The Swastika: Making a Comeback, or Did It Ever Really Go Away?

Did you hear the one about the book of swastika cartoons? No, seriously. It's springtime for swastikas, c/o Simon & Schuster.

Just in time for Israel's 60th, a book filled with swastika cartoons and illustrations guaranteed to tickle even the most discerning funny bone breathlessly arrives. (Call off the search for the quintessential gift for the nation that's impossible to shop for!). Which really only leaves one question: What took you so long?

Next week, We Have Ways of Making You Laugh: 120 Funny Swastika Cartoons will hit bookshelves and below the belt, its very name a nod to the enduring Nazi ethos.

Originally sold under the name "The Swastika Cartoon Book," the Simon & Schuster committee on good taste must have nixed it for the more seemly title with the "swastika" to the right of the colon. Hands down, much snappier!

Synopsized as the author's "desire to disempower the still-potent symbol through humor," this misguided artistic attempt to subvert such a deep-seated symbol misses the mark by a mile. There's tacky and then there's poor taste. The category for this book fits several pegs below the latter.

That the book is the brainchild of a 74-year old Jew lessens the sting by little. Of course it's helmed by a Jew. It would never have been green-lighted if it weren't pegged to a Jew. The seasoned illustrator Sam Gross, having been raised in the U.S., was spared the horrors of the Holocaust, and obviously the good sense to know when to draw -- or rather in this case, not draw -- the line.

So what was his lofty goal again? "To break down stereotypes." Um...yeah.

And it's not just Jews and survivors who should wince at this entreaty to laugh at the heavyweight symbol of hate. The book is an affront to all of us. In a time when the swastika is regularly brandished as a go-to weapon, here is Gross trying to pass it off as entertainment. But what he fails to realize is that the symbol is too ever-present as a tool of hate to minimize as a side-splitting joke.

A symbol that should be long since buried in the dustbin of historical horrors is barely dusty. Instead, it has made a mighty comeback in recent years, between Halloween parties with Prince Harry and parade floats in Brazil; Gross has too much competition for attention.

If there will ever be a time when we can all enjoy a good tickle over the symbolism, it's still about 100 years too soon. Not when we have so much swastika fodder already at our fingertips. We already have it as public art -- on homes, cars and synagogues. Like it's not spraypainted everywhere it shouldn't be, now it's spraypainted in our literature too?

My suggestion? If you really need to satiate your Nazi fix fast, don't go for the sanitized version. Splurge for the good stuff and invest in a set of authentic Nazi memorabilia. Something about buying it at B&N just cheapens the whole experience, no?

Everyone knows that the Hindu provenance of the swastika was cannibalized by the Nazis, getting demonized along the way. Yeah, just like the way everyone knows that "intifada"* -- the poisonous Islamic call of uprising -- has gotten an unfair rap all these years. Gross strives to de-stigmatize the swastika just like Debbie Almontaser wants to de-stigmatize "intifada" and parade it on a t-shirt. The deposed principal of a Brooklyn Islamic public school simply retooled intifada's image, redefining it now as "shaking off," as if to "shake off oppression." That's the funny thing about deeply-embedded images of hate: they stick.

The swastika is already alive and well, with or without Gross's creative contribution. It's enjoyed a streak of popularity that has never abated. It's always been open season on Jews as self-expression through the swastika persists -- that salient salute to Jews that never goes out of style. And the notion of catapulting this book into the mainstream as entertainment is indefensible. There's negligible difference between the Nazi propaganda of the Holocaust heyday and Gross's work now - save for the fact that he's assuring us that it's OK to laugh at it now.

This is not a personal attack on Gross, whose attempt at defending his work is not good enough of a reason to propel it into the mainstream. Yet he cannot claim to be an unwitting agent provocateur -- and has admitted to steeling himself for the fallout.

It's such a direct affront, so close to the bone, that any hope of sanitizing the swastika while survivors are still alive -- living with the constant reminder whether they like it or not -- falls so flat. It's still so shocking to see -- and now we're being asked to train ourselves to stomach it? Find it palatable even?

To ask the public to accept its return backed by a retooled PR pitch is too much to ask. And it shouldn't be asked of us. We have a name for that sort of thing: Shanda, Mr. Gross. Not the right book, not the right time.

* In writing this piece in the heat of the moment, I mistakenly used the term "jihad" when it should in fact have referenced the "intifada NYC" t-shirt in question. I hope this clarifies the confusion.

Comments

[ahl]

Ms. Lewak: You diminish your purported concern about symbols of hatred by indulging in your own ill-informed anti-Arab racism with your comments about Debbie Almontaser, the founding principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy. You set some sort of record for inaccuracy in journalism by making five errors of fact in just four lines of writing: (1) KGIA was an Arab-language school, not a Muslim school. Consider a Hebrew language school v. a Jewish Day School. The distinction is fundamental. (2) The t-shirt at issue in the KGIA controversy contained the word "intifada" not "jihad."
(3) Ms. Almontaser never wore the t-shirt, nor did anyone else connected with KGIA. (4) It is "intifada,"not "jihad" that means "shaking off" in Arabic. That is why those resisting the Israeli occupation call it the intifada, not the jihad. (5) Ms. Almontaser was asked by a reporter for a definition of the word "intifada" and then provided it. She did not defend the intifada. Nor advocate for a jihad.
That's a rather remarkable record of misinformation for four lines of text. For those interested in a more accurate account of the mistreatment of Ms. Almontaser, paste in the NYT link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/education/29education.html?st=cse&sq=debbie+almontaser&scp=1

[Ajita]

I remember hearing this on Democracy Now!, but that was very informative. Thanks!

[Beaux510]

Thanks for writing all of that out for me. Spot on.

[Ajita]

Here's an argument from logic. Your analogy between the swastika and jihad is deliberately misleading. Jihad is a concept within Islam and is obviously being used by individuals to justify their violence today. The swastika is a symbol that has been used by people of certain cultures for thousands of years. It was never used by anyone there to justify anything because unlike jihad, it is not a concept. It is just a symbol. The appropriate analogy would be chastising the sickle for Stalinism, or the cross for the inquisition. It would be just as absurd to ban the sickle or the cross as it would be to ban the swastika.
It is manipulative to make this false analogy using a politically inflamatory reference.

[Oread]

HuffPost's Pick

Wow, this was not just a symbol used in Hindu culture (and I Looooooooove how you quickly dismissed centuries of use in said culture because OMG HITLER YOU GUYS HITLER! What about the iron cross? Oh, snap, he had eagles all over the damn place too...)
Almost every single culture has a swastika, allow me to elaborate (from wiki, of course):

"The symbol as it is used in Buddhist art and scripture is known in Japanese as a manji (literally, "the character for eternality" 萬字), and represents Dharma, universal harmony, and the balance of opposites. When facing left, it is the omote (front) manji, representing love and mercy. Facing right, it represents strength and intelligence, and is called the ura (rear) manji. Balanced manji are often found at the beginning and end of Buddhist scriptures (outside India).

...Jainism gives even more prominence to the swastika than does Hinduism. It is a symbol of the seventh Jina (Saint), the Tirthankara Suparsva. In the Svetambar Jain tradition, it is also one of the symbols of the ashta-mangalas. It is considered to be one of the 24 auspicious marks and the emblem of the seventh arhat of the present age. All Jain temples and holy books must contain the swastika and ceremonies typically begin and end with creating a swastika mark several times with rice around the altar.

....The swastika shape was used by some Native Americans. It has been found in excavations of Mississippian-era sites in the Ohio valley. It was widely used by many southwestern tribes, most notably the Navajo. Among various tribes, the swastika carried different meanings. To the Hopi it represented the wandering Hopi clan; to the Navajo it was one symbol for a whirling winds (tsil no'oli'), a sacred image representing a legend that was used in healing rituals (after learning of the Nazi mimic "whirling winds" the Navajo rejected the symbol)....."

Do I need to really go on?
You're going to dismiss this man's noble attempt to reclaim a LOT of people's important religious symbol because you associate Hitler with it? Let's do away with little mustaches, too, by that logic. Seriously. This man is doing for the swastika what Inga Musico tried to do for the word "cunt", which is suck it of it's shock and power and return it to it's place as an acceptable symbol (words being symbols, in Musico's case).
Get a grip, lady.
You'd sacrifice millions of people's religious and holy symbols and their right to wear or use or otherwise brandish them because of one culture-nabbing art-school reject psycho asshole? That seems pretty messed up to me.

[NicoleAnonymous]

Maybe your opinion would mean more if it weren't for your sarcastic, nasty attitude.

"OMG HITLER YOU GUYS HITLER! What about the iron cross? Oh, snap, he had eagles all over the damn place too...)"

I've never heard of anyone using a swastika for religious purposes or holy symbols anymore but if they want to then that is their right. If that makes them feel good...go for it.

But the point of this piece, and you probably missed it because you were too busy trying to come up with a snappy little smartass, sarcastic response, was that she objects to him using that symbol for humorous purposes but I'm not surprised some American who has nothing better to do than make snappy little smartass, sarcastic responses probably doesn't understand the significance of that symbol. I can just imagine if you were Jewish living in the Holocaust and a swastika was the last thing you saw before they locked you in the gas chamber. You probably wouldn't have any snappy, little smartass responses for anyone.

And also the word you mentioned that is used to insult women is a word that is filled with hate towards women. You haven't taken away the "power" of that word - it's still a word used by people who hate/fear women but it's not surprising you use that as an example to prove your point.

[wisefool]

Yes! Responding to the parent commenter with ad hominem attacks is an excellent way to make your point...

Let me make the math a little easier for you since you obviously have a problem with simple logic:

2 Billion people is not equal to 6 million people.
2000 years of history is not equal to 12 years of history.

Ms. Lewak's gross insult to the swastika together with her mini hate rant on jihad demonstrates not only a shallow and warped sense of history and culture, but profound ignorance as well. You can't just severely insult 3 billion people and a majority of the world's religions and then wonder why we're angry. In regards to the swastika, I, for one, am getting a little tired of constantly having to accommodate the Jews, play the bigger person to them, and tolerate their little hissy-fits.

There is no such thing as suffering-by-osmosis. What happened to their grandparents gives modern Jews no more right to blatantly insult others than anybody else. NEWS FLASH: The majority of the entire planet doesn't care about the inflated, narcissistic sensibilities of such a minuscule minority. Judging by Ms. Lewak's review, Mr. Gross' book seems like a welcome step towards rehabilitating the swastika. Regardless, whether you like it not, soon the swastika will play a much more prominent role on the world stage. Get used to it.

[Ajita]

I was going to say a lot, but it seems like you've got this covered. I just thought I'd add that the analogy between the swastika and jihad is deliberately misleading. Jihad is a concept within Islam and is obviously being used by individuals to justify their violence today. The swastika is a symbol that has been used by people of certain cultures for thousands of years. It was never used by anyone there to justify anything because unlike jihad, it is not a concept. It is just a symbol. The appropriate analogy would be chastising the sickle for Stalinism, or the cross for the inquisition. It would be just as absurd to ban the sickle or the cross as it would be to ban the swastika.
It is manipulative of the author to make this false analogy using a politically inflamatory reference.

[Pandu]

It's always about the Jews, isn't it?

"Everyone knows that the Hindu provenance of the swastika was cannibalized by the Nazis, getting demonized along the way. Yeah, just like the way everyone knows that "jihad" -- the poisonous Islamic call of uprising -- has gotten an unfair rap all these years."

What the hell do you mean by cannibalized? A cannibal consumes one of his own kind. What similarity are you implying between the Nazis and the followers of the Vedas? This is an incredible insult.

Isn't it enough that due to cultural ignorance and political correctness we practically cannot use the Sanskrit word for a follower of the Vedas, "Aryan?" Hindu is not a Sanskrit word, and although I embrace Vedic culture, I am in no way a Hindu. To the extent I properly follow Vedic dharma, I am an Aryan. It has nothing to do with Jews or German nationalism or bloodlines or anything related to the Holocaust. Even though Aryan has meant "religious" since prehistory, a few years of perverted use by the Nazis has made the name I call myself into a symbol of hatred. How do you think this makes me feel about the Jewish people who undermine the Vedic culture to preserve its identity as a victim. In terms of their disregard for the people who according to the Vedas, there is no difference between the Jews and the Nazis.

The Nazis killed so many Jews, and while doing it they trashed the identity of the Vedic culture. Although the Nazis have stopped killing, the Jews have taken over the Nazis "job" of trashing the Vedic culture by associating their name and symbols with infamous hatred.

The swastika is a sign of Laksmi, the Goddess of Fortune, the wife of Vishnu, and is one of the auspicious marks on the foot of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna. If you have a problem with the swastika, you've got a problem with God.

[argeec]

Well, its sorta like the holocaust. That didn't get so much publicity either until the 1967 war and Israel needed to counter the bad press from the occupied territories.

[FearlessFreep]

I hope that the people who have been defending the Danish press' right to publish cartoons mocking Mohammed also support the right to publish swastika images.

[Boobaloo]

Exactly right.

[Rhouse]

Mell Brooks is the only one I can think of who was able to poke fun at the Nazi symbolism - 'The Producers' and his gem 'Springtime for Hitler'. That book just doesn't sound funny.

[StephenSmoliar]

Funny (as an intentional play on words) you should mention this. Those not to young to remember when THE PRODUCERS first hit movie houses may not realize that Brooks was a target of exactly the same kind of criticism that Lewak has expressed. Such is "the long view of history." Go figure.

[Rhouse]

Thanks for the reminder

[Nommo]

Who welcomed more Nazis than the US? Who treated German POWs better than their own soldiers.

The Nazi got you to the moon (if they really did that) before the Russians. They must have been good for something. They haven't gone away, why should their symbol?