puzzling because he didn't fit the sequence of evolution. And when scrutinized, it turned out that PM was a dud.

That some scientists are crooks does not invalidate the whole field.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed. This why I say that history is in a constant form of change.

That doesn't make it a figment of the imagination.

Originally posted by Ed
You might check out the eminently readable, and Sainted, P. V. Glob for a nice introduction to Northern Archeology. His book, The Bog People" is really wonderful.

Glob is certainly worth the effort.

Nyarlathotep

5th July 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Indeed. This why I say that history is in a constant form of change.

History itself is not in constant change. What happened, happened and there is no changing it. Our understanding of history, though, is subject to constant revision.

As Earhtborn said, history is not an exact science. It's more like detective work. Just as sometimes a police detective finds a new piece of evidence that changes his idea of how a crime was commited or who did it, a historian finds new clues that changes his view of how a historical event happened. In neither case did any of the FACTS change, only the interpretation of those facts.

Like with science, though, the ability to adapt to revise theories as new evidence comes to light is a good thing, because that is how both disciplines correct themselves

Nyarlathotep

5th July 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And this is my point: Can we, over time, accept a change in the meaning of symbols, and if so, when should we do it?

In this case, the change seems not to have been deliberate, but is it possible to use, say, the Swastika in some other form, changing the meaning it has today? The Swastika was merely an old sun sign, before Hitler chose it as a symbol for his movement.

Well, I don't think that it is a matter of whether we accept it or not. The change in the meaning of the symbol sort of happens without most people consciously deciding that the symbols meaning is going to change. Over time more and more people just assume the new meaning rather than the old one and, eventually the symbol assumes the new meaning witht he old meaning only being remembered by historians and those with an interest in the subject. the peace/nuclear disarmament symbol is well along that process.

I don't know that there is a magic threshold where x% of the population assumes the new meaning and thus the symbol now officially means the new meaning, but given enough time for the new meaning meme to spread, the symbol will eventually come to be associated with its new meaning rather than the old one

CFLarsen

5th July 2004, 10:23 AM

Nyarlathotep,

I agree, but it's the "transition process" I find interesting. There isn't such a huge gap between a TND sign and a Peace sign, but it would sure take a lot of cases where the swastika was used for its original purpose (or who knows - perhaps a brand new purpose?), before the new meaning would be accepted.

5th July 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

An exception that proves the rule I'm afraid. I'm sure that it happens, occasionally. In India evidentially a group of Archeologists have been suborned into supporting that a temple site (currently occupied by a Mosque) has ancient Hindu roots. Not unlike that fraud Targ subverting her integrity because of a belief system supportable only by lies.

Real science, however, tends toward self correcting. Those who lie are disgraced, in woosearch, they write books. That is the major difference I think. The "peer" group in paranormal circles are all unindited co-conspiritors.

5th July 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

There are lots of reasons why archeoligists could delude themselves, fudge the evidence or even downright fabricate it!.

I give you 'Piltdown Man'.

An exception that proves the rule I'm afraid. I'm sure that it happens, occasionally. In India evidentially a group of Archeologists have been suborned into supporting that a temple site (currently occupied by a Mosque) has ancient Hindu roots. Not unlike that fraud Targ subverting her integrity because of a belief system supportable only by lies.

Real science, however, tends toward self correcting. Those who lie are disgraced, in woosearch, they write books. That is the major difference I think. The "peer" group in paranormal circles are all unindited co-conspiritors.

Bikewer

5th July 2004, 12:54 PM

As I recall from reading Gould about the Piltdown Man fraud, the fabricator only displayed the artifact briefly, then scrupulously hid it away from the scientific community. He knew it would not stand close scrutiny.

Nyarlathotep

5th July 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nyarlathotep,

I agree, but it's the "transition process" I find interesting. There isn't such a huge gap between a TND sign and a Peace sign, but it would sure take a lot of cases where the swastika was used for its original purpose (or who knows - perhaps a brand new purpose?), before the new meaning would be accepted.

I also think that there are other factors besides how many people are using it for what purpose. The swastika is a good example, it has a very emotionally charged meaning for most people. I don't think any attempt to change its meaning could ever succeed until enough time has passed that the Nazis become just a bad incident in the history books rarther thatn sometihg that living breathing people either lived through or heard stories about from their parents, grandparents etc. A good couple of generations are going to have to pass, I think, before the swastika will cease to carry the emotional weight it has now and could ever mean anything besides "Nazi" in people's minds.

Lucianarchy

5th July 2004, 03:10 PM

Claus, it's a bit like calling yourself a 'skeptic'. People will tend to think a skeptic is a dishonest liar.

Dancing David

5th July 2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Ed

An exception that proves the rule I'm afraid. I'm sure that it happens, occasionally. In India evidentially a group of Archeologists have been suborned into supporting that a temple site (currently occupied by a Mosque) has ancient Hindu roots. Not unlike that fraud Targ subverting her integrity because of a belief system supportable only by lies.

Do you mean Ayodha?

There is a hindu temple under the wreckage of the mosque.

Even better is the number of Buddhist sites that have been claimed by the followers of Shiwa.

5th July 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Do you mean Ayodha?

There is a hindu temple under the wreckage of the mosque.

Even better is the number of Buddhist sites that have been claimed by the followers of Shiwa.

Gotta look it up, it was in Archeology for Idiots last month....

It sure sounded (if we are talking about the same place) that the Gvt. sponcered guys were playing a bit fast and loost with the truth .... I'll find the article this evening. In any event it is a scandal a brewing.

5th July 2004, 06:36 PM

interesting history - some claim it was adopted by the CND from earlier 'hate symbols' - indeed, this generic emblem in one form or another has existed for centuries, but was only known as the Peace Symbol from the 1960s onward in the U.S.

It's a lot like other significant symbols - the origin of the Swastika, the Cross, the Star of David, the Pentagram/Pentacle... all symbols perverted or distorted at some point to take on a new meaning... all symbols that make us think things now that they may never have intended.

Kinda like flicking the middle finger at someone. Is that a universal insult, BTW? Since we obviously have international voices here, is the Bird now an international insult?

Darat

6th July 2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

...snip...

Kinda like flicking the middle finger at someone. Is that a universal insult, BTW? Since we obviously have international voices here, is the Bird now an international insult?

No. Although I have noticed the classic "V" sign (not V for Victory from WW2) seems to be sadly in decline and today's youth seems to be adopting the one finger version.

CFLarsen

6th July 2004, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
A good couple of generations are going to have to pass, I think, before the swastika will cease to carry the emotional weight it has now and could ever mean anything besides "Nazi" in people's minds.

I'm trying to remember if there is a symbol that has dramatically changed meaning over a relatively short period of time. Hmmm.....

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, it's a bit like calling yourself a 'skeptic'. People will tend to think a skeptic is a dishonest liar.

Back to the insults, the smears, the lies, eh? Fool.

richardm

6th July 2004, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I'm trying to remember if there is a symbol that has dramatically changed meaning over a relatively short period of time. Hmmm.....

Well, the swastika itself changed meaning over a few years back in the 1930s ;)

CFLarsen

6th July 2004, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Well, the swastika itself changed meaning over a few years back in the 1930s ;)

...why, yes! Good example! :D

That's going "good-to-bad". Any examples of going "bad-to-good"? Perhaps we are more prone to let a symbol stay "bad"?

richardm

6th July 2004, 02:49 AM

Perhaps. It's certainly hard to think of one that's gone the other way! It's interesting also that some symbols appear to remain neutral - I'm thinking of the fasces, here, which was heavily co-opted by the Italian Fascists, but which still remains on the wall of the US Senate. I wonder if a swastika would have survived if they'd happened to have had one of those as part of the interior decor?

Nyarlathotep

6th July 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I'm trying to remember if there is a symbol that has dramatically changed meaning over a relatively short period of time. Hmmm.....

But when the swastika got co-opted by the nazis it didn't carry all the "baggage" it has now. I couldn't say for certain but I am willing to bet it didn't really have ANY meaning to the average person prior to the rise of the Nazis.

The Don

6th July 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Perhaps. It's certainly hard to think of one that's gone the other way! It's interesting also that some symbols appear to remain neutral - I'm thinking of the fasces, here, which was heavily co-opted by the Italian Fascists, but which still remains on the wall of the US Senate. I wonder if a swastika would have survived if they'd happened to have had one of those as part of the interior decor?
Well there's a Swastika on the side on one of the elephants at the Carlsberg Brewery..

http://www.mykreeve.net/copenhagen/other_areas/carlsberg_brewery/ (picture of the elephants is at the bottom)

DickK

7th July 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

...why, yes! Good example! :D

That's going "good-to-bad". Any examples of going "bad-to-good"? Perhaps we are more prone to let a symbol stay "bad"? Not a graphic symbol but here's a verbal one. Nowadays "hip, hip" is the spur for others to shout "hurrah, hurrah hurrah", but may come from some rather nasty mediaeval English Jew baiting, namely "hep, hep", "hep" possibly being the acronym for "Hierusulyma est perdita", the mediaeval Latin for "Jerusalem is lost!". The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_241b.html) has some interesting views on its provenance.

CFLarsen

7th July 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
But when the swastika got co-opted by the nazis it didn't carry all the "baggage" it has now. I couldn't say for certain but I am willing to bet it didn't really have ANY meaning to the average person prior to the rise of the Nazis.

Hmmm....average and average. It was used in various contexts (see Carlsberg), but I think you are right that it wasn't a symbol known and used by all that many.

Originally posted by The Don

Well there's a Swastika on the side on one of the elephants at the Carlsberg Brewery..

http://www.mykreeve.net/copenhagen/other_areas/carlsberg_brewery/ (picture of the elephants is at the bottom)

True. I am not aware that anyone has ever complained (in DK) about it, though. You don't complain about Carlsberg, it's against the Religion of Beer.

Originally posted by DickK
Not a graphic symbol but here's a verbal one. Nowadays "hip, hip" is the spur for others to shout "hurrah, hurrah hurrah", but may come from some rather nasty mediaeval English Jew baiting, namely "hep, hep", "hep" possibly being the acronym for "Hierusulyma est perdita", the mediaeval Latin for "Jerusalem is lost!". The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_241b.html) has some interesting views on its provenance.

Interesting...

Yahweh

8th July 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
I and, I think, most British people know the symbol as the logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I never heard of it being used as a general 'peace' symbol before today.
It must be an American phenomena, but until today I've never heard of the symbol as anything but a general peace symbol.

In fact, I've seen people wear the symbol around as fashion, the sister Yahweh's have their own little Peace/CND sign necklaces and stickers.

Interesting...

richardm

8th July 2004, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by DickK
Not a graphic symbol but here's a verbal one. Nowadays "hip, hip" is the spur for others to shout "hurrah, hurrah hurrah", but may come from some rather nasty mediaeval English Jew baiting, namely "hep, hep", "hep" possibly being the acronym for "Hierusulyma est perdita", the mediaeval Latin for "Jerusalem is lost!". The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_241b.html) has some interesting views on its provenance.

I'm almost certain that's not right. Anything that's an acronym is very unlikely indeed to be as early as Mediaeval English. While it may have been co-opted in the 19th century as Cecil suggests, it would certainly have existed before that.

"Hip Hip Hooray" is believed by some to be based on a war cry used by ancient Britons, BTW... (By which I mean, as recorded by the Romans)

Edited to add: In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that he is probably just wrong, and it wasn't co-opted in the 19th Century either. Acronyms didn't really get popular until much later when people started to get fully literate. Because if you can't spell, acronyms aren't very helpful. I'd say that with a just a few exceptions (AD BC OK and SPQR spring to mind) there were next to no acronyms until the late 19th Century, and even then they didn't really catch on until the 20th.

Soapy Sam

8th July 2004, 04:34 PM

Another middle aged Brit here. In my childhood, it was the "Ban the Bomb"sign and later the "CND"(Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) symbol.

I never heard it referred to as a "peace"symbol.

As for symbol flipping- what about the classic "V", two finger gesture? With palm facing outward from the gesturer, this was the classic Churchillian "Victory"gesture. With palm inward it was the UK equivalent of the American single finger gesture. Americans often got it wrong, to the amusement of the British.

Britain , dominated in rudeness as in all things, by American TV and film, is increasingly using the single finger.

Words- which are symbols- change meaning all the time.

The capital "H" in Britain used to mean "hospital", but increasingly indicates a helipad. (Possibly because hospitals tend to have helipads).

The road sign for a railway crossing still features a stylised steam locomotive, which many younger adults have never seen in real life.. I wonder if and when this will change- and to what?

gnome

8th July 2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Virgil
some fundies think it is the invertied Xian cross and broken.

that means it is the sign on the devil etc.

Virgil

I don't think anyone has ever produced an example of it being used that way. The only conclusion I have been able to draw, considering this claim, was that it was made up by someone that knew better, to rally opinion against CND.

Stitch

9th July 2004, 02:59 PM

Mean -
To be used to convey; denote: “‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things’” (Lewis Carroll).
To act as a symbol of; signify or represent: In this poem, the budding flower means youth.
Source: Dictionary.com

We are back to interpretation again here me thinks. The answer will vary depending on who you ask, as we have seen from the responses.

If you asked me the question 10 years ago, I would have said it was the logo for CND. Now, I would say peace. Why? Because over time my experiences have grown and my exposure to things has widened. As a result I have since seen footage of demonstrations in the USA, that pre-date CND that make use of the same symbol.

Would I be surprised to find occurances of it back at 2000 BC in Egyptian times and that it meant something else?? Not really, it is quite a simple design with a degree of pleasing symetry, so why shouldn't it far older than most of us percieve (not saying it is!). Bit like the Swastiker, many people are unaware of it prior to the Natzis in 1930's Germany. It is like so many things, it is the masses that define the day to day meaning of things, rightly or wrongly.

Hand Bent Spoon

9th July 2004, 04:46 PM

Given the phrasing of the question, the answer is 'yes'. Had the question referred to the original meaning, the answer would have been 'no'.

The Mighty Thor

10th July 2004, 05:51 AM

tim

11th July 2004, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Sorry, should have been more specific. People don't use the semaphores much anymore. Nor Morse code.
... .... .. _ !

Mr Corey, swearing on this forum is not allowed! And more correctly the last symbol should have been - , not _!
In future, .--. .-.. . .- ... . -.- . . .--. -.-- --- ..- .-. -.-. --- -.. . ... - --- -.-- --- ..- .-. ... . .-.. ..-.!
;) :p

asthmatic camel

11th July 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam

As for symbol flipping- what about the classic "V", two finger gesture? With palm facing outward from the gesturer, this was the classic Churchillian "Victory"gesture. With palm inward it was the UK equivalent of the American single finger gesture. Americans often got it wrong, to the amusement of the British.

Britain , dominated in rudeness as in all things, by American TV and film, is increasingly using the single finger.

I've read a few ideas about the origin of the two fingered salute. The most likely seem to be either that it was originally used by English archers to taunt the French, or that it was a phallic insult, essentially meaning F**k You, as the American single finger gesture and continental raised arm and fist gesture seem to be.

Possibly a mixture of all three. Does anyone know the truth ?

tim

11th July 2004, 02:36 PM

Just using this post to see if my computer works. Sorry!

Soapy Sam

11th July 2004, 03:55 PM

I've heard the theory about the French cutting off the string finger of Enlish Archers- (Many of them Welsh, in fact). Point is, you draw a bow- and did in the middle ages- with three fingers, not two, so I never have believed that one. (Also, I frankly doubt they would have stopped at cutting off the fingers. )

Edit- Tim- I think your computer is broken.

asthmatic camel

11th July 2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I've heard the theory about the French cutting off the string finger of Enlish Archers- (Many of them Welsh, in fact). Point is, you draw a bow- and did in the middle ages- with three fingers, not two, so I never have believed that one. (Also, I frankly doubt they would have stopped at cutting off the fingers. )

Edit- Tim- I think your computer is broken.

I'm not too sure about that SS. Sending back injured prisoners who need to be fed but are unable to fight sounds like a reasonable tactic.

gnome

11th July 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by asthmatic camel

I'm not too sure about that SS. Sending back injured prisoners who need to be fed but are unable to fight sounds like a reasonable tactic.

Aw, pluck it... here's some more on this from Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm)...

Has the "severing archers' fingers" story appeared anywhere else besides a spurious history of "giving the finger"?

Soapy Sam

12th July 2004, 06:35 PM

AC- I can buy your theory as a post- Geneva Convention plan, (that's why landmines are designed to maim, not kill)- but in the 13th century prisoners were generally ransomed (if they were worth anything) and slaughtered if not. Chances of death from septicaemia after finger amputation might have rendered the question moot. Just seems to me (as an old archer), that if I wanted to make that particular point, I would lop the three middle fingers, just to be on the safe side, so the gesture would be a three fingered one like the old Scout Salute. I've always felt the spread fingers were a metaphor for spread legs, meaning basically, F*** You!

Could be this is a mediaeval miff. Research project anybody?