Originally Posted by
Magical Mudcrab
So the problem is that changing a symbol from being one of vitriolic hate to one which isn't is a lot more difficult than the reverse. There's essentially nothing contentious with adopting benevolent or otherwise non-objectionable symbols, as the symbols are at worst going to be met with indifference. It's only when adopting symbols which have taken on negative meanings when the situation becomes a lot more contentious.
Take, for example, the Confederate Flag. Regardless of what people want to argue, the fact is that the flag is a symbol of a separatist movement which fought for their economic right to own and use slaves. Recently people have wanted to start "taking back" the flag, essentially tying it back to their history and saying it is representative of a shared, southern subculture in the United States; however, problems arise when you try and contextualize this. In-context, the history that it represents is contemptable and is not worth celebrating, and there is not really an apparent reason for this flag to ever be used other than people want to use this flag.
Comparing this to something like the Swastika, this is a bit of a different situation. The meaning of the symbol hasn't actually changed and is still used widely; however, in Western cultures, because of our rather ethno-centric view of the world, we can't readily identify that people who use this symbol for religious reasons as not being Nazis. It's simply not something we've been socialized to expect. There is a case in which people from the various religions who use the symbol could try and "reclaim" it within Western cultures, though this would be met with skepticism, as it probably should be, and would take a long time to adopt.
Moving back to the N-word, and really any racially charged language, this sort-of falls closer into the category of the Confederate Flag. There's not actually a positive or benevolent meaning to the bastardization of the Spanish word negro, as it was adapted with the sole purpose of being a method of persecute black people. The question sort-of becomes a situation in which it seems like life is being breathed into something which should instead be left to rot. That said, the word has partially been reclaimed by some parts of the global community, such as those who use the soft 'a', though this is sort of a different because typically the people reclaiming the symbol are black people - the people who it was targeted against - though it's no less contentious due to the history of the word.