Swastika: A Stupid Taboo in European and American countries
September 1, 2007 by 
Indo-European
The swastika (Wikipedia)- from Sanskrit svástika स्वास्तिक - is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either right-facing (卐) or left-facing (卍) forms. The term is derived from Sanskrit svasti, meaning well-being. The Thai greeting sawasdee is from the same root and carries the same implication.
It is a widely-used symbol in Dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism). Hindus often decorate the swastika with a dot in each quadrant. In India, it is common enough to be a part of several Devanagari fonts. It is also a symbol in the modern Unicode. It is often imprinted on religious texts, marriage invitations, decorations etc. It is used to mark religious flags in Jainism and to mark Buddhist temples in Asia.
Archaeological evidence of swastika shaped ornaments goes back to the Neolithic period. In 1920 the swastika was appropriated as a Nazi symbol, and has since then become a controversial motif. In the Western world, it is this usage as a symbol of Nazism that is most familiar, and this political association has largely eclipsed its historical status in the East.
It occurs in other Asian, European, African and Native American cultures – sometimes as a geometrical motif, sometimes as a religious symbol.
Indo-European and Sanskrit Etymology
The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit svastika (in Devanagari, स्वस्तिक), meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck. It is composed of Skr. su- (Indo-European (a)sus, cognate with Greek ευ-, and Hittite asu-), meaning “good, well” and asti a verbal abstract to the root Skr. as, “to be” (Indo-European es); Skr. svasti, IE (a)suesti, thus means “well-being”. The suffix -ka forms a diminutive, and svastika might thus be translated literally as “little thing associated with well-being”, Indo-European (a)suéstikā, corresponding roughly to “lucky charm”, or “thing that is auspicious”, although some relate it to the IE reflexive swe (”self”), thus Indo-European swéstikā. The word first appears in the Classical Sanskrit (in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics). For more on these etymologies see the Etymological notes of our online Indo-European grammar and Indo-European etymological dictionary.
The Sanskrit term has been in use in English since 1871, replacing gammadion (from Greek γαμμάδιον), from Greek gamma.
Alternative historical English spellings of the Sanskrit word include suastika and svastica. Alternative names for the shape are:
* crooked cross
* cross cramponned, ~nnée, or ~nny (in heraldry), as each arm resembles a crampon or angle-iron (German: Winkelmaßkreuz)
* fylfot, possibly meaning “four feet”, chiefly in heraldry and architecture (See fylfot for a discussion of the etymology)
* gammadion, tetragammadion (Greek: τέτραγαμμάδιον), or cross gammadion (Latin: crux gammata; Old French: croiz gammée), as each arm resembles the Greek letter Γ (gamma)
* hooked cross (German: Hakenkreuz);
* sun wheel, a name also used as a synonym for the sun cross
* tetraskelion (Greek: τετρασκέλιον), “four legged”, especially when composed of four conjoined legs (compare triskelion, Greek τρισκέλιον)
* Thor’s hammer, from its supposed association with Thor, the Norse god of the weather, but this may be a misappropriation of a name that properly belongs to a Y-shaped or T-shaped symbol. The Swastika shape appears in Icelandic grimoires wherein it is named Þórshamar
* The Tibetan swastika is known as nor bu bzhi -khyil, or quadruple body symbol.
Posted in Europe, European Union, Indo-European languages, Proto-Indo-European | 
January 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Yea, we’ve read this a hundred times.
a) That the symbol has been found on however many continents, does not prove anything about its origin — nor is it a case for spontaneous generation in all such locations; that is magical thinking, and while it may be good for the “peace & love” crowd and the structuralists, real scholars should expect more from themselves. A real scholar, not afraid of taboos, would be embarrassed to reproduce this kind of sloppily syncretic disclaimer: “[i]t occurs in other Asian, European, African and Native American cultures” — oh really? Show me these African occurrences, and prove they had nothing to do with European or hither-Asian culture. Show me the “Native American” occurrences, and prove they aren’t just patterns woven into their blankets, got from white settlers in the 19th century. Prove this hippie, unscholarly, quasi-magical implication that the swastika just magically appeared at various times and places throughout history, contrary to all known laws of cultural transmission. Instead of just repeating the litany, Mr. Quiles, show that you understand what is implied by this shallow lumping-together of related phenomena to serve an ideological end (in this case “reclaiming” the swastika for the vociferous peace & love crowd).
You know what is even more ticklish? As far as method, this muddying of the swastika’s true history issues from the same romantic spirit as the Nazis’ own “master race” dogma. At bottom it is an anti-historical in spirit and the point is to isolate a monad, a constant “good” which emerges in history and somewhere along the way is corrupted by “evil”.
b) You yourself support the taboo, to wit:
“Some Iranians and Arabs think the Holocaust never happened; some Americans believe that evolution is an evil invention of atheists…”
Now these two charges are very “european”. First up you have the absolute refusal of legitimacy to Holocaust revisionism, which you neatly quarantine as a Middle Eastern malaise of thought (probably because you, as a European, are anti-Islam); then you take the obligatory shot at Americans, basically the same kind of barbarian as those Holocaust-denying Muslims, whom *you know* are wrong. Unfortunately, the two things go together — you can’t have an innocent swastika while you support the Holocaust dogma. Very fundamental contradiction, I’m afraid.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Hi, Mr. HW, thank you for your comments. I’ll answer them the best I can, although you mixed some critics:
1)
;
I don’t have to prove that such a simple symbol (like the tryskelion) was “imported” by those ‘bad European nazis’ - instead, if you want to trace an “import history” from ‘Nazi Europeans’, you should prove it. I state clearly (in fact, it’s the Wikipedia article which puts it so) that it is used in many cultures “sometimes as a geometrical motif, sometimes as a religious symbol”.
2)
I haven’t reclaimed anything for anyone, not even for me - it’s Hindus mainly who wanted to use their sacred, millenary symbol without people like you saying it’s ‘Nazi’ because you believe (or seemingly “know”?) that the nazis [created/invented?] it. This post you criticize was written because of some news of the European Union trying to ban the swastika globally (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6269627.stm). That could be - only maybe - justifiable in Germany or Austria, but it is not so (I think) in the rest of EU countries.
3)
OK, so (after you) my article has the same “romantic spirit” as the “Nazis’ master race dogma” - the article is about the swastika and Nazis, but still your comment smells like you fulfil Godwin’s Law from the first comment… Again, prove it - to say I’m nazi (or smell/look like/sound like/seem/etc. a nazi) isn’t something of a “real scholar”, as you put it, who want to argue with intellectual reasons; it seems like a veiled insult hidden among your personal opinions.
4) I don’t believe in “good” nor “evil” - the swastika (as the tryskelion or any other simple, almost universal symbol) was used for millennia before the Nazis. After them, some people (apparently) like you are ready to hide any symbol related to them, not taking on account the historical and cultural value of those symbols for other peoples apart from modern Europeans and modern US citizens.
5) I’m not “anti-Islam”, nor “anti-American”. In fact, I mention “some Arabs and some Iranians” and not “the Arabs” nor “the Iranians”. Do “some” represent “all” for you? are they (the “some” or the “all”) necessarily muslims? are they (the “some” or the “all”) the only muslims? if so, do they represent the view of the Islam? … I just pointed out that I don’t believe in (religiously- or politically-driven) Holocaust or Evolution revisionism - indeed I can read whatever anyone might say about Holocaust or Evolution, if it’s not just religious or political propaganda. And I talk about “some Iranians and Arabs” and “some Americans” to remain as simple as possible in the posts - which are quite long and badly written, as English is not my mother tongue. If you want, next time I will mention the ’state of the art’ in Europe too (about everything), and I will say e.g. “many Iranians and Arabs (and some Europeans)…”, as well as “many US citizens (and some Europeans)…”, so that you don’t feel [attacked/discriminated?] by the examples.
6)
I don’t see the “fundamental contradiction” of supporting the innocent historical and cultural value of a symbol like the swastika, while at the same time dismissing the (religiously- or politically-driven) propaganda of the “no-Holocaust dogma” that some nations and groups support, which aims at dismantling every possible proof of the Holocaust no matter how. Please, again (for a “good scholar behaviour” like what you demand from others) prove or explain why it IS in fact a fundamental contradiction.
If my blog post was not proper for a “real scholar”, I cannot see where the “proofs” for all your assertions are - I just read your personal opinions again and again - which would be OK if it didn’t criticize my lack of proofs! THAT could be termed a “fundamental contradiction” of your logic, I guess.
Anyway, the introduction you criticize so fiercely was from the (English) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) - you can go there and tell the authors you “don’t believe” it to be right, or maybe even give them some proofs. I was (obviously) more interested in the linguistic aspect of the word “swastika”, as my blog’s name and the rest of the post might reveal you…