Thanks John for starting this new thread.
Attached is my entry...in Red While and Blue..well let me see how to post multiple photos?
If you don't recognize her, where were you in the 70s 80s?
rrr...
John...Jane Fonda as Barbarella...I like your idea. Another iconic cartoon icon of the sixties.
For those who are not old movie addicts, here is the poster of the Dino de Laurentiis production directed by Roger Vadim.
Bringing it back to Philately, what are the chances of ever having the USPS issue a Jane Fonda "Legends of Hollywood" stamp? My guess, zero!
rrr...
Really now--shouldn't it be a Barbie doll? Or maybe a Cabbage Patch kid?
Roger
Hanoi Jane as the model for a US stamp ?
I can just see Emergency Rooms flooded with the masses of right wingers choking after swallowing their cigars.
While still lit.
Jane Fonda does make a good choice. She represents freedom, certainly of speech; who could argue that she didn't speak her mind. She also represents the full spectrum of ideological choices, from Ho's communism to Turner's capitalism. And she represents America's fascination with both the flesh and stardom.
It seems many are slower to forgive her her sentiments than McNamarra and company their lies or Westmoreland and company their mismanagement. I picked two characters, but in this fiasco, there are so many from which to choose. Like Clay, she gave up a career, nay a way of life, to speak what she considered truth.
Right now the hawkish wing of American politics are slowly losing their color bearers to the tea party and fiscal reactionaries; but that hawkish wing of neocons all had their chance to make a difference in Viet Nam; almost without exception, they opted to pass, choosing deferments and NG jobs supplied by connected relatives and business colleagues. Clay spent time in jail and Fonda faded from the silver screen. They, unlike the hawks, walked the walk. It bears remembering when hearing her criticized by those who took stands, but not when it counted or when it might actually cost something.
Never much cared for her as an actress, but thought she was a brave individual. I'd rather stand with her than all the deferment hawks.
David
"If you don't recognize her, where were you in the 70s 80s?"
Brave comments, "amsd", especially in today's world where our public figures seldom, if ever, speak off the cuff.
Hoi polloi are fed an incessant barrage of pap, crafted by backroom word merchants and filtered through
legal hacks, to ensure no hard position is occupied, no definitive statement is made and no sector of the public,
however small, is targeted. Consequently, no one in particular is offended but everyone's expectations go unsatisfied.
It must be very difficult to be a contrarian when the majority is waving the national flag in one's face. McCarthyism thrives in that environment.
John Derry
Not sure the McCarthy theory works anymore, in todays terms it was quite radical. As far as Ms Fonda, she was a brave soul mired in a world of "anti-whatever-made-you-happy days" and has become politically incorrect in today terms. We cannot even display "Christmas" anymore without offending someone. Where is Ms Fonda's voice now, is this not as important as the "Anti War" campaign she was on and as important as all of the countless lives lost to provide us all with a style of living unequalled anywhere in the world? She had her 15 minutes of fame and then some, so as the Beatles said, "Let It Be", she has had enough exposure!!!! Skin flicks and more. Let Ted enjoy what's left of it and not ridicule the rest of us with a stamp of her unappreciated likeness. If we have to, let's depict her as she is today, not what she was.
Hmmm, I thought the US already had a "Marianne" called "Columbia" appearing in such locations as the Columbia pictures logo, the statue atop the Capital, and the statue in Chicago from the World's 1893 Columbian Exposition, to name a few. I just can't picture Jane Fonda in those robes.
I certainly do not consider myself even remotely close to the Chicken Hawks who encourage wars but feel that repeated draft deferments and missionary service on beach resorts in France better serve their country, nor am I in any way remotely connected with the neo-cons on today, tomorrow or yesteryear.
l agree that everyone has the right to speak their mind, but going to Hanoi and posing for publicity shoots creates a stain in my mind that will likely never be erased.
One of several propaganda photos
of our hero sitting on a North Vietnamese
anti-aircraft gun mount.
Surely out of 300,000,000 people there is someone who can represent the nation without rubbing salt in old wounds.
Jane Fonda was a great actress. Her role in "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" still evokes foreboding and sadness in me. Off screen, as David, pointed out, she certainly was the poster child for the anti-Vietnam War mania that so divided our nation in the 60s and 70s. And while I shared many of her views, I never agreed with the manner in which she expressed them as I considered them a slap in face to persons like my Dad (who served honorably as a Naval officer in Korea, but did not necessarily agree with the policies of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon who used war and the bodies of our soldiers to promote their agendas (so what is new here?)).
Personally, I opposed the War, and do not know how I would have fared had I not been rejected by the Navy after taking my physical in the mid 60s. No I did not serve, but thanks to those who did, I have a plethora of rights and entitlements which allow me to speak my mind without fear of political prison (assuming we can eventually rid ourselves of the Patriot Act and its ilk before we lose those rights and entitlements),
Like Charlie, while I respect the right of Jane Fonda to hold whatever beliefs she wants, and, like David, to speak those beliefs, she is a poor choice to represent all citizens of the USA. Maybe Eleanor Roosevelt and Barbara Jordan were not as "pretty" as Jane, but wouldn't someone such as they be a better choice?
In the late 1950s, various administrations were perplexed by the situation in the former French Indo-China colonies, Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. A Communist supplied and supported cadre had taken over the north and there had been a mass exodus of people to the South.
The powers that be in Washington were afraid that the Communists would roll over South Viet Nam (They knew how corrupt it was) and then Cambodia even possibly Thailand and Burma leaving the former British colony of Malaya open to a second wave of subversion.
There were sane individuals who had counseled working with Ho Chi Minh in the mid late 1940s but the hard right wing "China Lobby" that still thought Chaing Kai Chek had the stomach and skill to reconquer the mainland from the island fortress of Formosa.
The China Lobby was very strong politically and few politicians wanted to risk the "Domino Theory" being the result.
That is what was behind US support for the Diem government that led inexorably to 52,000 deaths of American boys and girls in the otherwise useless strategies of "Containment" and "Incremental Expansion."
Since the North eventually did overrun the South many people consider our involvement a waste of time, money, lives and effort. But it did hold the line for ten years and prevented the expansion of communism all the way to Singapore. Like many events in history the true result was a mixed bag, party successful and largely a futile attempt to build a viable democracy where none had ever been before. Ho won the South, lost in Cambodia and quickly turned on the bid Red Dragon to his north.
The strategic goal was won, the tactical was lost, at a cost of ripping this nation apart, something that has still not been repaired.
I believe that people like Jane Fonda could see the warts on the face of our policy but never understood that it was a part of the global chess match, not between Washington and Hanoi, but but a three cornered match between Washington, Beijing and Moscow.
For much of our existence as a nation we have had a gentleman's agreement that petty politics stops at the coast line and that while one may work within to promote a divergent viewpoint, there is only one legally elected president at a time. That president determines foreign policy and two bit politicians should never get out front regardless of their possible good intentions. Unless they are part of the decision making they are not likely to know or understand all the complex negotiations and planning that goes on behind closed doors.
Like Jane Fonda, they see the obvious warts, and then try to effect changes that are quite often counter productive to the overall effort.
That is why we have a saying that the road to Hell is not paved with gravel.
Charlie, your summation of how we got there is a great lesson for folks. it shows how in order to understand Viet Nam, one needs understand how we viewed China and France, and how unrealistic both views were.
Chiang was an unmitigated disaster, and how anyone in State couldn't see it is beyond me. Mao fought the Japanese and Chiang; Chiang fought Mao and his war lords. Yes, China tied up more than a million Japanese soldiers, but it wasn't Chiang's doing. He only wanted US resources and put up as little fight as possible, preferring to save it for his internal disputes. To think he could retake China when he couldn't hold it is laughable.
And France never fought the Japanese, Ho did. Ho wanted a western-linked nation, preferring US to either USSR or China. We scorned him in favor of the never-grateful French, who would proceed to lose colonial wars in VN and Algeria.
Eisehower stayed out of the fight in VN; giving the French little military support and no personnel. France fought there much the same way America would, learning no lessons from failed campaigns or an understanding of Viet Minh tactics. Why Kennedy allowed himself to be drawn in at all is a mystery to me; for Johnson, it appears to be that Texas machismo and self-conscious self-comparison to his predecessor, always trying to do what JFK would have done, using JFK's guys as advisors.
There are times when America can't see beyond the name of a thing. This remains true in Cuba and was true with Ho. We just couldn't stomach the idea of a communist, having been bested by them in both Eastern Europe and China, and never accepting responsibility for our role in either debacle.
My long-winded thank you, Charlie
David
I don't agree with "cdj1112" or "amsd" because they sound like feeble echoes of
the late US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, and his firm belief that,
"If you knew what I know, you would believe what I am about to tell you."
John Derry, who apologizes for not being able to winkle postage stamps into his comment.
" ... There are times when America can't see beyond the name of a thing. This remains true in Cuba ..."
And can be seen by our political genuflection to the God of Democracy as we expect peoples in different parts of the world to embrace it without the pre-requisites and traditions of self rule and independent decision making at the political level.
The political power of the China Lobby and fear of being labelled as "Soft on Communism" is what caused Ho Chi Minh to be "spurned" despite warnings by several independent, often on scene, observers, including Vinegar Joe Stilwell, who saw "Peanut" for what he was.
I don't know about Alexander Haig but your point is well taken. Many, if not most American citizens and probably an equal percentage of Canadians are all to often tossed about by the winds of political propaganda and sucked into the vortex of demagoguery with neither the time, nor the inclination, to dig down into the roots of history's inexorable march from Past to Future. Too many feel that History is boring and if not presented interestingly, unimportant, and thus sets of events repeat themselves with no end in sight.
Let me just change the "if you knew what I know ..." to, " ...If people knew what can be learned ...." and I agree with you.
Jane Fonda is my first choice, then Eleanor Roosevelt and (seriously) the comic-strip character, Blondie.
John Derry, who is not a citizen of the USA
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Thanks John for starting this new thread.
Attached is my entry...in Red While and Blue..well let me see how to post multiple photos?
If you don't recognize her, where were you in the 70s 80s?
rrr...
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
John...Jane Fonda as Barbarella...I like your idea. Another iconic cartoon icon of the sixties.
For those who are not old movie addicts, here is the poster of the Dino de Laurentiis production directed by Roger Vadim.
Bringing it back to Philately, what are the chances of ever having the USPS issue a Jane Fonda "Legends of Hollywood" stamp? My guess, zero!
rrr...
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Really now--shouldn't it be a Barbie doll? Or maybe a Cabbage Patch kid?
Roger
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Hanoi Jane as the model for a US stamp ?
I can just see Emergency Rooms flooded with the masses of right wingers choking after swallowing their cigars.
While still lit.
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Jane Fonda does make a good choice. She represents freedom, certainly of speech; who could argue that she didn't speak her mind. She also represents the full spectrum of ideological choices, from Ho's communism to Turner's capitalism. And she represents America's fascination with both the flesh and stardom.
It seems many are slower to forgive her her sentiments than McNamarra and company their lies or Westmoreland and company their mismanagement. I picked two characters, but in this fiasco, there are so many from which to choose. Like Clay, she gave up a career, nay a way of life, to speak what she considered truth.
Right now the hawkish wing of American politics are slowly losing their color bearers to the tea party and fiscal reactionaries; but that hawkish wing of neocons all had their chance to make a difference in Viet Nam; almost without exception, they opted to pass, choosing deferments and NG jobs supplied by connected relatives and business colleagues. Clay spent time in jail and Fonda faded from the silver screen. They, unlike the hawks, walked the walk. It bears remembering when hearing her criticized by those who took stands, but not when it counted or when it might actually cost something.
Never much cared for her as an actress, but thought she was a brave individual. I'd rather stand with her than all the deferment hawks.
David
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
"If you don't recognize her, where were you in the 70s 80s?"
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Brave comments, "amsd", especially in today's world where our public figures seldom, if ever, speak off the cuff.
Hoi polloi are fed an incessant barrage of pap, crafted by backroom word merchants and filtered through
legal hacks, to ensure no hard position is occupied, no definitive statement is made and no sector of the public,
however small, is targeted. Consequently, no one in particular is offended but everyone's expectations go unsatisfied.
It must be very difficult to be a contrarian when the majority is waving the national flag in one's face. McCarthyism thrives in that environment.
John Derry
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Not sure the McCarthy theory works anymore, in todays terms it was quite radical. As far as Ms Fonda, she was a brave soul mired in a world of "anti-whatever-made-you-happy days" and has become politically incorrect in today terms. We cannot even display "Christmas" anymore without offending someone. Where is Ms Fonda's voice now, is this not as important as the "Anti War" campaign she was on and as important as all of the countless lives lost to provide us all with a style of living unequalled anywhere in the world? She had her 15 minutes of fame and then some, so as the Beatles said, "Let It Be", she has had enough exposure!!!! Skin flicks and more. Let Ted enjoy what's left of it and not ridicule the rest of us with a stamp of her unappreciated likeness. If we have to, let's depict her as she is today, not what she was.
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Hmmm, I thought the US already had a "Marianne" called "Columbia" appearing in such locations as the Columbia pictures logo, the statue atop the Capital, and the statue in Chicago from the World's 1893 Columbian Exposition, to name a few. I just can't picture Jane Fonda in those robes.
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
I certainly do not consider myself even remotely close to the Chicken Hawks who encourage wars but feel that repeated draft deferments and missionary service on beach resorts in France better serve their country, nor am I in any way remotely connected with the neo-cons on today, tomorrow or yesteryear.
l agree that everyone has the right to speak their mind, but going to Hanoi and posing for publicity shoots creates a stain in my mind that will likely never be erased.
One of several propaganda photos
of our hero sitting on a North Vietnamese
anti-aircraft gun mount.
Surely out of 300,000,000 people there is someone who can represent the nation without rubbing salt in old wounds.
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Jane Fonda was a great actress. Her role in "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" still evokes foreboding and sadness in me. Off screen, as David, pointed out, she certainly was the poster child for the anti-Vietnam War mania that so divided our nation in the 60s and 70s. And while I shared many of her views, I never agreed with the manner in which she expressed them as I considered them a slap in face to persons like my Dad (who served honorably as a Naval officer in Korea, but did not necessarily agree with the policies of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon who used war and the bodies of our soldiers to promote their agendas (so what is new here?)).
Personally, I opposed the War, and do not know how I would have fared had I not been rejected by the Navy after taking my physical in the mid 60s. No I did not serve, but thanks to those who did, I have a plethora of rights and entitlements which allow me to speak my mind without fear of political prison (assuming we can eventually rid ourselves of the Patriot Act and its ilk before we lose those rights and entitlements),
Like Charlie, while I respect the right of Jane Fonda to hold whatever beliefs she wants, and, like David, to speak those beliefs, she is a poor choice to represent all citizens of the USA. Maybe Eleanor Roosevelt and Barbara Jordan were not as "pretty" as Jane, but wouldn't someone such as they be a better choice?
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
In the late 1950s, various administrations were perplexed by the situation in the former French Indo-China colonies, Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. A Communist supplied and supported cadre had taken over the north and there had been a mass exodus of people to the South.
The powers that be in Washington were afraid that the Communists would roll over South Viet Nam (They knew how corrupt it was) and then Cambodia even possibly Thailand and Burma leaving the former British colony of Malaya open to a second wave of subversion.
There were sane individuals who had counseled working with Ho Chi Minh in the mid late 1940s but the hard right wing "China Lobby" that still thought Chaing Kai Chek had the stomach and skill to reconquer the mainland from the island fortress of Formosa.
The China Lobby was very strong politically and few politicians wanted to risk the "Domino Theory" being the result.
That is what was behind US support for the Diem government that led inexorably to 52,000 deaths of American boys and girls in the otherwise useless strategies of "Containment" and "Incremental Expansion."
Since the North eventually did overrun the South many people consider our involvement a waste of time, money, lives and effort. But it did hold the line for ten years and prevented the expansion of communism all the way to Singapore. Like many events in history the true result was a mixed bag, party successful and largely a futile attempt to build a viable democracy where none had ever been before. Ho won the South, lost in Cambodia and quickly turned on the bid Red Dragon to his north.
The strategic goal was won, the tactical was lost, at a cost of ripping this nation apart, something that has still not been repaired.
I believe that people like Jane Fonda could see the warts on the face of our policy but never understood that it was a part of the global chess match, not between Washington and Hanoi, but but a three cornered match between Washington, Beijing and Moscow.
For much of our existence as a nation we have had a gentleman's agreement that petty politics stops at the coast line and that while one may work within to promote a divergent viewpoint, there is only one legally elected president at a time. That president determines foreign policy and two bit politicians should never get out front regardless of their possible good intentions. Unless they are part of the decision making they are not likely to know or understand all the complex negotiations and planning that goes on behind closed doors.
Like Jane Fonda, they see the obvious warts, and then try to effect changes that are quite often counter productive to the overall effort.
That is why we have a saying that the road to Hell is not paved with gravel.
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
Charlie, your summation of how we got there is a great lesson for folks. it shows how in order to understand Viet Nam, one needs understand how we viewed China and France, and how unrealistic both views were.
Chiang was an unmitigated disaster, and how anyone in State couldn't see it is beyond me. Mao fought the Japanese and Chiang; Chiang fought Mao and his war lords. Yes, China tied up more than a million Japanese soldiers, but it wasn't Chiang's doing. He only wanted US resources and put up as little fight as possible, preferring to save it for his internal disputes. To think he could retake China when he couldn't hold it is laughable.
And France never fought the Japanese, Ho did. Ho wanted a western-linked nation, preferring US to either USSR or China. We scorned him in favor of the never-grateful French, who would proceed to lose colonial wars in VN and Algeria.
Eisehower stayed out of the fight in VN; giving the French little military support and no personnel. France fought there much the same way America would, learning no lessons from failed campaigns or an understanding of Viet Minh tactics. Why Kennedy allowed himself to be drawn in at all is a mystery to me; for Johnson, it appears to be that Texas machismo and self-conscious self-comparison to his predecessor, always trying to do what JFK would have done, using JFK's guys as advisors.
There are times when America can't see beyond the name of a thing. This remains true in Cuba and was true with Ho. We just couldn't stomach the idea of a communist, having been bested by them in both Eastern Europe and China, and never accepting responsibility for our role in either debacle.
My long-winded thank you, Charlie
David
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
I don't agree with "cdj1112" or "amsd" because they sound like feeble echoes of
the late US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, and his firm belief that,
"If you knew what I know, you would believe what I am about to tell you."
John Derry, who apologizes for not being able to winkle postage stamps into his comment.
re: "US Marianne" Symbol of Freedom in the Red White and Blue
" ... There are times when America can't see beyond the name of a thing. This remains true in Cuba ..."
And can be seen by our political genuflection to the God of Democracy as we expect peoples in different parts of the world to embrace it without the pre-requisites and traditions of self rule and independent decision making at the political level.
The political power of the China Lobby and fear of being labelled as "Soft on Communism" is what caused Ho Chi Minh to be "spurned" despite warnings by several independent, often on scene, observers, including Vinegar Joe Stilwell, who saw "Peanut" for what he was.
I don't know about Alexander Haig but your point is well taken. Many, if not most American citizens and probably an equal percentage of Canadians are all to often tossed about by the winds of political propaganda and sucked into the vortex of demagoguery with neither the time, nor the inclination, to dig down into the roots of history's inexorable march from Past to Future. Too many feel that History is boring and if not presented interestingly, unimportant, and thus sets of events repeat themselves with no end in sight.
Let me just change the "if you knew what I know ..." to, " ...If people knew what can be learned ...." and I agree with you.