![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently, on a show focusing on the symbols of xmas, they happily commented on the continued used of "pagan" symbols, even into the seventeenth century. Part of me wanted to say, "damn right, viva Saturnalia!" However, part of me was deeply bothered by this, because they were so fundamentally wrong.
The symbols in question were innocuous and generic, celestial images, moon and stars, happy suns. They were in a cookie press set, along with saints and standard nativity fare. Did the user of these images think of them as non or anti Christian? Certainly not!
Historians love origins. Look, this came from this, which came from over there. The game is even easier with ideologies, life, death, rebirth, harvest, after life; common concepts are so slippery, you can pull them from anywhere and put them anywhere. But it is a mistake to say that one group is using the symbols of another. It the supposition of the outsider and causes only confusion.
Think some of some modern symbols, common in our culture. A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a surfboard yin-yang, a phallus, an olive branch, a white feather. All these things probably have a strong meaning to someone in our society, none of those meanings are the same as that of the original source.
In some cases, like a swastika, the meaning is nearly an exact opposite. And yet, on some future history documentary, you might hear, "and the Nazi party, carrying the traditional Hindu symbol for rebirth, goes forth among the Nations of Europa..." Yeah, right.
A culture is a distinct moment in time, unique unto itself. That it is the product of what has gone before is a given. However, it is a mistake the assume that the elements of the past have, in any way, retained the character of their origins. Or, for that matter, would be associated buy a people with those origins at all.
The symbols in question were innocuous and generic, celestial images, moon and stars, happy suns. They were in a cookie press set, along with saints and standard nativity fare. Did the user of these images think of them as non or anti Christian? Certainly not!
Historians love origins. Look, this came from this, which came from over there. The game is even easier with ideologies, life, death, rebirth, harvest, after life; common concepts are so slippery, you can pull them from anywhere and put them anywhere. But it is a mistake to say that one group is using the symbols of another. It the supposition of the outsider and causes only confusion.
Think some of some modern symbols, common in our culture. A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a surfboard yin-yang, a phallus, an olive branch, a white feather. All these things probably have a strong meaning to someone in our society, none of those meanings are the same as that of the original source.
In some cases, like a swastika, the meaning is nearly an exact opposite. And yet, on some future history documentary, you might hear, "and the Nazi party, carrying the traditional Hindu symbol for rebirth, goes forth among the Nations of Europa..." Yeah, right.
A culture is a distinct moment in time, unique unto itself. That it is the product of what has gone before is a given. However, it is a mistake the assume that the elements of the past have, in any way, retained the character of their origins. Or, for that matter, would be associated buy a people with those origins at all.