Vietnam War's Iconic Image

[Scarlet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fully agree that the word iconic is misused and overused. Do you not think this is an iconic image?! If not, I would very much love to see an image which you consider iconic. I'm genuinely interested.

 

It's a nice article.. I'm not sure why the thread has to veer off into negative comments.

 

First of all, I don't see why vigorous debate should be stifled. Are we to follow the example set by, for instance, the photo threads where comments like "Great shot", "Outstanding", "the best I have ever seen" abound? Are we not allowed differing opinions (rhetorical question)?

 

Anyway, about the word "iconic", I recall an interesting article in Intelligent Life a year or two ago which noted that so many things, people and images are today considered to be iconic. Even that known election poster of Barack Obama is considered iconic. I find this ironic. Personally, though I accept there very little value in my opinion, I dislike when words are watered down and their meaning changed. But this is not really on-topic and largely a meta discussion so let's get to the heart of the matter.

 

That image, like many other images from the Vietnam war, are well known and deeply, deeply disturbing. However, I liked the juxtaposing by a previous poster of the napalm girl photo with the shell-shocked soldier photo. The horrors of war were felt on every side in that war. The slight problem that may exist in focusing too much on certain images is that other imagery of war is ignored and ultimately forgotten.

 

Many other images also come to mind, now that we're talking about war. Like the images of the corpses of the American airmen which were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The photos of the starving men in the Trnopolje camp in Bosnia. Of course, let's not forget the Second World War and its unspeakable horrors which were photographically documented.

 

There must be a photographic anniversary every day of the year from most conflicts.

 

I have been a soldier for over twenty years and, being a lawyer, I have taught the laws of war and armed conflict to quite a few soldiers, sailors and airmen from several nations. I find such education and training to be far more important than hanging a photograph in every room in the White House. I realise the comment was not intended in the literal sense but I felt that I should make the point. It is through rigorous training, regarding the boundaries of permissible behaviour of the armed forces and their personnel and also regarding ethics and morals, that the horrors of war can be limited. Training in cultural awareness and understanding is equally important.

 

Edmond, I like your work and I find your blog generally to be interesting. But I am with Olaf on this one, forgive me for being so blunt. Beyond the photos of Nick Ut and Kim Phuc, which I appreciate that you have found for us, your piece is largely a rewritten, a tiny bit embellished (Horst Faas goes from being "veteran Vietnam photo editor" to being "legendary AP photo editor") and abbreviated version of the AP article to which you link.

 

Please don't get me wrong - it is vitally important to remember past horrors to prevent future ones. Writing articles or posts, remembering terrifying imagery and, ultimately, discussing among us as fellow humans across national, ethnical, racial, religious and political divides are ways to do this. But predominantly copying an article and posting it on your own site may risk reducing an important act of remembering to the equivalent of a retweet.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Ps. For further truly disturbing imagery, watch Errol Morris's/Robert S. McNamara's "Fog of War" which both discusses the Vietnam War and shows evidence of unspeakable war crimes on the part of the Allies during the Second World War committed during the vast firebombings in the Far East.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaques]

I have been a soldier for over twenty years and, being a lawyer, I have taught the laws of war and armed conflict to quite a few soldiers, sailors and airmen from several nations. I find such education and training to be far more important than hanging a photograph in every room in the White House. I realise the comment was not intended in the literal sense but I felt that I should make the point. It is through rigorous training, regarding the boundaries of permissible behavior of the armed forces and their personnel and also regarding ethics and morals, that the horrors of war can be limited. Training in cultural awareness and understanding is equally important.

Training soldiers in the ethical conduct of war is one thing- but the point about putting the image in the white house is quite separate... It is politicians in the USA -not the soldiers- that make the decision to go to war. I think the poster was saying that they (the politicians) should be constantly aware of the possible (likely?) outcome of their decisions... They need training in ethical, moral and cultural sensitivity... and history. Indeed arguably more so than soldiers- who after all have to confront and deal with (die for?) the result of those decisions up close and personal. It is perhaps too easy for a politician to declare war from the safety of their office... a harrowing picture on the wall may help to remind them of the reality at the other end of the decision.

 

and concerning your point about which pictures should be considered iconic- I think in the case of Vietnam- the one mentioned here is important as it graphically shows the suffering of the innocent Vietnamese civilians- who ultimately suffered in much greater numbers than any other group during that terrible conflict. It also vividly demonstrates the indiscriminate evil that was the use of Napalm. Too much of the USA's examination of the Vietnam conflict has focused on the affect of the war on the USA- on it's soldiers, and it's sense of itself. I am not for a second suggesting that the plight of US soldiers is not worthy of consideration- but not at the expense of considering the catastrophic damage done to the Vietnamese people and the country of Vietnam (not to mention Cambodia).

 

The Errol Morris documentary you refer to is a case in point: McNamara's disassociation from the decisions he made- and the outcomes of those decisions- is deeply disturbing. It is true he showed some contrition- but his hubris still shone through- and when you are talking about the death of Millions of people 'some' contrition is simply not enough. Many Nazi's at Nurenmburg showed a similar half hearted contrition... 'Mistakes were made, yes, but..."

[batmobile]

.... Too much of the USA's examination of the Vietnam conflict has focused on the affect of the war on the USA- on it's soldiers, and it's sense of itself. I am not for a second suggesting that the plight of US soldiers is not worthy of consideration- but not at the expense of considering the catastrophic damage done to the Vietnamese people and the country of Vietnam (not to mention Cambodia).

 

but..."

 

Some really interesting points being raised here. On the above topic, having been engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan since before the conflicts began and, having lived and worked in Afghanistan for nearly seven years, I can only confirm that not enough has changed. Where change has occurred, it has been too little too late. This is not only of moral significance, but a lack of interest in the impact of conflict on the host population as human beings (certainly at the beginning) has also deeply hamstrung the US in its effort to wage an effective counterinsurgency. I have found it deeply disturbing at a moral level and deeply perplexing at a military level.

 

I know there are many out there who thinks a Brit loves to bash the US, I can only assure everyone that this is not my motivation when I make my next point. For reasons I do not entirely understand, I have found US service personnel, and former service personnel, far readier to dehumanise Afghans, whether in the run up to a military act or afterwards. This is compared to Europeans. I do not fully understand it, but I suspect it is a product of the isolation of the US, limited travel of many citizens and strongly US-centric education system. For a long time I struggled to understand how such isolation was possible in light of the modern communications era, but it seems it still is. That war came to Europe within living memory might also be a factor.

 

To quote Scarlet

 

"I have been a soldier for over twenty years and, being a lawyer, I have taught the laws of war and armed conflict to quite a few soldiers, sailors and airmen from several nations. I find such education and training to be far more important than hanging a photograph in every room in the White House. I realise the comment was not intended in the literal sense but I felt that I should make the point. It is through rigorous training, regarding the boundaries of permissible behaviour of the armed forces and their personnel and also regarding ethics and morals, that the horrors of war can be limited. Training in cultural awareness and understanding is equally important."

 

The importance of this cannot be overstated IMO. Having served in the forces and been responsible for educating my soldiers and keeping them in line (morally as well as physically) on operations, I could not imagine having to attempt to do so without them having been through a fairly extensive education.

[bpalme]

First of all, I don't see why vigorous debate should be stifled. Are we to follow the example set by, for instance, the photo threads where comments like "Great shot", "Outstanding", "the best I have ever seen" abound? Are we not allowed differing opinions (rhetorical question)?

 

Anyway, about the word "iconic", I recall an interesting article in Intelligent Life a year or two ago which noted that so many things, people and images are today considered to be iconic. Even that known election poster of Barack Obama is considered iconic. I find this ironic. Personally, though I accept there very little value in my opinion, I dislike when words are watered down and their meaning changed. But this is not really on-topic and largely a meta discussion so let's get to the heart of the matter.

 

That image, like many other images from the Vietnam war, are well known and deeply, deeply disturbing. However, I liked the juxtaposing by a previous poster of the napalm girl photo with the shell-shocked soldier photo. The horrors of war were felt on every side in that war. The slight problem that may exist in focusing too much on certain images is that other imagery of war is ignored and ultimately forgotten.

 

Many other images also come to mind, now that we're talking about war. Like the images of the corpses of the American airmen which were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The photos of the starving men in the Trnopolje camp in Bosnia. Of course, let's not forget the Second World War and its unspeakable horrors which were photographically documented.

 

There must be a photographic anniversary every day of the year from most conflicts.

 

I have been a soldier for over twenty years and, being a lawyer, I have taught the laws of war and armed conflict to quite a few soldiers, sailors and airmen from several nations. I find such education and training to be far more important than hanging a photograph in every room in the White House. I realise the comment was not intended in the literal sense but I felt that I should make the point. It is through rigorous training, regarding the boundaries of permissible behaviour of the armed forces and their personnel and also regarding ethics and morals, that the horrors of war can be limited. Training in cultural awareness and understanding is equally important.

 

Edmond, I like your work and I find your blog generally to be interesting. But I am with Olaf on this one, forgive me for being so blunt. Beyond the photos of Nick Ut and Kim Phuc, which I appreciate that you have found for us, your piece is largely a rewritten, a tiny bit embellished (Horst Faas goes from being "veteran Vietnam photo editor" to being "legendary AP photo editor") and abbreviated version of the AP article to which you link.

 

Please don't get me wrong - it is vitally important to remember past horrors to prevent future ones. Writing articles or posts, remembering terrifying imagery and, ultimately, discussing among us as fellow humans across national, ethnical, racial, religious and political divides are ways to do this. But predominantly copying an article and posting it on your own site may risk reducing an important act of remembering to the equivalent of a retweet.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Ps. For further truly disturbing imagery, watch Errol Morris's/Robert S. McNamara's "Fog of War" which both discusses the Vietnam War and shows evidence of unspeakable war crimes on the part of the Allies during the Second World War committed during the vast firebombings in the Far East.

It's not a matter of debate.. it's respecting other people on forums.

He posted his nice article with an obvious notion that he's proud of it... and should be.

Sometimes you have to resist the urge to start critiquing other peoples work simply for the sake of being respectful. Unless of course you're my neighbor who is always standing in his yard.. thinks he knows everything and has to come running over to tell me I'm doing something wrong.

[250swb]

It's not a matter of debate.. it's respecting other people on forums.

He posted his nice article with an obvious notion that he's proud of it... and should be.

Sometimes you have to resist the urge to start critiquing other peoples work simply for the sake of being respectful. Unless of course you're my neighbor who is always standing in his yard.. thinks he knows everything and has to come running over to tell me I'm doing something wrong.

 

And yet the irony is that on the Photo Forum where critique should be expected you only get respectful pleasantries exchanged. What to critique, when, and why, is another vast discussion in the making.

 

Steve

[batmobile]

I think there is a big difference between posting an image or website for review and posting a link to a blog you've written thinking some people might find it interesting. I took the OP to be doing the latter.

[bybrett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's not a matter of debate.. it's respecting other people on forums.

He posted his nice article with an obvious notion that he's proud of it... and should be.

Sometimes you have to resist the urge to start critiquing other peoples work simply for the sake of being respectful. Unless of course you're my neighbor who is always standing in his yard.. thinks he knows everything and has to come running over to tell me I'm doing something wrong.

 

Yes and Edmond has spawned a greater word count here than in his well intentioned piece. A blog's not just for Christmas.

[bpalme]

What batmobile said.

[edmond_terakopian]

Folks, it's an important image; an iconic image. Most people would have seen it; some would not know the story behind it, or how the story unravelled. Hopefully the article sheds light on the inhumanity and the following humanity. I'm personally grateful for AP to allow the image to be published on the blog, and also grateful for AP and Nick Ut for supplying the other images; pictures which most people would not have seen, or will ever see, had it not been for the kind help offered by AP and Nick.

 

I'm all for debate and talk; it's interesting, as long as manners aren't forgotten and there's a level of maturity involved. Just imagine this forum as us being sat around a table, face to face. This is how I think people should communicate.

 

Anyway, glad that some have found it interesting :-)

 

To top it off, he used the make of camera we all enjoy using.