Recently I had an interesting discussion about the picture that reinterprets the Marines raising the American flag on Mount Suribachi as shirtless gay men raising the rainbow flag. I am a progressive liberal who always makes it a priority to have open, civil discussions with my conservative friends, of which I have many. I almost never agree with them, but I grow from the dialogue, and I think they do, too. The important concept to understand with this picture is what constitutes "offense" and "offensiveness." We are often too quick to say "I'm offended," as well as "I don't care if other people are offended." We have to understand both sides of the street. I'll try to be concise about this complex issue.
Many veterans have posted on social media that they find the alteration of the picture offensive, and they have a legitimate reason for thinking so that has nothing to do with gay rights, hating gays, or gays in the military. They are offended because this picture is an ICON. Icons are different from "symbols." Symbols are something that people can interpret in different ways; therefore, symbols can be debated, loved, hated, even debased or destroyed without upending the essential structure of our society. For example, the Confederate flag is a symbol, not an icon. It was removed from the Capitol square in South Carolina because to many it symbolizes racism and treason. And yet, some conservatives were angry, and we on the left said "you don't have a legitimate reason to feel that way." And we're right--they don't.
But icons are different. Icons are part of a larger narrative that goes to the core of who we are as a society. If you talk to veterans about the original "flag raising on Iwo Jima" picture, especially veterans who fought in the Pacific in WWII or their families, they will tell you that this picture is not just a symbol of Marine pride. It encapsulates what was a life and death struggle of democracy against dictatorship with the freedom of the entire world at stake. It has moved well beyond being just a symbol and has become part of the iconography of WWII. It's not a symbol of one group--it's an icon of our shared experience as a society. So my message would be, before we as liberal progressives post the "corrupted" version, we need to acknowledge that, this time, those people who are offended by the altered version have a legitimate right to be offended. Which then leads to the question: why would we, as liberal progressives, post such a thing?
There are other examples. I think we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln is more than symbolic; he is an American icon. Imagine that vandals spray painted the phrase "N***** Lover" on the Lincoln Memorial. Would some (pretty sick) people agree with that sentiment? Absolutely. Would the mass of American society be justified in its legitimate outrage? Absolutely. Perhaps some of you have seen the Andres Serrano art piece called "Piss Christ," which is a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. Should the piece be protected and/or appreciated for its artistic expression? Absolutely. Do the Catholics who were outraged by the piece have a justified, legitimate right to be outraged? Absolutely. Because the cross is not a symbol; it's a religious icon. I would even argue that the rainbow flag has moved from symbol to icon, which is why we were all justifiably offended at the picture of the "rednecks" using the rainbow flag for target practice.
I'd offer one final thought as a long-time activist for GLBTQ equality. The reason same sex marriage is now legal nationwide is only 50% due to lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions. The other 50% is because of PERCEPTION and OPTICS. That's one gay person at a time befriending a skeptical straight person; our mass media reflecting us as multi-dimensional people rather than creatures lurking in bars and public parks; the relentless persuasion of straight society that we are not their GAY neighbors (or teachers, or doctors, or bosses); we are their neighbors (or teachers, or doctors, or bosses) who HAPPEN to be gay. I don't find the rainbow Iwo Jima picture offensive (because I'm 55 and nothing offends me anymore) but I do find it disturbing. But what's really important is that we need to be careful how we deal with powerful icons. The veterans have every right to be offended that their icon has been tampered with, and we need to remind ourselves: "Having the right to do something doesn't always mean it's in our best interest to do it."
No comments:
Post a Comment