I don't buy that, I'd hate to see every symbol/logo homogenized so much nobody could be offended. The sheriff can't use a six pointed star because the Jews had to wear them in Europe. Certainly no snakes could be used. No people unless they represented all colors, ages, plus if they have two legs they snub amputees. No trees unless deciduous and conifers get equal billing. The NFL can't use a football because it offends soccer fans. Where does it end? Maybe commercial interests have to worry about negative reaction from potential customers, but utilities and government agencies, not so much.

Agree. People must get so tired of being offended, given all the being offended that's going on.

You don't have to explain any of those to show how they aren't racist.

An image of a white man throttling a Native American has to be explained.

Then you don't have to explain lightning bolts on an electrical company truck.
I see a lot of them on electrical contractors vans, and in warning signs on lift trucks.

You do if they look like the SS symbol.

so... following your analogy, where's the preexisting symbol of a white man choking a red man, causing this symbol to be associated with .... ??? oppression? atrocities? unchecked state sponsored racism?

Right there, all the symbols we need are right there in your post. As a red man, I'm sooo offended. Hmmph. ;)

I haven't seen any that look like SS symbols, but doubt I'd make the connection. But I'm not particularly offended by swastikas either, because I know its history, and if I see it in the news I know it's some asshole pushing buttons... I refuse to let them push mine.

I don't understand the question. A white man choking a red man is that symbol, unless given an alternate explanation. The preexisting image is US history. That should be self-evident.

You need extra backstory to explain that the image isn't actually a white man choking a red man.

You don't have to be personally offended by swastikas to know that an image of Hitler saluting would be a terrible city logo, even if the town was the filming location for The Great Dictator, and if you know the backstory, it's actually Chaplin.

Knowing the backstory, would you be offended? If not, then in saying it would be a terrible city logo you're censoring it based on your opinion of whether others might be offended. In that case we're back to six pointed stars, snakes and trees.

How are we back to that? You still don't have to have a backstory to explain how they aren't racist.

Choosing things that shouldn't be used because they might offend someone, as opposed to saying it's a bad logo because it offends you.

A logo is supposed to communicate something. If the logo draws on a commonly understood visual lexicon that conveys a contrary message from that which is intended, unless the viewer purposely seeks out footnote explanations then it fails in its purpose as a logo.

That's true, and yet how complicated is it - this one has communicated more to us via the thread than any other seal ever. It provoked us to investigate further and forced us to confront our simple notions. If it was art, we would say that is successful.