A former sailor's ramblings on anything from family,
country and Church through general geek-ness.
(sorry about the older posts being misformated-technical difficulties)
"To this day, I'm not entirely sure what the professor was looking for, but when it came time to give our lecture, most of the class used cigarette and liquor ads to demonstrate how it was possible to make something demonstratively harmful appear pleasurable and even attractive."
His classmates (and, apparently, even the instructor) seem not to have understood the assignment. The idea that drinking or smoking are harmful is not contrary to the idea that drinking or smoking are pleasurable or attractive.
The General was a better man than I am-- I most assuredly would have held the man that lied about me like that responsible for the results, as well as the massive amount of damage to my home nation.
Just because he later apologized to the family does nothing to counter his silence about a child killer who targeted families when they'd be home and celebrating being shot by the godfather of some of those children. Quoting the general as saying "They have killed many Americans and many of my people" doesn't cut it. A decade later giving a bare bones version of the story doesn't cut it, either.
Great, over a generation later, he was sorry enough to go on NPR and talk about it.
Unfair would be giving him a chunk of the blame for every terrorist action since then that looked at the Tet offensive and said, "Hey, that's a great idea."
my wife, who is older than i by some years, remembers well the moment this pic hit the media. she says she has always known the back story, and cant remember a time when she did not the info was there, but the reception of the public was in another place.
as for adams, he defended the general from the beginning, but his defense didnt get the wide publication the photo did. adams could say all he wanted, but without a plugged-in microphone, or a press willing to give him the equal space, it fell silent.
it was easier to publish the image several times over, but devoting the print inches to his explanation next to every image was another matter. its the nature of the press beast, not to mention beig couple with the press bias.
adams is blameless, and the general knew it from the start.
I asked my mom if she remembered the photo. (Dad was in Germany with the Army at the time.)
At that time, mom was a teenager with two brothers actually in the area, and a third on fire to get over there-- and she never heard anything about the background. She wasn't surprised, since she knew how much spin was going on from talking to her brothers.
Looking at the google news accounts, and at the other pictures he took, I think Adams was going for emotional impact.
I suppose they kept him from going to Nguyn's restaurant and countering the protesters, too. (He knew where the place was-- he ate there with the former general during one of his apologies.) Maybe written a book.
I suppose they locked him down for the next 30 years, too? Just at 31 years, they suddenly stopped the lock-down.
Looks more like his conscience got to him later. Way, way later. "Gee, I'm sorry you got hurt-- I'm not going to really do much to try to fix the harm I did, but I'm sorry!"
13 comments:
"To this day, I'm not entirely sure what the professor was looking for, but when it came time to give our lecture, most of the class used cigarette and liquor ads to demonstrate how it was possible to make something demonstratively harmful appear pleasurable and even attractive."
His classmates (and, apparently, even the instructor) seem not to have understood the assignment. The idea that drinking or smoking are harmful is not contrary to the idea that drinking or smoking are pleasurable or attractive.
... and by the bye, I knew much of this back story. Not all of it, so I thank you for the link.
Kind of depressing to know that Paliwood isn't new.
Were I in the circumstance of the Vietnamese general, I'd have done much the same thing and never have second-guessed myself on the morality of it.
Sort of what I said over at his place.
The General was a better man than I am-- I most assuredly would have held the man that lied about me like that responsible for the results, as well as the massive amount of damage to my home nation.
The photographer? He didn't lie: he was angry and mortified at how the photo came to be misused.
Real noisy about it.
Just because he later apologized to the family does nothing to counter his silence about a child killer who targeted families when they'd be home and celebrating being shot by the godfather of some of those children. Quoting the general as saying "They have killed many Americans and many of my people" doesn't cut it. A decade later giving a bare bones version of the story doesn't cut it, either.
Great, over a generation later, he was sorry enough to go on NPR and talk about it.
Unfair would be giving him a chunk of the blame for every terrorist action since then that looked at the Tet offensive and said, "Hey, that's a great idea."
my wife, who is older than i by some years, remembers well the moment this pic hit the media. she says she has always known the back story, and cant remember a time when she did not the info was there, but the reception of the public was in another place.
as for adams, he defended the general from the beginning, but his defense didnt get the wide publication the photo did. adams could say all he wanted, but without a plugged-in microphone, or a press willing to give him the equal space, it fell silent.
it was easier to publish the image several times over, but devoting the print inches to his explanation next to every image was another matter. its the nature of the press beast, not to mention beig couple with the press bias.
adams is blameless, and the general knew it from the start.
Gino
I asked my mom if she remembered the photo. (Dad was in Germany with the Army at the time.)
At that time, mom was a teenager with two brothers actually in the area, and a third on fire to get over there-- and she never heard anything about the background. She wasn't surprised, since she knew how much spin was going on from talking to her brothers.
Looking at the google news accounts, and at the other pictures he took, I think Adams was going for emotional impact.
Foxfier, the photographer didn't write the caption, he didn't control how the media (which had an agenda) used the photo.
And, as Anonymous points out, in those days, "the media" tightly controlled what information reached the public.
I suppose they kept him from going to Nguyn's restaurant and countering the protesters, too. (He knew where the place was-- he ate there with the former general during one of his apologies.) Maybe written a book.
I suppose they locked him down for the next 30 years, too? Just at 31 years, they suddenly stopped the lock-down.
Looks more like his conscience got to him later. Way, way later. "Gee, I'm sorry you got hurt-- I'm not going to really do much to try to fix the harm I did, but I'm sorry!"
Awesome post. I didn't know the full story of that photo.
Post a Comment