> “A rose by any other name is a rose,” he said. “In the end it’s how a symbol affects you visually and emotionally. For many, it creates a visceral impact and that’s a fact.”
I'm sympathetic to both sides of this argument, but I think the "rose by any other name" allusion is inapt. The rose by any other name would smell as sweet, because the physical existence of the rose is independent of our social or cultural understanding of the rose. The swastika is a symbol and its offensiveness is due to our cultural understanding of its meaning as a symbol. The swastika is neither inherently a symbol of hatred and murder nor one of peace; it has no objective meaning or reality in itself.
I'm sympathetic to both sides of this argument, but I think the "rose by any other name" allusion is inapt. The rose by any other name would smell as sweet, because the physical existence of the rose is independent of our social or cultural understanding of the rose. The swastika is a symbol and its offensiveness is due to our cultural understanding of its meaning as a symbol. The swastika is neither inherently a symbol of hatred and murder nor one of peace; it has no objective meaning or reality in itself.