First off, I don't have a problem with gay marriage equality throughout the US. Mainly because it really doesn't affect my life at all, as far as I know, and if two gay people want to get married then by all means go for it. I've never had a problem with gay people and one of my wife's cousins, who happens to be gay, is one of my favorite relatives of hers.
That all said, this rubs me the wrong way, a bit, and I'm curious to hear what some of the posters here... particularly posters who have served (Thank you by the way!)... feel about it? It's my opinion that if you wanted to portray the struggle that gay people have had in this country it would've been best if they came up with their own way to symbolize it. But, and this is why it only rubs me the wrong way 'a bit', then I thought what if that was a picture of four women raising that flag for women's rights? What if it was four black people? Take your pick of any group that has experienced any kind of struggle in this country and put them in it? Would that still be considered disrespectful of our armed forces? Or is it only because it's a 'gay pride' flag and supposedly gay men raising it that is the issue?
If you look at the bottom of the linked page you'll see at least one serviceman (Navy) who doesn't seem to have any issue with it and I'm wondering if, in your opinion (again, particularly serviceman), a majority of the people who served have an issue or don't have an issue with the photo? For the record, except for a lil junior ROTC back in the day, I've never served in any military capacity.
Iwo Jima pic and article - (
New Window )
Poor taste if you ask me, but again, not really a big deal.
illmatic - just something to keep in mind, the guy who made that photo did so almost 15 years ago. It's just showing back up back of the decision last week and social media. Just putting that out there for those that haven't or don't read the whole article (not sure if you have or not). Whether that sways your opinion at all is up to you.
The struggle is against people who fought for an America that modeled their particular values.
The same people who just a decade ago were lionized as the "greatest generation" are those whom we are now celebrating a victory of values over.
So while I have no problem with proponents of marriage equality using the symbolism, I'm not blind to the irony of it and empathize with those from that generation who might be angry or bitter about it.
In all seriousness, I don't like it but there is more important stuff to be animated about.
The original photo and monument are iconic and this "new" take doesn't anything away from the sacrifices made and the victory on Iwo Jima.
If anything, this controversy will bring more attention to the legacy of the those Marines that fought there. My generation, and those younger than me, don't really have much appreciation for stuff like that.
Listen, all you have to do is say the names Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard to realize that some horrible things have been done due to homophobia. But never did 6800 dead and at least 10,000 wounded happen in less than a month. It's not the end of the world, but I wish they found a different way of expression.
Poor taste if you ask me, but again, not really a big deal.
This.
I'm ok with being offended every now and then. It makes things interesting.
The struggle is against people who fought for an America that modeled their particular values.
The same people who just a decade ago were lionized as the "greatest generation" are those whom we are now celebrating a victory of values over.
So while I have no problem with proponents of marriage equality using the symbolism, I'm not blind to the irony of it and empathize with those from that generation who might be angry or bitter about it.
Interesting point.
Don't get into a froth over this picture and don't judge people who do. We shouldn't judge people opposed to homosexuality on the same level as the savages that killed Matthew Shepard; by the same logic that we should not judge all gay men by the gay male pedophiles who injure young boys.
Now, can we move on?
Ed lived in NYC and produced demos for my brother back in 1976.
One is wearing Jorts!
And I'm not crazy about any of those either
Quote:
I have seen this pictured modified to include the McDonald's flag, Storm troopers (Stars Wars variety), Muppets and My little Ponies. Unabashed consumerism should be far more insulting than a legitimate struggle.
And I'm not crazy about any of those either
The difference is social media. Twenty-five years ago a McDonalds ad had trouble going viral because that wasn't a thing yet.
You mean in public, not in private like they do now?
Quote:
What makes this so interesting is that the "struggle for gay rights" has primarily been a struggle of values of a new generation against the values of the generation depicted in the picture.
The struggle is against people who fought for an America that modeled their particular values.
The same people who just a decade ago were lionized as the "greatest generation" are those whom we are now celebrating a victory of values over.
So while I have no problem with proponents of marriage equality using the symbolism, I'm not blind to the irony of it and empathize with those from that generation who might be angry or bitter about it.
Interesting point.
I know it's a stretch to say this, as it is likely that the heroism of WWII is adopted by newer generations, but there can be (an admittedly loose) parallels drawn between this and the current issues with the confederate flag.
What I mean is that if this photo stands as an archetype of all that the "greatest generation" stood for, at some point it might be recognized that that generation stood against many minority groups, LGBT being one of them. As those groups grow in acceptance and power in our culture could we someday reject the hateful, bigoted, "greatest generation" of Americans from WWII?
Food for thought anyway on an otherwise uneventful off-season day.
When you consider what Hitler did to certain minorities along with LGBT individuals I don't think they should. Throw in the Japanese beliefs with respect to racial superiority as well. What seems to be missing here is a recognition that the US troops who fought and died on Iwo Jima weren't fighting to advance racial segregation and mistreatment of the LGBT community. And in fact a significant number of them, but by no means all, were in favor of equal racial treatment. Probably a miniscule number felt that way about LGBT tolerance. But whatever their personal failings, what they defeated was far, far, worse.
[quote]What seems to be missing here is a recognition that the US troops who fought and died on Iwo Jima weren't fighting to advance racial segregation and mistreatment of the LGBT community.[quote]
and it's the reason why I said the parallels were loose.
Just the same, it's hard to separate the fact that homophobia amongst that generation was extremely high and the social change we've undergone is directly in contrast with their wishes.
I'm not trying to slam that generation either. My grandfather was drafted into the army and served in Africa and Italy. My mom was born during his absence and he first laid eyes on her as a two-year old. His sacrifice for others was phenomenal, but not unique by any means compared to his peers.
I just know that if he were alive today he'd be pretty upset about the Supreme Court's decision, and the general direction the country is headed on social issues.
[quote]What seems to be missing here is a recognition that the US troops who fought and died on Iwo Jima weren't fighting to advance racial segregation and mistreatment of the LGBT community.[quote]
I just know that if he were alive today he'd be pretty upset about the Supreme Court's decision, and the general direction the country is headed on social issues.
And amplifying what I said in the last sentence of my post, despite the fact he might be upset by these decisions, it's a far, far better thing that he and his compatriots prevailed given what would have happen had they been defeated. The system they fought for is the system that allowed the changes you support to take place, even if you consider the timetable to be slow.
[quote]What seems to be missing here is a recognition that the US troops who fought and died on Iwo Jima weren't fighting to advance racial segregation and mistreatment of the LGBT community.[quote]
and it's the reason why I said the parallels were loose.
Just the same, it's hard to separate the fact that homophobia amongst that generation was extremely high and the social change we've undergone is directly in contrast with their wishes.
I'm not trying to slam that generation either. My grandfather was drafted into the army and served in Africa and Italy. My mom was born during his absence and he first laid eyes on her as a two-year old. His sacrifice for others was phenomenal, but not unique by any means compared to his peers.
I just know that if he were alive today he'd be pretty upset about the Supreme Court's decision, and the general direction the country is headed on social issues.
WGAF? I don't mean it meanly, but judging the past by the standards of the present is rarely a fruitful exercise. That was the generation that ultimately integrated schools and public life, that sent its women to the workforce in increasing numbers and so on and so forth. The fact that they didn't go as far as we are prepared to doesn't diminish their moving things as far forward as they did.
I'm speculating (mostly out of boredom right now) about whether those who hold the gay rights movement as pivotal, those most directly affected by the recent S.C. decisions, might view that generation differently than I do.
I used some rhetoric earlier - referred to members of that generation as hateful and bigoted - not because I judge them to be that way, but because I know that people today who hold those viewpoints are judged by some to be that way. I think in the future that those we celebrate and honor today may be held in lesser regard, or even condemned for their flaws, in the same way that people have decided that previous heros are no longer worthy of high regard (e.g. founding fathers who were slave-owners).
I myself am cautiously in support of the S.C. decision. I am decidedly happy that people who love each other will be able to affirm that love and receive legal benefits and protections regardless of their genders. This element of the decision makes me happy.
I am a bit agnostic as to whether it is best that we have fundamentally redefined what a marriage is. I really don't know that this will be a good thing or a bad thing for our society as a whole in the long term, and I don't believe anyone else can know this for sure either.
It is for this reason that I can bridge the apparent dichotomy - both supportive of those who are celebrating and sympathetic toward those who are deeply troubled by this shift.
People need to get over it.