I see what you're saying about the extrapolation from hoodie to gangsta, IK. Very good point.
In my country it is against the law to wear the national flag --- which I find ridiculous, and yet clearly many people agree as one designer was all but lynched for showing a saree that was inspired by our flag. In comparison, most nations actually add positive patriotic connotations to wearing their flag colours, or applying them to objects of daily use.
In line with the Nazi gear, there is the white hood of the KKK.
Nazi gear is doubly offensive for some of us because the swastika (Nazi cross) has positive religio-cultural connotations and yet it has been turned into something so very offensive that it can barely be discussed without fear of giving utmost insult and shutting down any possibility of dialogue.
There is too the issue of headgear --- the targetting of turbans from the early 'reign of terror' times which extended to some Sikhs and other religious groups due to lack of due discrimination. Muslims of certain communities, Sikhs, some Jains are often told they 'cannot' expect to bring their cultural or religious symbols and habit with them when they emigrate --- and while I can quite see how the argument of discrimination against women can make a lot of sense in this context to some, I can also see a very slippery slope forming.
Having a colonial British icon call an average Indian man in native garments a 'half-naked fakir' still strikes one as tremendously distressing from a post-colonial perspective. Yet it is no less difficult to accept the appropriation of certain colours (including one in the national flag and also strongly allied with Buddhism's peaceful politics) by religious fundamentalist groups to the point that it is avoided in my milieu for fear of appearing so allied ourselves and thus giving offence or (worse by far!) drawing 'kindred spirits'.
Personally, in my developing and globalizing nation, I have found all sorts of odd bias about ethnic garments in the most unexpected quarters. As though *not* adopting Westernwear is a failure of emancipation --- unless it is clear that the ethnic garments are designer (therefore progressive) or 'occasion only' ('costume' to keep the peace). Many cultural markers draw strong pro and con reactions within and across communities. The nose and toe rings of the bride, the mangalsutra of the married woman, the conch-shell and red lac (once coral) bangles ditto, even the bindi --- and all seem much more fraught, from both sides, than a Christian wedding ring!
In some communities (and not just Muslim, contrary to popular belief), covering the head and/or chest --- or failing to do so --- continues to have consequences, particularly for women but also for men of certain social status.
I also recall going to college and being told by (politically affiliated, and gun- or bomb-toting to prove it) seniors that I was to stop wearing those 'mod' jeans or else! I fear that is not an entirely left behind 'tradition' even in some of our big and progressive cities.
When I cut my hair off into a close crop (Sinead O'Connor length), there was one close friend who was very upset and did not hesitate to blurt out her opinion that I looked like a young Hindu window (it used to be enjoined on Hindu widows universally to shave their head and keep their hair closely cropped ever after; the social rules are more lax now).
On the other hand, I myself have been known to get quite riled at the wearing of communist propaganda and Che Guevara shirts and the like by people who do it to be 'cool' and are as far from understanding the politics of it (let alone idolize the figures of Lenin, Mao or Che) as they are from realizing that 'traditional' Hindu fashion already owes much to both the 'Muslim invader' as well as the 'Western colonialist' from long before the Victorian and Mughal eras!
