
A brief history of the peace symbol - Tomte
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/style-origins-peace-symbol/index.html
======
Theodores
Concurrent with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was a campaign against
nuclear power. Older readers may remember the 'Smiling Sun' logo with 'Nuclear
Power - No Thanks' written around it.

The 'Smiling Sun' logo took a different 'intellectual property rights' path to
the CND logo. The creators sought copyright protection so that nobody co-opted
the idea in nefarious, money making ways that violated the principles behind
the logo.

From a fashion marketing perspective a CND logo is easy, it can be slapped on
the cheesiest of hippy style fancy dress outfits and sold for the wearer to
vaguely go along with it, 'in character' rather than living and breathing the
principles and ideas behind the logo.

But the Smiling Sun logo hasn't entered mass consumer culture at that level,
in part due to the copyright protection. If you had the logo in your window
then quite clearly you really do believe in the cause, it is not a mere
decorative element that projects a certain cool vibe.

More details of the Smiling Sun logo and how the licensing works can be found
on their website. There are lessons to be learned from the fortunes of their
logo in contrast to the CND logo for those writing free and open source
software:

[http://www.smilingsun.org/page_3.html](http://www.smilingsun.org/page_3.html)

~~~
Steve44
I remember getting some of those as a young kid in the mid 1970s when we were
visiting something - can't remember what. I thought they were colourful and
cheery and had no concept of the political message they were making.

------
Fnoord
There isn't "the" peace symbol. There is the V handsign, there is the dove,
there are various flags such as the rainbow peace flag, and there's the one
being discussed here which is _a_ peace sign.

According to [1] the meaning of the upward symbol without the circle is:

"Name: unknown (the rune poems are contradictory). Phoneme: Z. Meaning:
protection from enemies, defense of that which one loves."

On Wikipedia, the entry is "Algiz" (z-rune) ᛉ (U+16C9) [2] used in Proto-
Germanic and Old English (Anglo Saxon) where it means "elk" or "moose". Old
Norse has a version which goes the other way akin to ᛦ where it means "yew"
(taxus baccata, a conifer). See Wikipedia for more info.

EDIT: Its been abused by the SS in WWII [3]

EDIT: Another source on Algiz rune [4].

[1] [https://norse-mythology.org/runes/the-meanings-of-the-
runes/](https://norse-mythology.org/runes/the-meanings-of-the-runes/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiz)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_insignia_of_the_Schutzst...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_insignia_of_the_Schutzstaffel)

[4]
[http://www.runemaker.com/futhark/algiz.shtml](http://www.runemaker.com/futhark/algiz.shtml)

------
skrebbel
Taking this a bit off topic, but I'm curious about HN's thoughts on the
following.

I'm a pacifist, so obviously I'm for the idea of a nuke free world. But I
don't understand how it could be achievable. I mean, is it that hard to build
a nuke? The required knowledge has spread globally by now. As a side effect of
general progress in science and engineering it will be cheaper, not more
expensive, to build nukes. Do people share my pessimism about this?

I wonder what constructive, believable steps the world could take towards
world peace if we accept that some day, any somewhat-functional state can
build a nuke if they really really want to. I'm sure that there's ways, maybe
even other than mutually assured destruction, to make actually _using_ such
nukes uninteresting to even the most insane dictator.

~~~
bumholio
> any somewhat-functional state can build a nuke if they really really want
> to.

We are already in such a world, what prevents proliferation are not technical
reasons, but the strong international pressure - both by nuclear and non-
nuclear states. It's not unfathomable to conceive a world where such pressure
(and the threat of conventional attacks) could be strong enough to prevent any
proliferation, where the international community would closely watch over any
such activity and immediately stomp on any small scale dictator looking for an
easy edge.

What's harder to imagine is a way to get from here to there. Before engaging
in any multilateral talks and treaties, I believe the mere hint of renouncing
nukes would be political suicide inside US.

------
a_d
Article makes the point that the symbol commonly used for peace, originally
was a logo for nuclear disarmament. Well, the common-use meaning is not _that_
far apart :) A nuke-free Earth would be one of the biggest, if not _the_
biggest contributors to world peace.

(From the tone of the article, I was worried that the symbol originally meant
something quite different from what it has come to mean today. But no. Same
ballpark.)

~~~
nothrabannosir
It would be a symptom of it, but not necessarily a cause. It is reasonable to
claim that without mutually assured destruction, the Cold War could have been
a warm one.

Of course, in a peaceful world, who needs nukes. But is this world peaceful
yet?

~~~
a_d
Maybe we come at it from a different side: what/which manmade things can cause
end of the world? (I know only 2: climate change and nukes)

~~~
bloak
Assuming you mean extinction of mankind or end of civilisation, here are
another two: genetically engineered diseases, artificial intelligence (AI).

There's also voluntary extinction (vhemt.org), of course, but that's not
really a "cause".

~~~
mikro2nd
I'd add nanotechnology -- a "grey goo" scenario.

------
hellofunk
I remember Spike Lee was on Late Show and he wore a necklace with a big, very
obvious Mercedes logo, but he thought it was the peace symbol. Stephen Colbert
teased him about it, but ol' Spike didn't take it well at all.

~~~
mhb
[https://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/3x3m17/spike_lee_lo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/3x3m17/spike_lee_loves_mercedes/)

------
mezzode
I've always thought the Peace Walker logo was a pretty interesting twist on
the peace symbol.

------
jboynyc
If you grew up in a conservative evangelical setting, as I did, you might have
been taught that the peace sign is meant to evoke the claw of Satan and/or an
upside cross and that it is therefore an anti-Christian sign.

I never really believed that, but I also never bothered to figure out it's
actual signification. Thanks for posting this.

~~~
LionRoar
I grew up, not with the satan idea, but was told that there was a relation
between the apostle Peter and the symbol. The reason for that was that Peter
was crucified upsidedown. They argued why someone would use it as a peace
symbol when it was the symbol of Peter crucified. Which was a very strange
argument if you think about it.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Never forget that radicals of any religion will retcon reality to suit their
whims. This isn't a unique trait of Abrahamic religions (although the direct
relative of the same underlying religion sure do like to fight).

All I can say, to challenge this proactive lying and deceitfulness, is to
demand proof of a historical claim or STFU.

------
rgrieselhuber
To me it has always looked like a symbol of defeat and submission.

~~~
burfog
I remember being taught that the symbol was a chicken foot. (implying "too
chicken" to fight)

If it helps any, imagine the middle part to be a Corvair B-36 Peacemaker.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker)

A history of the logo ought to note that numerous variations were made, some
with the B-36, and many more with the B-52.

