To a degree, fair enough. I hadn’t studied a French passport.
But also, it was always a symbol of the strength of the state through violence. It is fundamentally fascist in nature. When France still embraces it it’s the same France that is currently beating the shit out of schoolchildren and harming them for life for wanting to receive education. Like most western countries France has a huge cultural problem of state violence.
So I still think the historical use of this symbol does not align with pretending fascist ideology is something new in a society. And anyone giving France a pass is not paying attention.
I don’t disagree with you in any particular part, and almost wrote a paragraph clarifying that the swastika and fasces are not 1:1 equivalences specifically because the Nazis divorced the swastika from its original meaning for their own purposes, while the Fascists selected the fasces as their core symbol because of its already established symbolism.
However, you can understand that the circular logic of calling something “fascist” which predates the codification of “Fascism” is doing my head in. If you want to counter that that’s a semantic argument which doesn’t invalidate your point, I tend to agree, with the significant caveat that this entire discussion is semantic in nature, so it’s more relevant than usual.
Long story short, I don’t equate every example of a state using violence to achieve its purpose as fascism, though it’s certainly a necessary ingredient, so I won’t yuck your yums if you do. To me, a war memorial is an appropriate venue for the fasces to appear, given its martial and reflective nature (as in, reflecting on the past), whereas including a fasces as the centerpiece of the nation’s diplomatic emblem is significantly more concerning as a forward looking statement of intent (so to speak).
To a degree, fair enough. I hadn’t studied a French passport.
But also, it was always a symbol of the strength of the state through violence. It is fundamentally fascist in nature. When France still embraces it it’s the same France that is currently beating the shit out of schoolchildren and harming them for life for wanting to receive education. Like most western countries France has a huge cultural problem of state violence.
So I still think the historical use of this symbol does not align with pretending fascist ideology is something new in a society. And anyone giving France a pass is not paying attention.
I don’t disagree with you in any particular part, and almost wrote a paragraph clarifying that the swastika and fasces are not 1:1 equivalences specifically because the Nazis divorced the swastika from its original meaning for their own purposes, while the Fascists selected the fasces as their core symbol because of its already established symbolism.
However, you can understand that the circular logic of calling something “fascist” which predates the codification of “Fascism” is doing my head in. If you want to counter that that’s a semantic argument which doesn’t invalidate your point, I tend to agree, with the significant caveat that this entire discussion is semantic in nature, so it’s more relevant than usual.
Long story short, I don’t equate every example of a state using violence to achieve its purpose as fascism, though it’s certainly a necessary ingredient, so I won’t yuck your yums if you do. To me, a war memorial is an appropriate venue for the fasces to appear, given its martial and reflective nature (as in, reflecting on the past), whereas including a fasces as the centerpiece of the nation’s diplomatic emblem is significantly more concerning as a forward looking statement of intent (so to speak).