I didn’t know, so I looked it up. Apparently, the interpretation is debated:
In the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) used it to call for what they saw as a “decolonized” state encompassing the entirety of Mandatory Palestine. By 1969, after several revisions, the PLO used the phrase to call for one-state solution, that would mean “one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel”.
Many pro-Palestinian activists consider it “a call for peace and equality” after decades of military rule over Palestinians, while for many Jews it is seen as a call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to say that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population.
It’s pretty clear that once a symbol has been successfully co-opted, and that original meanings have not been vigorously defended, the best option is to cede the use and find a different slogan. That term, originally secular and peaceful, has been co-opted, and even if Pro-Palestine, non-antisemitic groups would like it to adhere to the original meaning, the cause is lost and they can only harm their cause by continuing to use it.
The Swastika may be the best example of this. You can only carefully use it, despite the origins having nothing to do with Nazis, and it being an important symbol to many religions around the world. The Nazis fucked up the symbol for everyone and railing against that and insisting on using it only causes trouble.
I agree with you: it seems that, despite the benign origins of the phrase, it’s been successfully co-opted by extremists and is now only divisive.
Language is flexible.
Just like reappropriation, it’s not hard to reclaim signs if a concerted group of people persist at it.
Relenting to opponents is capitulation.
It’s not really a hill.
There’s enough people to go around online to take multiple fronts & make anything go viral.
People give up too easily & don’t push back.
Acting like bitchass candyasses who give up easy fights doesn’t exactly inspire confidence to join a cause.
Reclamation is an effort, though. If all you’re doing is adding symbols as a tag line, there’s no qualification and readers can’t tell what your Swastika means; and since it’s also concurrently being used by Nazis for their meaning, it’s leaving the interpretation to the reader.
I’m not trying to argue that it’s right. I’m saying that it’s unproductive to simply obstinately keep using it and let people associate you with extremists.
Opponents do the exact same thing.
They organize online and spread it like a meme.
It’s really not that hard.
The boogaloo boys & proud boys made hawaiian print shirts & 👌 hate signs.
MAGA contorted the meaning of fake news.
Everyone else acquiesced like weak-willed bitchasses who don’t know how the game is played as if they’re powerless to do the exact same thing.
The only thing stopping anyone is shame or cowardice.
I didn’t know, so I looked it up. Apparently, the interpretation is debated:
It’s pretty clear that once a symbol has been successfully co-opted, and that original meanings have not been vigorously defended, the best option is to cede the use and find a different slogan. That term, originally secular and peaceful, has been co-opted, and even if Pro-Palestine, non-antisemitic groups would like it to adhere to the original meaning, the cause is lost and they can only harm their cause by continuing to use it.
The Swastika may be the best example of this. You can only carefully use it, despite the origins having nothing to do with Nazis, and it being an important symbol to many religions around the world. The Nazis fucked up the symbol for everyone and railing against that and insisting on using it only causes trouble.
I agree with you: it seems that, despite the benign origins of the phrase, it’s been successfully co-opted by extremists and is now only divisive.
TIL
Language is flexible. Just like reappropriation, it’s not hard to reclaim signs if a concerted group of people persist at it. Relenting to opponents is capitulation.
All I’ll say is that there are hills that are not worth dying on.
It’s not really a hill. There’s enough people to go around online to take multiple fronts & make anything go viral. People give up too easily & don’t push back.
Acting like bitchass candyasses who give up easy fights doesn’t exactly inspire confidence to join a cause.
Reclamation is an effort, though. If all you’re doing is adding symbols as a tag line, there’s no qualification and readers can’t tell what your Swastika means; and since it’s also concurrently being used by Nazis for their meaning, it’s leaving the interpretation to the reader.
I’m not trying to argue that it’s right. I’m saying that it’s unproductive to simply obstinately keep using it and let people associate you with extremists.
Opponents do the exact same thing. They organize online and spread it like a meme. It’s really not that hard.
The boogaloo boys & proud boys made hawaiian print shirts & 👌 hate signs. MAGA contorted the meaning of fake news. Everyone else acquiesced like weak-willed bitchasses who don’t know how the game is played as if they’re powerless to do the exact same thing.
The only thing stopping anyone is shame or cowardice.