What does this sign mean?

[MRC_Hans]

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]

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. Had I not found that, I'd have gone on my merry way thinking that it meant just "peace".

 

[Lucianarchy]

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]

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]

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'?

That is not the same as it being a figment of imagination. History (the past) exists, but we cannot have perfect knowledge of it. We cannot have perfect knowledge of the Andromeda Galaxy, either, but it still exists.

Unless you go for solipsism, of course .

Hans

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

I thought it was an older symbol than the 60's. The Cross of Nero or something.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

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...

.... 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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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....

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]

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

Where, exactly, does history 'exist'?

 

[Lucianarchy]

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?

 

[Ed]

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?

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.

 

[Darat]

...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]

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]

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]

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

 

[richardm]

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 . Apparently the semaphore is just ND, with no C involved.

 

[Lucianarchy]

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.