For thinking this is a bit of an own goal?

[Igotjelly]

Firstly I know that the Swastika is an ancient symbol that was hijacked by evil. However it feels like a bit of an own goal by the Guardian to have it front and centre in the picture on this article about tattoo artists. AIBU?

In my experience at work everyone who displays a swastika knows exactly what they’re doing.

there are so, so many symbols out there for health and well-being and people choose this one? Absolutely not.

Is it the little blue thing in the framed art behind her? To be honest, I probably would never have noticed that if it hadn't been pointed out to me.

Yeh, sorry it’s probably the picture quality because it’s a screenshot. I wasn’t sure how to link the actual article as I’m on the Guardian app rather than the webpage.

the guardian aren’t exactly famed for their attention to detail. They probably didn’t even see it.

but yeah I get your point.

I see it now, in context of the picture I'm sensing its more spiritual than any other connotation

Nazi swastika is the other way around. To quote Wikipedia In Hinduism, the right-facing symbol (clockwise) (卐) is called swastika, symbolizing surya ("sun"), prosperity and good luck, while the left-facing symbol (counter-clockwise) (卍) is called sauwastika, symbolising night or tantric aspects of Kali.

Thanks, that’s really interesting. I guess the issue perhaps is, to the untrained eye (I.e. me!) it’s not great optics for a news source that likes to think it’s left wing.

Agree with PP - people who use this know what they’re doing. They’re ‘ever so edgy’…. But also thoughtless at best, deliberately hurtful at worst.

It’s totally unnecessary.

More of a case of constantly looking out for something to be offended by 🙄.

Get a hobby!

The nazi swastika also tends to be on a point

I’ve actually met this young lady, Grace is one of the sweetest and loveliest people who I spent a little time with. She did the most marvellous tattoo on my young cousin a few years back. I asked a lot of questions about how she worked, what she did, etc and was so accommodating. She built her own business from nothing. She’s warm, welcoming and curious about others. She is a very spiritual person, and loves her little animals. She’s highly artistic and I would NEVER EVER suggest that she’d have anything to do with naziism. Geez. I’m getting really fed up of others looking for things to feel offended by. I think I’ll take a very big break from Mumsnet from now on.

I've just got back from India. The swastika is everywhere. It has no connotations other than spiritual. Similarly in other parts of Asia. So what it means really does depend on your world view, honestly. It would be fab to reclaim it back from its Euro-centric meaning around nazism. In an obviously Indian or spiritual context, like this picture, I think its fine as a way of introducing its broader context to those perhaps less familiar. But yes, one has to keep an eye on who is using it and to what end.

Where is the swastika I can't see one?

I think if you look very hard it's in the middle of the picture behind her right shoulder; which is hardly 'front and centre.'

I don’t think I’d have noticed this.

Even if I had, it bears only a passing resemblance to the Nazi swastiska.

I read this article today and have the magazine open in front of me. I didn't see any Nazi swastika then - and still do not.

So it’s not a swastika and it’s not front and centre?

The title of this thread is ironic.

The swastika is one of humankind's oldest known symbols.
It has the form of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either right-facing form or its left-facing mirror form. It is believed to have originally arose as a repeating design created by reed edges in the basket-weave designs of early Neolithic cultures around 11000 years ago, and has appeared in the motifs of many civilisations over the past 5000 years, representing perpetual motion (Ancient Greeks), law and order (Romans), the sun disk (ancient Egyptians and Bronze Age Europeans), the Christian cross and the Nordic thunder hammer.

Okay so maybe was being unreasonable and happy to be told so. I wasn’t criticising the artist, as I said I’m fully aware that the swastika has a long history separate to Naziism. What I was questioning was the sense of the Guardian to be using a picture with a potential hate symbol at the top of an article without so much as then addressing it in said article.

Hardly getting offended at everything, was a simple question of whether it’s sensible journalism.

The word swastika comes from the Sanscrit words su (good) and asati (to exist) which together mean "may good prevail." To this day the swastika is a particularly holy symbol of the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions, symbolising happiness, good luck, auspiciousness, harmony and balance.
It is also widely used by Native American tribes; to the Navajo it is associated with the whirling log, a sacred image used in healing rituals; to the Hopi it represents the wandering Hopi clans.

Utter reach

Front and centre 😂

It’s a little blue swastika in what is obviously a hippy dippy ‘spiritual’ artwork ffs!

I’m going to take a wild guess and assume you’ve never been to India? It may shock you to learn that not every person in the world views things through a 20th century European lens.

@Igotjelly your post is misleading and inflammatory. I’m not sure why you’ve decided to try and froth up criticism of someone who you clearly don’t know. Cyber bullying appeals I suppose? And this is literally all you could find to try and generate offence at?

1/10

I’ll have some of what those celts were smoking please!

Except it’s not a ‘potential hate symbol’ is it? unless you entirely disregard thousands of years of history and culture.
The differences have been clearly explained on this thread.