Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No need not to celebrate it?

Its a icon of VJ Day, a snapshot of the celebrations and depics the 'thank God its all over moment' that transcends normal behaviour.

Do you really approve of the whitewashing of history to accommodate intolerant sensitivities? Is that really progressive, or just backward.

We are supposedly living in the free Western world, yet if our art doesn't conform to revisionist doctrine some people call for it to be expunged, and the rest are expected to follow , normally on the fear or being labeled bigots. Why would you be so naive as to condone that Stalinist thinking. Please wake up.

 Orlanth wrote:
No need not to celebrate it?

No. No need to celebrate it.

Its a icon of VJ Day, a snapshot of the celebrations and depics the 'thank God its all over moment' that transcends normal behaviour.

I don't think that anybody in this thread has argued that it's not an icon of VJ Day. Or that it is not a snapshot of the celebrations or that it depicts the "thank God it's all over monent" that transcends normal behavior.

Do you really approve of the whitewashing of history to accommodate intolerant sensitivities?

What a weird question since I already answered it a couple of times, but to repeat myself:

 d-usa wrote:
Like I said before: you don't have to pretend it never happened

But maybe you don't understand the definition of whitewashing.

Is that really progressive, or just backward.

It's backward to pretend that the only two options are "pretend it never happened and whitewash history" and "celebrate what he did" when you have a whole lot of other options such as "acknowledge that it happened, explain why it happened, explain why he said he did it, explain the culture that existed at the time, compare it to the culture that exists today, examine how the event was viewed in the 1940s, how the event might be viewed today, and how that viewpoint might have shifted over the last 6 decades."

Or, you know: Examine history.

We are supposedly living in the free Western world,

And depending on the art, who purchased it, and where it is displayed. If it is a piece that is purchased with public funds and displayed in a public area then the public has a certain right to voice their concerns and their opinions.

yet if our art doesn't conform to revisionist doctrine some people call for it to be expunged,

Again, there is no need for it to be expunged. There is a huge difference between "not celebrating something" and "pretending something never happened".

and the rest are expected to follow, normally on the fear or being labeled bigots.

They don't have to follow, but everybody else has every right to call them whatever they want to call them. Something something "free speech means I can make whatever art I want" something something "how dare people use their free speech to call out my art"

Why would you be so naive as to condone that Stalinist thinking. Please wake up.

Horrible reading comprehension.
Wrong definition of whitewashing.
Wrong definition of Stalinist thinking.

This post has it all

Stalinist! Of all the names I see being bandied about on these fora, I must say, that is a rare gem.

He's just like Joe Biden.

 Ouze wrote:
Stalinist! Of all the names I see being bandied about on these fora, I must say, that is a rare gem.

Is there a Soviet version of Godwinning? I think that might have happened.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Stalinist! Of all the names I see being bandied about on these fora, I must say, that is a rare gem.

Is there a Soviet version of Godwinning? I think that might have happened.

Give it time.
In a medium that is intended for the free expression and exchange of ideas, surely someone will want to add another means of censoring historical references rather than discuss why such may or may not be accurate.

Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.

Have any of your perfectly straight male friends gone out and found other perfectly straight males they did not know and forced them in to a kiss by restraining their head so they could not flee? Because if not, I do not see how your consenting male friends have anything in relation to what happened here.

You have made an assumption that has lead to an erroneous presumption.

No where did I state that said observed individuals were "my friends".

This is the problem with assumptions...such as what the french feminists that are protesting the statue and as some have done in this thread. It leads to incorrect presumption based wholly upon what the individual is imagining and leaves no room for other possibilities.

Now, to your question.

The incidences that I referred to were with strangers and the person doing the kissing used both hands to grab the other persons head while planting the kiss.
One instance was when the Red Sox broke the Babe's curse. The individual in question was an acquaintance. He kissed a guy he didn't know that was standing next to him..
Have seen behaviour similar to this when a gambler hits big in a casino.
The times of danger were during military service and will leave it at that.


Again, one can not assume that a kiss=sexual act. Such assumptions ignore intent. Doing such also precludes the recognition of cultural differences.

Later,
ff

Oh, I apologize for making that assumption.

But you have still yet to address the fact that we have a witness. (the photographer) This man approached multiple women attempting to force them in to a kiss.

The fact that these men were in danger due to their Military Service should have no bearing on this argument at all. When you walk up to somebody and force them in to a kiss, it is sexual assault.

Also, as an edit. I would like to say that your argument that this kiss was not sexual is kind of silly considering he is kissing her with an open mouth. I have never had a person stick their tongue in my mouth non-sexually. Maybe I am just sheltered.

Has anyone talked to those who lived through WW2 about this issue? I'll talk to my granddad about it next time I see him.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/17/16992325-the-people-love-it-controversial-1m-kissing-statue-arrives-in-san-diego?lite

David Moore flew bombing runs over Germany in World War II.

When he sees it, he thinks of how happy he was that they could get back to civilian life.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

focusedfire wrote:Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.

Have any of your perfectly straight male friends gone out and found other perfectly straight males they did not know and forced them in to a kiss by restraining their head so they could not flee? Because if not, I do not see how your consenting male friends have anything in relation to what happened here.

You have made an assumption that has lead to an erroneous presumption.

No where did I state that said observed individuals were "my friends".

This is the problem with assumptions...such as what the french feminists that are protesting the statue and as some have done in this thread. It leads to incorrect presumption based wholly upon what the individual is imagining and leaves no room for other possibilities.

Now, to your question.

The incidences that I referred to were with strangers and the person doing the kissing used both hands to grab the other persons head while planting the kiss.
One instance was when the Red Sox broke the Babe's curse. The individual in question was an acquaintance. He kissed a guy he didn't know that was standing next to him..
Have seen behaviour similar to this when a gambler hits big in a casino.
The times of danger were during military service and will leave it at that.


Again, one can not assume that a kiss=sexual act. Such assumptions ignore intent. Doing such also precludes the recognition of cultural differences.

Later,
ff

Oh, I apologize for making that assumption.

But you have still yet to address the fact that we have a witness. (the photographer) This man approached multiple women attempting to force them in to a kiss.

The fact that these men were in danger due to their Military Service should have no bearing on this argument at all. When you walk up to somebody and force them in to a kiss, it is sexual assault.

Also, as an edit. I would like to say that your argument that this kiss was not sexual is kind of silly considering he is kissing her with an open mouth. I have never had a person stick their tongue in my mouth non-sexually. Maybe I am just sheltered.

1) Apology accepted. Thank you

2)I have never argued that the sailor wasn't trying to kiss other women. Only that a forced kiss does not automatically equate to sexual assault. A strong case for assault? Yes. Sexual Assault? Not so much.

3)The men having served in extremely dangerous situations is not an excuse. Rather it would be viewed as a factor in the intent. Remember that intent is a very important part of the law in criminal cases.

Also, you are incorrect about what the charge would be. A DA worth his law degree would make sure that the police did the proper investigation. A part of that investigation would be to take into account all mitigating factors in order to determine if he can make a case that there was malicious(sexual in this case) intent. I will now refer you back to my reply in #2.

4)In reference to your edited addition, imo, you are again making an assumption. There is no evidence in the original photo or the statue that it was a "French Kiss" or "Florentine Kiss" Their faces are pressed together and that is all that can be made out. Any open mouths are something your imagination is adding.

In fact such kisses were very rare in that time frame. Various sources disagree on when it first started to appear in the U.S. but it was not a tolerated public act until the 60s to 70s and many would say that it has never really become an accepted public behaviour.


It is very important that one looks at the evidence for what is there and nothing more before casting allegations of sexual assault about. An innocent persons life could be ruined by an accusation that was based upon assumption rather than fact. I'm not talking about the Sailor here, I am cautioning against hasty allegation based upon something that people "feel" that they saw rather than what was actually witnessed.


Later,
ff

I am sorry, but you are grazing over obvious signs in the picture and in the statue. The fact that his mouth is open is shown by the placement of his cheeks and his chin.

Also, it is ridiculous to argue that it was not a "French Kiss" based on the time this photo was taken. Because you know, Humans all realized they could use their tongues to kiss whenever somebody gave it a name.

Your whole argument is riddled with holes. The fact that he is dipping her back shows romantic intent. You can CLEARLY see on the statue, which is the piece in question, that his mouth is open. Unless of course he has a ridiculously long chin. I mean, we are talking a Leno++ chin here.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
No need not to celebrate it?

Do you really approve of the whitewashing of history to accommodate intolerant sensitivities?

What a weird question since I already answered it a couple of times, but to repeat myself:

 d-usa wrote:
Like I said before: you don't have to pretend it never happened

But maybe you don't understand the definition of whitewashing.

Whitewashing does not refer exclusively to political cover ups, but any deliberate gloss over to sanitise the past record.

 d-usa wrote:

Is that really progressive, or just backward.

It's backward to pretend that the only two options are "pretend it never happened and whitewash history" and "celebrate what he did"

I have never polarised it that way. Stop putting words in my mouth.
In fact a little reading comprehension will show that I encourage awareness of:

 d-usa wrote:

when you have a whole lot of other options such as "acknowledge that it happened, explain why it happened, explain why he said he did it, explain the culture that existed at the time, compare it to the culture that exists today, examine how the event was viewed in the 1940s, how the event might be viewed today, and how that viewpoint might have shifted over the last 6 decades.".....

Because the very post you were replying to included them:

 Orlanth wrote:

1. It's a depiction of an actual historical event.
2. Artistic interpretation about the feelings of the people involved is no more than that artistic interpretation, we can each have our own opinion.
3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.
4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.
3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.
4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.

 d-usa wrote:

.....Or, you know: Examine history.

This is what I have done.
Not long ago, certainly within our own adult lifetimes, if a dogmatised minority group called for the public withdrawal of a free artform their objection would be noticed, and noted and accepted as within their own right of free speech and life will go on.
Nowadays the free expression is under threat or community action because the community cannot easily stand up to pressure from the demands of vocal minorities.
Its an alarming pattern of how free expression is eroded by a changing (and narrowing) of the consensus. It has never ended well in the past.

 d-usa wrote:

We are supposedly living in the free Western world,

And depending on the art, who purchased it, and where it is displayed. If it is a piece that is purchased with public funds and displayed in a public area then the public has a certain right to voice their concerns and their opinions.

Yes they do, controversy in art is nothing new. Hover a radical feminist group wants the artwork destroyed and are given too much credence to their barbarism. Because progressivism is becoming more mainstream.

 d-usa wrote:

yet if our art doesn't conform to revisionist doctrine some people call for it to be expunged,

Again, there is no need for it to be expunged. There is a huge difference between "not celebrating something" and "pretending something never happened".

However the radical feminist do want it expunged, this is the issue.
It is an issue symptomic of the times.
Art controversy is nothing new, what is new is a rise of progressive ideology. Whereas before if a minority group disliked something it would be acknowledged that they did not, end of issue.
Nowadays when some minority groups disapprove the mainstream society has a tendency to grant extra leeway to accommodate the disapproval for fear of being labeled intolerant or bigoted.

It would not be the first time that a harmless legal artform, or activity, is halted by order in case it offends a minority group. Ever time this happens life becomes one step more restrictive.

 d-usa wrote:

Horrible reading comprehension.

Your own. I was quite clear as to my meaning.

Feminists dont have to like the statue, and I acknowledge that art can be controversial.
However modern progressive feminists feel empowered enough to demand a removal of the statue, and can potentially use the progressive movements peer pressure to enforce the demand.

 d-usa wrote:

Wrong definition of whitewashing.

Whitewashing =

5. to conceal, gloss over, or suppress

Amongst other more literal definitions. It doesnt exclusively refer to government, organised crime or big business.
Let us see:

Revisioist group wants to remove statue because the historical record of an event that past peacefully doesn't tally with their opinions of gender relationships seven decades later.
gloss over - check, suppress - check

 d-usa wrote:

Wrong definition of Stalinist thinking.

An fair definition
You dont need the moustache, nuclear weapons or hordes of soldiers......

Though let us not be caught up on the semantics but on the comparions and the reason and relevance of the comparisons, because not enough people see it frankly.

The moral parallels between progressive liberalism and perhaps ironically Stalinism are there to see. Stalinism is a good analogy because progressivism uses many of the same tools as the Soviet system (under Stalin and others). Progressivism creates an illusory moral high ground, sets itself up as having right to condemn and encourages a bandwagon affect amongst others to reinforce its position. The bandwagon of itself being reinforced by peer pressure and fear of label.
The link to Stalin is the transition from pre-Soviet to Soviet culture and how the rights and customs of the peoples were stripped, sometimes directly through dictat, but more often by a creeping doctrinal change that set up a new revisionist morality and forced other through peer pressure to accept it as canon.
I could have just as well said Orwellian.

Here is the rub:
The Consensus is being changed by minority peer pressure, in the name of expanding tolerance of others while in actuality becoming increasingly intolerant.
In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right (a laudable goal) but try to achieve that by practicing and encouraging intolerance towards whatever they don't like.
The very essence of the Stalinist/Orwellian thinking is how the goal is completely opposed to the methodology, and people simply don't see the difference or the danger.

Point remains is that progressivism makes demands that would normally not be empowered to make, such as historical revisionism. When those demands are met new ground is taken and the demands become more reaching. There is also a brainwashing via the 'progressive' changes to education. Thankfully for you, you dont have that in the US to any great degree as your education system is more insulated than our own. For example free thinking is protected in the American classroom as you habitually teach 'under the flag' and thus doctrinal changes are better resisted. So it is not surprising that you do not see what is happening in Europe.

Now the current incident of the statue is not a microcosm of that, so you wont see all the above in it, but it is a symptom of a waypoint within the process.

 Ouze wrote:
Stalinist! Of all the names I see being bandied about on these fora, I must say, that is a rare gem.

Hey now, they're making honest arguments. I asked that one guy about a different thing. I think it's fair to take him as representative though.

 Orlanth wrote:

In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right

And another wrong definition to the list.

You should be careful with all those long words.

The rest of your post is just all over the place, I would have whiplash trying to follow all the weird logical jumps you are making.

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right

And another wrong definition to the list.

You should be careful with all those long words.

When someone takes a post, and finds on line quotes half if it and says its 'wrong' without explaining why, its a sign that they cant actually deal with the argument being presented.

 d-usa wrote:

The rest of your post is just all over the place, I would have whiplash trying to follow all the weird logical jumps you are making.

Try re-reading then, there are no 'wierd logical jumps' it reads straight.
If you are going to complain about 'wrong definitions' then presumably you can read plain English.

If you cant understand the argument go ahead and say so, if its unclear to you ask what is unclear and I will try and clarify

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right

And another wrong definition to the list.

You should be careful with all those long words.

When someone takes a post, and finds on line quotes half if it and says its 'wrong' without explaining why, its a sign that they cant actually deal with the argument being presented.

I am sincerely sorry, with all those big long words in your posts I figured you would know why your take on feminism is wrong.

Of course it has also been my experience that if someone tries that hard with all those big long words, then they are really just regurgitating stuff and there isn't much of a point to even try to argue with that.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, he got lucky and kissed someone that wasn't bothered by it. That doesn't mean we should approve of it. Imagine that a drunk driver runs over your mailbox, but you were going to replace it tomorrow anyway. You might not be as bothered by the loss as some people, but that doesn't mean that the drunk driver's actions were ok. You know why? Because they didn't know that you were going to be fine with it, they took the risk that you wouldn't and just got lucky. Same thing here. He didn't know she would be fine with being kissed, he just did it.

This, times a million. Being really, really, really, REALLY swear-to-God-honest happy about something doesn't make it OK to go around forcing yourself on anyone, just like being really, really, really, REALLY completely smashed doesn't make it OK either. You're responsible for your own actions.

Its a million times wrong.

Here is a logic chain showing why:

1. It's a depiction of an actual historical event.

Yep.

 Orlanth wrote:

2. Artistic interpretation about the feelings of the people involved is no more than that artistic interpretation, we can each have our own opinion.

How, then, can my opinion be "wrong"?

 Orlanth wrote:

3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.

And in the 1800's there was nothing wrong with lynching black people. That doesn't mean we have to celebrate it today.

 Orlanth wrote:

4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.

Every time there's a thread even remotely related to history you're in it complaining about revisionism, but guess what? It's not revisionism to point out that there's social dynamics involved that were not recognized at the time. It's not revisionism to argue for the elimination of harmful social practices. No one's arguing that we strike the entire thing from history books, we're arguing that making a statue celebrating the sexual assault of a woman as a symbol for peace is fundamentaly twisted.

I think I have to agree with d-usa, you really need to stop using those big words a bit. If there was a call to remove any mention of the event from the history books, that'd be revisionism. We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're just not willing to celebrate it and shrug it off as "harmless".

 Orlanth wrote:

3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.

As opposed to forcing people to believe sexual assault is somehow OK because "he was really caught up in the moment, honestly you guys!"?

 Orlanth wrote:

4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.

I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong is not an extremist interpretation (interpretation of what, by the way?) in France.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

2. Artistic interpretation about the feelings of the people involved is no more than that artistic interpretation, we can each have our own opinion.

How, then, can my opinion be "wrong"?

It isn't of itself. You have the free right not to like the artwork, and I defend your right not to like the artwork.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.

And in the 1800's there was nothing wrong with lynching black people. That doesn't mean we have to celebrate it today.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.

And in the 1800's there was nothing wrong with lynching black people. That doesn't mean we have to celebrate it today.

 Orlanth wrote:

Here is where you show where you are misled.

For a start
A lynching is quite different from a kiss. Also in the 19th century lynchings were wrong, its just that people had the power to perform them. Lynchings were always wrong even in their time period.

As for celebration of what you see as an evil. You take away the circumstances which made the day different. Maybe even in the 40's that kiss may well have been unacceptable, though I defend the comments made earlier that the act of kissing has changed since the 40's and that the expectation of both genders was for a kiss to be 'a chance' taken by the male. Nowadays you are expected to find out first, then kiss, though this is confused as there is still the attitude of 'do you have the courage to come up and kiss me' directly conficting with 'any contact can be taken as sexual assault'. Both cultures exist side by side and it generally depends on the personality of the people concerned.
However dogmas are rarely there to make anyone any more free.

Fine then. In much of the 1800's slavery was legal in parts of the United States. Does that mean that we today, in theory, have to condone using statues of suffering slaves as a celebration of something?

Dogmas such as "it wasn't considered bad then, so we can't think it's wrong now!!!11!!"?

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.

Every time there's a thread even remotely related to history you're in it complaining about revisionism, but guess what? It's not revisionism to point out that there's social dynamics involved that were not recognized at the time. It's not revisionism to argue for the elimination of harmful social practices. No one's arguing that we strike the entire thing from history books, we're arguing that making a statue celebrating the sexual assault of a woman as a symbol for peace is fundamentaly twisted.

Revisionism is a current social problem. For example your instance to label the artwork definitively as sexual assault. If you are uncomfortable with the artwork so be it. But by adding a cultural label to it, out of the context of its time I might add, and using that as an excuse to call for its removal is unhealthy.
If this was de facto sexual assault then, as you had the photographic evidence, why was the sailor not facing charges? Nobody appears to have asked, who is this man, lets find this man; and you can't for a moment argue that the image was not widely proliferated.
It's fair to assume the image was acceptable in its time.
Thus to make it out to be anything else is revisionism.

I'd imagine the sailor wasn't facing charges for a number of reasons, chief among them being that the 40s were hardly a bastion of equality.

You're going to have to stop strawmanning me BTW. Find somewhere where I've said that the image wasn't acceptable in society in general when it was taken. You keep saying that this is what we're arguing, even after we've repeatedly called you out on it. We're arguing that the action should have been unacceptable, not that it was. Read our posts before assuming you know what we're saying next time.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I think I have to agree with d-usa, you really need to stop using those big words a bit. If there was a call to remove any mention of the event from the history books, that'd be revisionism. We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're just not willing to celebrate it and shrug it off as "harmless".

If I use the 'big words' its because I am more aware of the societal changes, and the pitfalls of some of said changes, and am not afraid to speak out about them, even if that means I am not politically correct.

Or because you think that you are.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.

As opposed to forcing people to believe sexual assault is somehow OK because "he was really caught up in the moment, honestly you guys!"?

Very widely published image, not taken as sexual assault at the time because it wasnt. No arrest, negligible negative commentary (I cant definitively say there was none), widely published imagery.
Its clear to anyone that in 1945 they were not looking at the image and seeing 'sexual assault'. It didn't come into it. The sort of magazine and newspaper that showed the image would probably not want material of that nature published.

However we do see plenty of evidence that from the point of view of the time (and many still now) it captured time image of someone caught up in the moment. And iof the photographer claims the sailor was looking for someone to kiss, and followed him expecting to get an image that he could use as an icon of the day then its very clear that that was how the image was taken to be.

When you superimpose a modern dogma on top of a historical event, let alone one that is not universally accepted as true to the case, and insist that its meaning be stamped over the orginal meaning then 'revisionism' is a fair and logical label to the change.

Non-acceptance of sexual assault isn't a dogma. Further, as we've said countless times, we're not asking for the removal or the changing of the meaning of the image in a historical context, we're just questioning whether we ought to use it as a symbol for peace, given that it has some rather profoundly negative implications by today's understanding of sexual assault.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.

I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong is not an extremist interpretation (interpretation of what, by the way?) in France.

Stop trying to be patronising. All this 'I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong' and 'big words' crap does you no service.
You discredit yourself, by being unable to string together a logical argument while being patronising about the opposed point of view expresses your ignorance perfectly.
You are slightly better at it than d-usa, while your arguments don't tally up with a very well reported historical account, you did at least forward some sort of reply.

Sorry that I'm not being politically correct, but at least I read what you're actually writing before replying.

Lynchings were always wrong?

Is that why they posed with the dead bodies, collected bones as trophies and had the kids pull the teeth out of the skull to take home, turned the lynching into a postcard, send the postcards to people talking about the "barbecue" they had last night?



Should we turn this into a statue? Should we put the message from the postcard on the base? And should we then complain about historical revisionism when people are forcing their 2014 view of lynchings onto a piece of art that celebrates an emotional day for the people that were perfectly okay with it?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Fine then. In much of the 1800's slavery was legal in parts of the United States. Does that mean that we today, in theory, have to condone using statues of suffering slaves as a celebration of something?
Dogmas such as "it wasn't considered bad then, so we can't think it's wrong now!!!11!!"?

Well I gave you the option to walk away from your bad analogy.
Slavery, lynching they were both wrong then.
You see a kiss is a kiss, its not inherently wrong, a wrong can be attached to it by society, and even so that right or wrong is debatable.
With slavery or murder it is inherently wrong. Some societies may make excuses for it but human conscience knows that it is wrong to deprive liberty or to kill another human being.
Even so you can have artwork expressing slavery in public galleries. The 19th century Orientalist movement made slavery a popular theme, and images on the theme by major Orientalist painters adorn the walls of major art galleries. So even while slavery was dopmne away with it was depicted in the art of post-abolitionist Europe.
What do you make of that, should in your opinion those pictures be removed from galleries for 'celebrating' slavery?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'd imagine the sailor wasn't facing charges for a number of reasons, chief among them being that the 40s were hardly a bastion of equality.

However sexual assault was still a crime, and there was clear photographic evidence.
You could however admit that as the image was not seen in the context of sexual assault in 1945 then it shouldn't be looked at as iconography of sexual assault.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're going to have to stop strawmanning me BTW. Find somewhere where I've said that the image wasn't acceptable in society in general when it was taken. You keep saying that this is what we're arguing, even after we've repeatedly called you out on it. We're arguing that the action should have been unacceptable, not that it was. Read our posts before assuming you know what we're saying next time.

I am not strawmanning. You are claiming its an image of sexual assault. It is not.
The image was widely circulated and thus there was opportunity for a concensus against the image to grow, it simply was not there.
Your insistance that the 'action should have been unacceptable' is revisionist.
Kisses like that occur today and they may or may not be sexual assault, it depends on the context and also on the state of militant progressive feminism. The feminist movement doesn't speak for all women, though it claims to. There is a counter movement amongst women making exactly that point. To some women being kissed is an invasion, to others its part of the natural courting cycle. Much depends on the cultures and the individual. To impose an ideology that natural courting actions are de facto sexual assault is alarming.
Now admittedly the kiss depicted is a little extreme, but it was taken on the context of the day. This has to be so because that is how it was seen in 1945, and that is how it was presented worldwide, why that image was chosen to represent the spirit of VJ day and why therefore from a historical context it is relevant for that purpose today. To remove or deny that is revisionism and to reinterpret the context is an unwanted imposition of feminist dogma.
The latter is important because the event as seen as in individual moment in history is

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Non-acceptance of sexual assault isn't a dogma.

Its not sexual assault. Therefore its your dogma.
If it was sexual assault it would have been sexual assault in 1945.
The individuals concerned had good time to make comments or start proceedings to that effect.
Society had a window in which to comment on or reject the images.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Further, as we've said countless times, we're not asking for the removal or the changing of the meaning of the image in a historical context, we're just questioning whether we ought to use it as a symbol for peace, given that it has some rather profoundly negative implications by today's understanding of sexual assault.

It was good enough in 1945 to depict the end of the war. Are you saying you know better than the survivors?

Secondly the 'profoundly negative implications' are debatable at most, they are not de facto. There is a wide debate on female sexuality and feminists are but one player. They do not have sole arbitration on the social process, though increasingly they are getting this way by demand and accusation as part of progressivism.
You ought to have seen this being from Sweden, but I will understand if you have not, its hard to see the changes from the inside, and progressive dogma is even more of a problem in Sweden than in the UK.
While men are unable to counter feminist argument within a progressive consensus, women frequently do. A lot of women believe in the traditional roles in courting, and that 'stealing a kiss' is part of the natural way not a sex crime.
I have not missed the fact that you have completely ignored the objection to the feminist movement, especially from women, in favour of the progressive consensus which demands specific moral tags to gender iconography based on feminist dogma as absolute standards. You should be concerned that you cant even think of the alternatives, when the alternatives become unthinkable your objectivity is taken away. That is the very essence of brainwashing and is the reason why I find this form of progressive dogma so dangerous.

As for 'today's understanding of sexual assault'. Sexual assault is a crime therefore it requires a burden of proof, and an accusation. We need to move away from the ideology that someone else other than the participants are the arbitors as to whether an event is sexual assault. The only exceptions to that would be in a person not in their majority. So if the female in the image was underage or mentally incapable, society can speak for her. Otherwise it should butt out.
However feminist extremists and their apologists know whats best for everyone, and insist on doing all the 'correct' thinking.
When one group claims a monopoly on opinion on an arbitrary social issue society should beware.

Did you seriously just claim that if some guy rapes a women and she doesn't report it, then it wasn't a rape?

Is there a big word for that level of outlandish thinking?

 d-usa wrote:
Lynchings were always wrong?

Is that why they posed with the dead bodies, collected bones as trophies and had the kids pull the teeth out of the skull to take home, turned the lynching into a postcard, send the postcards to people talking about the "barbecue" they had last night?

De-humanisation. Its a conscous process used to get people to believe and do things that are inherently wrong.
Due to the bestial side of man its easy to achieve.

For example how quickly people were turned against verious minority groups. Former Yugoslavia for example. How verious ethnic groups got along ok, then in the sapce of a few years were slaughtering each other.
They knew it was wrong, and the same sort of grizzly events took place.

 d-usa wrote:

Should we turn this into a statue?

That is up to you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Did you seriously just claim that if some guy rapes a women and she doesn't report it, then it wasn't a rape?

Is there a big word for that level of outlandish thinking?

Well as I didnt mention rape but kissing you are clearly clutching at straws here.

i will have to assume you know the difference between a kiss and rape, but by claiming that I mean one and not the other as a means of trying to critique an argument is low even for you.
Evidently you dont have anything intelligent to add.
End of discussion.

You didn't mention kissing.

You specifically and clearly mentioned sexual assault, and that it's not sexual assault without an an accusation.

But hey, feel free to do some revising of history there and change your statement. But you will be forever be the "it's not sexual assault if she doesn't complain about it afterwards" guy to me.

// Title changed to be less offensive and more to the point

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Fine then. In much of the 1800's slavery was legal in parts of the United States. Does that mean that we today, in theory, have to condone using statues of suffering slaves as a celebration of something?
Dogmas such as "it wasn't considered bad then, so we can't think it's wrong now!!!11!!"?

Well I gave you the option to walk away from your bad analogy.
Slavery, lynching they were both wrong then.
You see a kiss is a kiss, its not inherently wrong, a wrong can be attached to it by society, and even so that right or wrong is debatable.
With slavery or murder it is inherently wrong. Some societies may make excuses for it but human conscience knows that it is wrong to deprive liberty or to kill another human being.

And randomly invading people's privacy, removing from them their right to decide what actions to participate in, isn't? Please. You DON'T get to assume that people want to kiss you, any less than you get to assume that people are perfectly happy to give you their stuff that you just happened to find in their living room. It's not your choice to make. It's about as debatable as the heliocentric model.

 Orlanth wrote:

Even so you can have artwork expressing slavery in public galleries. The 19th century Orientalist movement made slavery a popular theme, and images on the theme by major Orientalist painters adorn the walls of major art galleries. So even while slavery was dopmne away with it was depicted in the art of post-abolitionist Europe.
What do you make of that, should in your opinion those pictures be removed from galleries for 'celebrating' slavery?

No, because they're not being used to celebrate anything at all. They're not upheld as something positive and happy.

 Orlanth wrote:

However sexual assault was still a crime, and there was clear photographic evidence.
You could however admit that as the image was not seen in the context of sexual assault in 1945 then it shouldn't be looked at as iconography of sexual assault.

By which logic the Rape of Nanking wasn't a crime against humanity, as that term had not yet been invented. That's insane.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're going to have to stop strawmanning me BTW. Find somewhere where I've said that the image wasn't acceptable in society in general when it was taken. You keep saying that this is what we're arguing, even after we've repeatedly called you out on it. We're arguing that the action should have been unacceptable, not that it was. Read our posts before assuming you know what we're saying next time.

I am not strawmanning. You are claiming its an image of sexual assault. It is not.
The image was widely circulated and thus there was opportunity for a concensus against the image to grow, it simply was not there.
Your insistance that the 'action should have been unacceptable' is revisionist.
Kisses like that occur today and they may or may not be sexual assault, it depends on the context and also on the state of militant progressive feminism. The feminist movement doesn't speak for all women, though it claims to. There is a counter movement amongst women making exactly that point. To some women being kissed is an invasion, to others its part of the natural courting cycle. Much depends on the cultures and the individual. To impose an ideology that natural courting actions are de facto sexual assault is alarming.
Now admittedly the kiss depicted is a little extreme, but it was taken on the context of the day. This has to be so because that is how it was seen in 1945, and that is how it was presented worldwide, why that image was chosen to represent the spirit of VJ day and why therefore from a historical context it is relevant for that purpose today. To remove or deny that is revisionism and to reinterpret the context is an unwanted imposition of feminist dogma.
The latter is important because the event as seen as in individual moment in history is

Come on, read what you're responding to. You've repeatedly gone on as if though d-usa and myself were arguing for the removal of the subject at hand from history books entirely, claiming we want to "whitewash" it. I'm asking you to show where we did that, without deflecting the issue again.

Why is it revisionist of me to claim that this is a case of sexual assault, but not revisionist of you to claim that lynchings or murder is "inherently wrong"? You're being a hypocrite.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Non-acceptance of sexual assault isn't a dogma.

Its not sexual assault. Therefore its your dogma.
If it was sexual assault it would have been sexual assault in 1945.
The individuals concerned had good time to make comments or start proceedings to that effect.
Society had a window in which to comment on or reject the images.

I guess the firebombings of Dresden weren't warcrimes either? After all, society had a window to bring Arthur "Bomber" Harris to justice. Or, we could take the non-insane approach and realize that just because things were acceptable in the past it does not follow that we have to consider them acceptable today. And before you start ranting about revisionism again, the previous statement does not preclude us from studying the past in order to understand it, but neither are we obliged to repeat the mistakes of the past out of some sort of misplaced sensitivity.

 Orlanth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Further, as we've said countless times, we're not asking for the removal or the changing of the meaning of the image in a historical context, we're just questioning whether we ought to use it as a symbol for peace, given that it has some rather profoundly negative implications by today's understanding of sexual assault.

It was good enough in 1945 to depict the end of the war. Are you saying you know better than the survivors?

Appeal to authority. And yes, I'm saying we as society, in hindsight, know better on some issues, including women's rights. If I claimed we know better when it comes to natural science than 70 years ago, would you dispute that? Then why would sociology and anthropology be any different?

 Orlanth wrote:


Secondly the 'profoundly negative implications' are debatable at most, they are not de facto. There is a wide debate on female sexuality and feminists are but one player. They do not have sole arbitration on the social process, though increasingly they are getting this way by demand and accusation as part of progressivism.
You ought to have seen this being from Sweden, but I will understand if you have not, its hard to see the changes from the inside, and progressive dogma is even more of a problem in Sweden than in the UK.

Yes, being the most egalitarian country in the world is certainly a problem. Well put.

 Orlanth wrote:

While men are unable to counter feminist argument within a progressive consensus, women frequently do. A lot of women believe in the traditional roles in courting, and that 'stealing a kiss' is part of the natural way not a sex crime.
I have not missed the fact that you have completely ignored the objection to the feminist movement, especially from women, in favour of the progressive consensus which demands specific moral tags to gender iconography based on feminist dogma as absolute standards. You should be concerned that you cant even think of the alternatives, when the alternatives become unthinkable your objectivity is taken away. That is the very essence of brainwashing and is the reason why I find this form of progressive dogma so dangerous.

You're being a hypocrite again. If murder and slavery is inherently wrong, why is it so damn unconcieveable that forcing your will on another human being is just as wrong, by definition? It's just as natural and inherent to humans to kill each other as it is to force ourselves on someone unwilling, but apparently only one of them is abhorrent, while the other is "debatable".

I'm only seeing one narrow-minded person here, and it's not myself or d-usa.

 Orlanth wrote:


As for 'today's understanding of sexual assault'. Sexual assault is a crime therefore it requires a burden of proof, and an accusation. We need to move away from the ideology that someone else other than the participants are the arbitors as to whether an event is sexual assault. The only exceptions to that would be in a person not in their majority. So if the female in the image was underage or mentally incapable, society can speak for her. Otherwise it should butt out.

No. No we friggin' shouldn't. The concept that the law applies equally is the friggin' cornerstone of the rule of law. Just consider the fact that someone could well be intimidated into not filing a complaint. Does that mean the crime didn't happen all of a sudden?

 Orlanth wrote:

However feminist extremists and their apologists know whats best for everyone, and insist on doing all the 'correct' thinking.
When one group claims a monopoly on opinion on an arbitrary social issue society should beware.

You do realize you went from making a statement of how things ought to be to condemning people who think they know how things ought to be in the next sentence, yes?

 Sigvatr wrote:
// Title changed to be less offensive and more to the point

Still being a douche about it though. The argument being presented is a legitimate one, whereas you've not proven in any way that it's just down to "attention seeking".

 d-usa wrote:
You didn't mention kissing.

You specifically and clearly mentioned sexual assault, and that it's not sexual assault without an an accusation.

I had to mention sexual assault only for clarity in the process of refuting it, and hadn't mentioned rape at all.
Its not sexual assault because NOBODY complained about it afterwards.
Not only not me, or her, but the press, society etc etc etc.
The picture was known from an entirely different context, there was every opportunity to place a sexual assault label on it, and it didnt happen because it wasn't sexual assault to them.

To me it was just a kiss, to you and some others its sexual assault.
The difference is that I am backed up by well documented consensus of history

 d-usa wrote:

But hey, feel free to do some revising of history there and change your statement. But you will be forever be the "it's not sexual assault if she doesn't complain about it afterwards" guy to me.

Think what you will, it is no consequence.

I remain forever be the "it's not sexual assault if human civilisation doesn't complain about it afterwards" guy.

 Orlanth wrote:

Its not sexual assault because NOBODY complained about it afterwards.

So if I kill someone and chuck the body into a volcano it's not murder, because no one complained afterwards?

Between the "it's not sexual assault if the person sexually assaulting you doesn't do it for sexual reasons" argument and now the "it's not sexual assault if the victim doesn't say anything" argument this thread has managed to provide two of the most despicable statements on Dakka. I am sincerely sorry that there will be survivors of sexual assault who have to read this gak.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am sorry, but you are grazing over obvious signs in the picture and in the statue. The fact that his mouth is open is shown by the placement of his cheeks and his chin.

And you should be sorry. Accusing me of your actions. I am glazing over nothing, rather I am not allowing my imagination to add details that are not there.

Now I must admit that you aren't so much glazing over as repainting the whole picture. Your whole view seems to be filtered by seedy details that your imagination is adding.

As to the placement of cheeks and chin in the statue? Your argument here would suggest that you are fairly young and have little or no exposure to the films of that time. There are many instances of kisses that look similar and "French Kissing" was prohibited by the "Production Code of 1934"(Also refered to as the Will Hayes Act in reference to the name of the man who was appointed to oversee the industry.) For the new at that time medium of t.v., there was "Standards and Practices" that did essentially the same thing.

Oh yeah, you might want to look at the original photo before making any other claims about whether the sailor was french kissing the nurse. You just might find that the sculptor took some artistic license when translating a 2 dimensional image into a 3 dimensional sculpture.

Dreadwinter wrote:Also, it is ridiculous to argue that it was not a "French Kiss" based on the time this photo was taken. Because you know, Humans all realized they could use their tongues to kiss whenever somebody gave it a name.

Your reply here strongly suggest that you are young(under 30) and have had little to no contact with anyone from that generation.
I say this because you show an arrogant lack of knowledge in this part of your reply.

I am old enough to have personally seen french kissing go from a prosecute-able "lewd act" to mainstream acceptance. I believe that the laws may still be on the books in Boston and New York City.

Your entire view on the subject seems to be coloured by an ingrained cynical perception that precludes you from not only seeing more innocent alternative views but is warping what you personal perceptions.

By any chance are you a SJW?

Dreadwinter wrote:Your whole argument is riddled with holes. The fact that he is dipping her back shows romantic intent. You can CLEARLY see on the statue, which is the piece in question, that his mouth is open. Unless of course he has a ridiculously long chin. I mean, we are talking a Leno++ chin here.

Really? Is my argument full of holes or are you in such a rush to outrage and judgement that you are taking a moment in time out of context?
Lets see.

Is he dipping her? Or did he catch a woman in mid-stride that is then being knocked back by his exuberant kiss?
If you cannot even consider the second and more likely scenario then you are blinded by your own assumptions.

... You know...after reading this last part of your reply I believe that the problem you are having is that you are looking at the statue in isolation rather than referring back to the photofrom which it was inspired.

The statue was sculpted by an artist to express what he felt rather than just being a copy of the picture. Also, the picture is just a captured moment in time and people understand that about photos. The moment in a flowing series of moments does not translate as well in sculpted form.


If you are wondering why I am continuing at this point, it is because I feel it is a mitzveh to point out the problems with the image you have fabricated.

According to your version you make the nurse out to be a bit of an easy woman by the standards of the times that she lived in.

According to you, this young woman not only fails to resist a random strangers sexual assault but apparently welcomes such by reciprocating a french kiss(a prosecute-able lewd act at that time).



Lastly, In all of this I have never said categorically that this was not a sexual assault, rather that it was not likely to be viewed as such under the law. That there is a difference between a kiss and a sexual act. The difference is intent. And in a court system that is supposed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, any DA that tried to take this to trial as a sexual assault would likely and rightly get their ass handed to them.

Later,
ff

Why is this a French statue?