SubscribeThe swastika, which was made infamous by Nazi Germany, was included in Microsoft's "Bookshelf Symbol 7" font. That font was derived from a Japanese font set, said Microsoft Office product manager Simon Marks.Not to diminish the impact the swastika obviously has on many, but clearly the Asian origin of the font at the very least demonstrates that no one at Microsoft was acting in bad faith.
« Older CC Hates... | Johannes Matthaeus Koelz: A Li... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
One might think religious symbols would be popularly banned. One school banned pig books out of some odd idea that they might offend Muslims... yet no one has banned the Darwin Fish, which is directly offensive to Christians.
Of course, if the Darwin Fish were banned, one might also have to ban all Black Christs (especially those that don't actually depict Christ, but substitute a popular figure in his place!) as they certainly don't coincide with the lily-white European model so many Christians imagine.
There is the Confederate Flag debacle, and even Japanese Flag insults.
Frankly, I think there are no symbols that do not offend someone, somewhere. Except, perhaps, this one... although I wouldn't bet money on it.
Should we bother with banning symbols? Doesn't banning them just retain their meaning? Maybe they should be co-opted for other uses, diluting if not eliminating the old meaning. It certainly worked on the swastika, at least in the Western world. Westerners must have conniptions when they visit Nepal...
I understand being offended by a symbol. I also understand rising above that offense and recognizing that it is just a symbol, and that the offense is by my choice. It's not the symbol that should be the issue: it is the use of it, and the person who chooses to use it, that we should pay attention to.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:14 PM on December 12, 2003