Options
Microsoft to cut swastikas
Microsoft yesterday announced it would be offering tools to remove and replace two swastikas which the software giant inadvertently programmed into the latest version of its Office software.
[blockquote]The swastika, which was made infamous by Nazi Germany, was included in Microsoft's "Bookshelf Symbol 7" font. That font was derived from a Japanese font set, said Microsoft Office product manager Simon Marks.
"It was discovered by one of our customers a couple weeks ago," Marks said, adding that there was "no indication of malicious intent."
[/blockquote]
[link=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/12/12/microsoft.swastika.reut/index.html]Read more[/link]
[blockquote]The swastika, which was made infamous by Nazi Germany, was included in Microsoft's "Bookshelf Symbol 7" font. That font was derived from a Japanese font set, said Microsoft Office product manager Simon Marks.
"It was discovered by one of our customers a couple weeks ago," Marks said, adding that there was "no indication of malicious intent."
[/blockquote]
[link=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/12/12/microsoft.swastika.reut/index.html]Read more[/link]
0
Comments
The fact is, this symbol was around long before the Nazi party. The symbol itself is not at all offensive; it all depends on the context it's used in. I say it should stay, as it has much better/cleaner/religious meanings aside from the Nazi party.
Quite correct. It should stay.
Remember the Olympics (Was it Korea or Japan recently?) where people saw the "swastika" on a temple and flipped at NBC? That was pretty funny
Native American, East Asian, its in a lot of cultures.
This is just another big, fat
Morons.
If they can find something to complain about, generally they will make the effort to do so.
not all that different from the Confederate flag..... just because some redneck in a beat-up old ford decided to fly the flag and proclaim his dislike for a certain race.
when the fact is, blacks fought (for) and died under that very flag.
if people would simply ignore that kinda stuff, then the people using symbols as a means of getting under ones skin would simply give up because they wouldnt get the reaction their seeking to begin with.
As for the Blacks fighting for and dying under the Confederate Flag, that contention is suspect at best. How many people you know are going to fight for a system that enslaves, objectifies, and dehumanizes them for nothing more than an elevated melanin level in their skin?!
The real answer is to find a middle road between recognizing and learning from history and not offending people that were hurt by much of those events. An analogous comparison to the Confederate Flag would be to fly a Swatika over a courthouse or government building. Most people would deem that offensive.
I am not a Civil War expert - hell, I'm Canadian - but this is, in fact, true. I do not know numbers but there were VOLUNTEER black soldiers fighting for the south. I'm sure you could find more on the subject fairly easily on a search engine.
Didn't jump in to debate, just to clear that up and no, I don't think we need to go into the why's and wherefores.
MS having swastikas in software? Could care less personally but the USA is such a litiguous place they have to remove it, as has been stated above. :rolleyes2
I'll be quick as well. My point quickly and incompletely made wasn't that Blacks didn't fight for the Confederacy, because they did. My point was that the numbers were small and the reasons varied (almost like the German soldiers fighting in WWII, but not believing in Naziism and Hitler) as to make the contention suspect. While they may have been volunteers, either physical threats, coercion, or greed caused them to fight...and when they did they weren't fighting for the South or slavery, but for their lives. I think the Soviet soldier during WWII might be a reasonable analogy. Keyboardjockey is probably the better venue for further discussion.
It's a tricky subject, but I feel there are many different views on the 'swastika', 99% of them perfectly understandable. Whether someone sees nothing wrong with it, or whether someone in fact does. It's not really about right or wrong, it is just the way people associate with it.
But yea, keyboard jokey, great idea. This sort of topic doesn't seem quite right in the news forum does it.
my comparison was to simply say, that things are only offensive if you let them be offensive.
people use symbols, etc. to get under peoples skin, and when it succeeds, they keep at it. ignore it, it goes away because the desired effect isnt acheived.
the whole slavery thing is moot anyway, no one alive that was a slave, and no one alive who owned them.