In case you are wondering what a fylfot is, it is quite simply put, a swastika. I encountered this symbol first in Kurdistan when trying to purchase old kilims and carpets from a dusty carpet seller in the kaiseri bazaar. Not only are there simple swastikas featured in some of the designs, there are chains of linking swastikas and other sorts of fancified (my word) hooked crosses. At the time I first noticed these, I asked Mr. Lolan Sipan - who runs the Textile Museum - about these. He has a number of encyclopedic volumes on the carpets of Kurdistan and the symbols found therein. If I am allowed to interpret the gist of what I remember, I think he said he believed the symbols (which are used even today) are part of the weavers' collective unconscious. The patterns, designs and motifs have been passed down from generation to generation, but the traditional meanings behind the symbols have largely been forgotten. Lolan surmised that the hooks that appear on the rugs are a form of chakert (a word I have been unable to find anywhere - perhaps I have it wrong?) which is some form of ancient sun symbol. A search on the origins of the swastika (not just the hooks) will likely include the Sanskrit meaning of the word swastika as "well-being." This symbol, as it was used by the Hindus, represents a kind of cosmic order... and hence linked swastika borders found on carpets are viewed as creating a kind of protective boundary for the item in use, or the person/household it adorns. However, there are many interpretations. Jeremy Black and A. Green in Gods, Demons and Symbols of Mesopotamia (p. 171) who are looking specifically at this region, state only that this symbol has been described in various ways, including: as a solar symbol derived from the wheels of the chariot of the sun god, as the sign for a fortress, and as a symbol of the four winds. Check the link above for a picture of a design found on prehistoric pottery bowl found in Samara (far before Hitler's time). A glossary of carpet motifs suggests the swastikas in the kilims and carpets may in fact refer to the Sanskrit meaning, with those latch hooks (in rows as opposed to in a swastika) referring to paradise and the steps needed to get there.
Anyway, the reason I have been thinking about this symbol is actually rather shocking. When interviewing new students, one rather lovely-looking girl was wearing a chain with a silver swastika pendant, much like the one below (but with no circle around it):
I suddenly remembered that I had seen a few boys a couple of years ago wearing rings with swastikas on them. I asked the girl (who had very little English) what the pendant was for and she answered simply...
"Hitler."
I was stunned. Truthfully, I suspected the reply, but was shocked that she could admit it so openly. I asked why she would wear something connected to Hitler. Again came a one word answer.
"Bravery."
In truth, I find it shocking to hear people express their admiration for Hitler, especially as the Kurds and other Iraqis seem to have no great problem with Israel. While it may be true that Hitler was a "great leader" (as I have had it explained to me), I think that my Western perspective does not allow me to say anything complimentary without many qualifications as to Adolf's general loathsomeness. And to be honest, I would expect that after suffering Saddam (Anfal, etc), people here would be less in awe of such a cruel and inhumane dictator. In any case, it has left me with a uncomfortably itching desire to do a little research. I truly want to know what has been written in high school history textbooks about WWII (later to be turned into a paper).
If you can read Kurdish and can help me with this, please send me an email or post a message.
4 comments:
I would render this as a classical case of issues lost in translation. There are certain matters that are boxed inside specific frames of reactions. These frames are made of society-bound timber that otherwise create the moral, cultural, historical and social foundations of that society. Intrusions, or rather extrusions, are seen as breaking the boundaries of common sense and the honorary/mental unity of the society. Political correctness is another issue that sets this frame into what it becomes - the definer and beholder of do's and dont's in each part of the world. Don't curse at people, offer your place when a pregnant woman gets on the bus, don't blow your nose in a tissue while having dinner with others, don't put any glory in the work/personality of historically rejected defects. Even though current values and historical contexts do mould our views far more than we'd like to admit, many times we wish to see our standing as eternal omnipresent truisms. The rules of social conduct differ and one is able to say that without claiming cultural relativism.
As for the specific issue - there usually is certain admiration for strong characters in most places in the world. This admiration in most cases is in a neutral tone, thus, the positive tone of admiration is a misguider. There is a fascination of the concept of one man/woman, not a divine power possessing supernatural qualities, but a human making his/her word the law and being able to stay in top position for "ages" while others do their (dirty) work. The motivation for it is by far not necessarily an antagonising opinion to the critiques of the bad deeds made by that person. I think this is a problem that is widely spread, specially in the west (as it is the part of the world where I have grown up). The western way of dealing with sensitive matters as such is to mutilate the aspects into a 2-way street where one has to choose to be either for or against the whole package - "with us or against us". For instance, regarding the character in discussion, there is a notion that someone that does not express damnation and endless critique of everything that has to do with Hitler then that person must be an admirer of the Nazi-ideology, an antisemite, someone that is a supporter of his massmurdering orders. Someone that looks with neutral eyes upon certain sides of the works/qualities/personalities of Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Djengis Khan etc is many times reduced into being a supporter not only of the person in the known "persona" but also all the bad deeds committed by his/her policies. The more controversial character is the tougher does this issue get. Besides, the expression "what if he/she had used his qualities for good deeds" gets totally contradictional.
Part 2:
Another important aspect of this is that we are being fed with different epochs in history. Although both the world wars made purpose of their names both of them were catastrophes that mainly hit the west. WWII is a constantly current issue in the west. We know, speak, hear, read and see much more about it than any war ever. Its not only bc the European wound is still healing but also bc of the mechanisms behind the war still being highly alive in kicking. Right-wing extremism is on a rise. This is a problem not solved in europe. The concentration on this particular historical part is not only a matter of education about one of the greatest wars that nearly made the continent to implode but also its ripples still send shock waves through the countries. However, the ripples got weaker in different places in this world and eventhough the concentration is high in the west it is mainly "wests own history". This has both positive and negative sides. Different nations and areas study what is seen as main parts of their history. I Russia one would expect a relevantly higher concentration on the history of the country during the soviet era compared to Western Europe or USA/Canada, or most other places for that matter. Here in Sweden we never studied the slightest words about the great history of China, nor the Mongol avalanches that created the biggest empire ever in history and nearly wiped out most of the world, nor the important world-historical epochs such of the Arabs/Ottomans/Islam/Africa/Egyptians. I don't think that WWII is in any way neglected or minimised in the educational system of Kurdistan. Nor do I think that the attitude of the people you have met is a result of lack of information about it. I don't think that the classical western binary explanation road does apply to this, otherwise one would have major problems seeing through all the antisemites, extreme communists or Saddami baathi traitors.
There was a part 2 to the post above that was posted immediately after the first one. Maybe it got caught in some spam web or something.
And one more comment that Aras left on my Facebook. Thanks Aras.
Hi Mizan, on your recent Swastika story on your blog. When I was a kid in Erbil, Hitler was a regular feature and had printing been acceptable by the government as it is today, Hitler T-shirts would have outsold Che Guevara and the peace symbol. Hitler (as least then) was viewed as the hero who turned Jews into ash. This sentiment is most likely rooted in the way the State of Israel is viewed: America’s dominating mistress who marionettes Washington to give her money and weapon so she can turn around and kill “poor innocent’ Palestinians. Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf” (Kifahi, in Arabic) was a regular feature in bookstands. Saddam and his Baath party wanted to nuke Israel, try to read the book “Two Minutes over Baghdad”. What Iraqis (Kurds in Iraq included) knew about Hitler’s true legacy is sad contradiction to what you got to learn in the west. A couple of times I had shown the movies “Schindler’s List” and “The Pianist” to Kurds in Turkey and I saw them freeze in tears and turn and either express their disgust or further defend their falsely generalized anti-Semitic sentiment. Hope you’re well, Love, Aras.
Post a Comment