Historical or political correctness?

[jasev]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're mixing the arguments of two people.

Right, I'm editing my last post to correct it. Thanks.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by JohnT




So, the wrong message was sent with the worldwide publication of the picture of the flag being raised at Iwo Jima? I never, ever remember reading, thinking, or being taught that the photograph was famous because it somehow "honored" 3 flag bearers. Honestly, Tingkai, you oughtta know better than that. The only reason the 9-11 photo was famous to begin with was it's eerie similarity to the Iwo Jima photo... should that one be retouched too? Hey! I've got an idea! In the interests of racial co-operation and the need for historical apologies let's change one of the faces in the Iwo Jima photo to a Japanese face... that'll show them that all is forgiven (or "we're sorry", or whatever it is that historical revisionists desire).

I wish people would read messages before writing their comments.

I never said the photo honoured the three firefighters. (And I presume your second sentence refers to the firefighters pic since there are five men, IIRC, in the Iwo Jima picture not three.)

What I did say is that a statue would be seen by many as honouring the flag raisers, or it would be seen as a patriotic monument, but not as a monument to all the firefighters.

There is no comparison between the Iwo Jima pic and the WTC pic, and certainly no "eerie similarity" other than the two involve a raising of a flag. The Iwo Jima is one of the great pictures of the 21st century in terms of its aesthetic value and because of the moment that was captured on film. The WTC pic will never be considered a great picture. It was a big morale booster when morale was low, but other than that it has no strengths. Now that morale in the US has risen, the picture loses its significance.

The Iwo Jima picture depicts the end of one battle on the island. The raising of the flag marks the culmination of a hard struggle in which the Americans are victorious. That struggle is portrayed, abstractly, through the body language of the soldiers as they raise the flag in a united effort.

To repeat, the IWO Jima pic and statue show the end of a hard fought battle on the island. The raising of the flag is a direct part of the story. The WTC flag raising is a minor side event.

The firefighters raising the flag was a minor and detached sideshow from the main events of September 11 and the following days. As such, it symbolizes nothing but patriotism.

The composition of the IWO Jima picture is superb with its two focus lines, the horizontal line of the men and the diagonal line of the flag pole. The WTC pic is cluttered.

The Iwo Jima picture shows all the men working to raise the flag together. The WTC pic shows one guys standing by the side doing nothing. There is no sense of struggle in the WTC pic, no dyanamic action. No real story. This is why it should not be directly copied for a statue.

[Natan]

The Iwo Jima is one of the great pictures of the 21st century

Is that a type or an example of unbelievable ignorance?

[Berzerker]

Jasev -

This assert proves you don't know anything at all about spanish history.

Are you suggesting the Moors did not murder Iberians?

This one proves you don't know anything about Caribbean history. The Carib indians (not arawaks, as Chris seems to think) invaded the enemy villages, killed the men, ate their flesh (and yes, that was REALLY brutal) and took their women to make new peaceful Caribs born.

Since Ramo mentioned only the Arawaks and never mentioned the Caribs as (relatively) peaceful, why do you use the Caribs to accuse him of ignorance?

[jasev]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Are you suggesting the Moors did not murder Iberians?

Not as a policy. They invaded the country (and, of course, in the battles many people died, it's the definition of war) and stayed here. And there were wars in the following centuries between the moors and the christian kingdoms in the north, and many people died in both sides. But they never made a genocide against the iberians, because they assimilated them to their culture. Almost every iberian converted into Islam (mainly to avoid paying taxes, just like many people would do today ). The moors (arabs and berebers) were tolerant with the uses of the people and stablished the most advanced and enlighted (it is the correct word?) kingdom in medieval europe.

Since Ramo mentioned only the Arawaks and never mentioned the Caribs as (relatively) peaceful, why do you use the Caribs to accuse him of ignorance?

Well, if I'm not wrong, he talked about amerindian cultures, and I must say: the arawaks and any amazon tribes were probably the only "peaceful" nations (as a result of their lack of contact with other nations) in central and south america. But if he only wanted to talk about Arawaks, then I'll gladly offer my excuses.

BTW, I may be confused, but can you remember what happened to the losers of a ball match in the Arawak culture?

[Ramo]

Ack, I make a few minor edits, and the UBB system says I have too many tags even after removing half of the original quotes and smilies! Bah!

New post is further down...

[uh Clem]

Originally posted by Natan

Is that a type or an example of unbelievable ignorance?

Joe Rosenthal's photo is generally considered one of the greatest war photos ever. You're certainly free to disagree, but do you think that the people who do admire it are unbelievably ignorant?

[Natan]

Originally posted by uh Clem


Joe Rosenthal's photo is generally considered one of the greatest war photos ever. You're certainly free to disagree, but do you think that the people who do admire it are unbelievably ignorant?

Actually, my comment related not to the quality of the photograph as a work of art, but to the date it was taken - 1945, which excludes from consideration for the greatest anything of the 21st century.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[uh Clem]

Well, that's different then...

Never mind.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

There is no comparison between the Iwo Jima pic and the WTC pic, and certainly no "eerie similarity" other than the two involve a raising of a flag. The Iwo Jima is one of the great pictures of the 21st century in terms of its aesthetic value and because of the moment that was captured on film. The WTC pic will never be considered a great picture. It was a big morale booster when morale was low, but other than that it has no strengths. Now that morale in the US has risen, the picture loses its significance.

While I tend to agree with you insofar as I wasn't particularly moved by this photo, I don't think that the same can be said for a significant portion of the American public. It will remain with us for a long time IMO.

Originally posted by Tingkai

The Iwo Jima picture depicts the end of one battle on the island. The raising of the flag marks the culmination of a hard struggle in which the Americans are victorious. That struggle is portrayed, abstractly, through the body language of the soldiers as they raise the flag in a united effort.

To repeat, the IWO Jima pic and statue show the end of a hard fought battle on the island. The raising of the flag is a direct part of the story. The WTC flag raising is a minor side event.

The firefighters raising the flag was a minor and detached sideshow from the main events of September 11 and the following days. As such, it symbolizes nothing but patriotism.

Well, the flag was raised on Iwo Jima after Mount Suribachi was captured in fairly hard fighting. There was hard fighting all over Iwo, and the campaign to secure the island had barely begun, and the casualties were a fraction of their eventual totals. (For instance IIRC, only one of the guys in the photo made it off Iwo unscratched, and half were KIA after the photo was taken) The great thing about the original flag raising event was that it could be seen by Marines all over Iwo Jima, and it gave them hope that they were not alone in their dirty little tactical situation, that the battle was going well, and that morale was high in general.

I think that to some extent the flag raised at ground zero had a similar morale boosting effect on the firefighters, and when magnified by the mass media, the US in general.

Originally posted by Tingkai
The composition of the IWO Jima picture is superb with its two focus lines, the horizontal line of the men and the diagonal line of the flag pole. The WTC pic is cluttered.

The Iwo Jima picture shows all the men working to raise the flag together. The WTC pic shows one guys standing by the side doing nothing. There is no sense of struggle in the WTC pic, no dyanamic action. No real story. This is why it should not be directly copied for a statue.

The Iwo photograph was also staged. The Marines who raised the original flag fought their way to the top, and took a small flag and attached it to a length of pipe, and set it up. Seeing the effect that this had on his troops (and probably not without some understanding of the potentially larger significance of the moment), a higher ranking officer sent a larger flag and the press up to reinact the event for posterity. (With different personnel raising the flag IIRC.)

Say what you will about the NYC flag picture, it at least was a real time event, with nobody adjusting the actors to create a more dramatic angle etc. That's how real stuff looks.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Tingkai

The Iwo Jima is one of the great pictures of the 21st century

Where's my proofreader when I need her.

Yes, I meant 20th century.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander

The Iwo photograph was also staged. The Marines who raised the original flag fought their way to the top, and took a small flag and attached it to a length of pipe, and set it up. Seeing the effect that this had on his troops (and probably not without some understanding of the potentially larger significance of the moment), a higher ranking officer sent a larger flag and the press up to reinact the event for posterity. (With different personnel raising the flag IIRC.)

Say what you will about the NYC flag picture, it at least was a real time event, with nobody adjusting the actors to create a more dramatic angle etc. That's how real stuff looks.

So the guys who got the credit and where immortalized in the memorial were not the first to raise the flag. I wonder if the original flag raisers were pissed off with not getting the credit for what they did. Did they ever hire a lawer. I doubt it. They came from a different generation.

Even if it was staged, the men depicted in the photograph were fighting on the island. Two of them were later KIA IIRC. That adds poignancy to the memorial since it depicts men who fought and died, and men who fought and lived.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the men depicted in the photograph were fighting on the island.

And the men depicted in the photograph of the WTC were helping in the cleanup and probably when the towers were coming down.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the men depicted in the photograph were fighting on the island.

And the men depicted in the photograph of the WTC were helping in the cleanup and probably when the towers were coming down.

They were cleaning up while the towers were coming down? Wow! That IS admirable!