Agree or disagree: Iconic WW2-era photo should be removed

[True Dough]

A recent memo from the Department of Veterans Affairs to its regional offices directed all copies of the iconic World War II photo of a sailor kissing a woman in Times Square on V-J Day to be removed from agency facilities because it depicts a "non-consensual act."

RimaAnn Nelson, the VA's assistant secretary of health for operations, sent the Feb. 29 memo calling for the prompt removal of the photo -- capturing a historic moment of public jubilation after Japan surrendered in 1945 -- saying it was "inconsistent with the VA's no-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment and assault." But on Tuesday, VA Secretary Denis McDonough intervened, saying the photograph can remain. "Let me be clear: This image is not banned from VA facilities -- and we will keep it in VA facilities," he wrote on the social media platform X.

Nelson wrote in the memo that the placement of the photo in VA facilities was originally meant to commemorate the end of World War II and the return of American troops, but that perspectives on historical events "evolve."

"To foster a more trauma-informed environment that promotes the psychological safety of our employees and the veterans we serve, photographs depicting the 'V-J Day in Times Square' should be removed from all Veterans Health Administration facilities," she wrote in the memo.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/03/05/va-order-remove-iconic-world-war-ii-kiss-photo-facilities-reversed-secretary-mcdonough.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. The motivation was not sexually predatory.

The War ended. Granted you didn't see the sailor kissing another sailor. And he likely stopped once he kissed the nurse. There was such a state of exhilaration that there was irrational behavior. And it didn't lead to widespread assaults on women.

Matter of fact, it's reminiscent of the M*A*S*H* episode where Col. Henry Blake is reviewing the Unit for the last time, saying goodbye, and suddenly embraces Lt. Margaret Houlihan, the Head Nurse. He wasn't doing to humiliate her, to abuse her, to be predatory. It's as if it were a recreation of the referenced photo of VJ Day in Times Square.

You don't have to agree with me. But please look at the big picture.

[yardwork]

17. The "big picture" would include the woman's perspective.

Your entire post represents your assumptions about the man's motivations and actions. You don't dedicate even a phrase to any thoughts about the woman's experience.

You have no idea whether the man's motivation was sexually predatory or not. And you certainly have no idea how the woman felt about being grabbed and assaulted. And, referencing a TV show from the 1970s that has whole plot lines built around blatant sexism isn't helping your case.

I'll leave one further thought. Would the VA tolerate a patient treating one of their employees this way?

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Partially conceding to your point, anything's possible without statements from both of them.

And the sailor may have had dual motivations of elation of the war ending and wanting to just grab the first girl he saw with an excuse.

[yardwork]

20. Thanks for seeing my point. Also, the context for the VA's directive...

As medical facilities experience unprecedented levels of violent and otherwise bad behavior from patients, they are cracking down.

Both the major healthcare systems in my area now greet visitors at the front doors of their facilities with large signs stating that violence and abuse will not be tolerated. I'm sure the VA has similar signs. Somebody probably mentioned that displaying this photo sends a mixed message.

[Irish_Dem]

127. I read an account by the woman.

She did not feel offended, she understood everyone was in a euphoric mood, experiencing a once in a lifetime event.
People got carried away.

But yes. Today a man could not do this.

[thucythucy]

22. I recall an episode of MASH in which

"Hawkeye Pierce" made a particularly tasteless joke about gang rape.

MASH is not the best example to support your point about "the big picture."

[ForgedCrank]

45. I think

I'm in the same space on this one.
I didn't know the real story of this picture until maybe 5-10 years ago. It was always sold as a moment of jubilation at wars end, and highlighted the lucky who were able to return home. The real story makes me slightly uncomfortable as it is certainly unacceptable behavior, but it has never been used to promote the unprovoked assault of women. I don't believe his behavior was meant to be malicious in any way, but the woman in the photo probably felt violated at the time, and that makes it wrong.
It was also a different era and that moment in time was very unique to most people on the planet. The guy in the photo may have been deployed for a very long time, being far removed from normal society while waging war against an evil. I'm sure it took most of them some time to re-acclimate to normal life again, and this act is something that would have been highly frowned on under normal circumstances, especially in that era.

[Sanity Claws]

52. I remember hearing the history of this photo

A photographer saw that sailor walking around Times Square and kissing women. He followed the sailor just waiting for the right chance to get a great photo. The photographer's instincts were right --- he caught an iconic photo.

I don't recall hearing the woman's perspective. After all these years, someone must have tracked her down and got her perspective. I just don't know it.

[Rebl2]

58. I saw

this discussed on some show this week and they revealed this man and woman stayed in touch for many years after that photo was published.

[Silent Type]

2. Fortunately, someone wised up and canceled this.

"WASHINGTON − Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough said the federal agency is not banning a famous WWII photograph after the circulation of a memo online declared the image banned from all Veterans Health Administration facilities. The photo depicts a sailor kissing a woman when Japan surrendered in World War II." 2 days ago

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/05/mcdonough-wwii-photo-stays/72853480007/

[maxrandb]

3. So, let me get this straight

This picture is "inappropriate", but electing an actual rapist as president, and being legislatively mandated to hang his picture at EVERY military unit and government agency is OK?

Someone please stop this rock from spinning for a minute so I can get off.

[thucythucy]

23. I'd say they're both "inappropriate."

Doing the one doesn't justify the other, and vice versa.

[maxrandb]

40. What could provide more justification

than electing him a president?

[thucythucy]

48. You seem to have a strange definition of "justification."

What other historical atrocities are you willing to "justify" by political success?

I assume though that you're being ironic, at least that's my hope.

[maxrandb]

55. It's not strange

Donnie Dipshit is a rapist. If the American people elect him president, that's pretty much validation, isn't it?

Like it or not, there have been a million incidents of despicable, evil, even murderous behavior that has been "justified" by the people that have enabled and supported it.

It's why I don't necessarily blame Donnie Dipshit.

He wasn't just walking down the street one day, trip, fall, hit his head and wake up in the White House.

We, the American people, either willingly, or unwillingly, put him there.

[thucythucy]

59. I'd use the word "excuse"

rather than "justify."

Just my preference.

Otherwise I basically agree with your point.

[FalloutShelter]

30. I agree.

Let’s stop trying to erase the past and concentrate on the “fierce urgency of NOW”.

Where’s all of the me to outrage over Trump the rapist of Gaetz the pedo?

Let’s stop raking over the cold coals of the past and concentrate on the NOW.

[thucythucy]

49. I think we're capable of doing both.

At least that's my hope.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. I despise that photo.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

5. Remove it.

[RoeVWade]

6. My only argument is...

No matter what it is, the public has a right to remove even historical items from public display or government offices, but unlike the charges the right makes about that destroying history, I do believe objects that represent historical times do need to be preserved somewhere, offensive or not.

Out of sight, or in a museum is fine with me. That's not destroying history. That doesn't mean we need to keep every piece of potential history intact. We don't need every monument, or every flag, or every piece of memorabilia for historical purposes. Some of it is no more than replicas or actual garbage objects.

[True Dough]

33. I've long made that exact argument, RoeVWade

It speaks volumes in terms of what pieces of history we put on public display. Choosing to remove those historical artifacts from, let's say a city square, doesn't mean we're "destroying" history, as some people argue. If we decide that a once revered political figure is no longer worthy of having a statue in his/her honor, we can simply store it somewhere. No need to demolish it, necessarily. Regardless, that individual will remain in historical texts and should be part of history lessons, just with broader, more-informed context.

[lame54]

94. At least this actually happened...

Raising the flag at Iwo Jima was staged

[ProfessorGAC]

115. Only Sort Of

The flag was actually raised twice. The first raising was organic and was done to signal to other troops & sailors that they had taken Suribachi.
Rosenthal saw the first one, but wasn't in position or have the time to shoot it.
So, after talking to command, they got a larger flag, and a few more Marines than in the first raising. They then raised it again with the proper sun angle.
Yes, the famous photo was a staged recreation of an event that actually happened just a short time earlier.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

120. Only the 2nd raising was staged, the 1st one wasn't. nt

[jimfields33]

7. Many couples have recaptured the joy of the winning the war in this photo as engagement or even

Wedding photos. It’s an iconic historical true picture. Leave it.

[OLDMDDEM]

13. I agree. Leave it.

[OLDMDDEM]

14. I agree. Leave it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

121. Agreed, leave it,

there are far more things to worry about than something that happened almost 80 years ago.

[flying rabbit]

8. Keep it.

[Shrek]

9. Leave it

It's idiotic that this is remotely controversial.

[Historic NY]

10. Whats next ever Time Life photo ?

Its so iconic that places actually have recreated it . And the actual couple got together in 2005

https://www.alamy.com/edith-shain-and-carl-muscarello-are-shown-at-the-60th-anniversary-of-the-end-of-world-war-ii-in-times-square-on-august-14-2005-they-were-recreating-the-famous-pose-from-the-alfred-eisenstadt-photograph-celebrating-the-allied-victory-in-the-war-they-claim-to-be-the-original-couple-in-the-photograph-upi-photorobin-platzer-image257919094.html]

[PCIntern]

12. That's terrific...

I had never seen that. Thanks!!!

[MorbidButterflyTat]

72. Yes, thank you!

The knee jerk judgments are fairly embarrassing when the sailor and nurse's real names and 2012 reunion is easily found online.

She doesn't seem traumatized.




https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sailor-nurse-from-iconic-vj-day-photo-reunited/

[Ms. Toad]

117. Since she died in 2010, it's a bit hard for them to have a reunion in 2012.

June 24, 2010
Edith Shain, who became something of a celebrity decades after World War II, asserting that she was the nurse kissed by a sailor in Life magazine’s memorable photograph of V-J Day in Times Square, died Sunday at her home in Los Angeles. She was 91.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/nyregion/24shain.html

From CBS News a couple of years after your article:

"The widely-accepted scenario of 'The Kissing Sailor' book, with George Mendonsa kissing Greta Zimmer near 2 p.m., is ruled out by the astronomical analysis," Olson said.

"Astronomy alone can't positively identify the participants, but we can tell you the precise moment of the photograph. ... We can rule people out based on the position of the sun," he added. "The shadows were the key to unlocking some of the secrets of the iconic VJ Day images -- we know when the famous kiss happened, and that gives us some idea of who might or might not have been in the picture."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/science-debunks-wwii-kiss-photo-couples-claim-to-fame/

[PCIntern]

11. You know...

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2024, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

this merits a response, and I usually don't take up these matters because they are generally "no-win".

The day after virtually my entire dental school class of 165 took the incredibly stressful two-day clinical examination to become licensed practitioners in the Northeast, the Northeast Regional Board Examination (NERB), at 9 A.M., the associate dean walked out of his office with a list of Social Security numbers of the students who did NOT pass, about fifteen if I remember correctly, and posted it on the bulletin board for the Senior Class. Probably 140 people were crammed into a moderately wide hallway, barely able to move, and as each of us managed to get to the Board, you could see the absolute relief and joy of the vast number of now-former students, never ever having to take a test again for the rest of our lives, having taken hundreds of them during our academic careers beginning in First Grade.

As I witnessed the fact that my number was NOT listed, checking it three times to make sure, I found my knees buckling, and a rush like no other I have experienced before or since. A fellow classmate of mine, a young lady with whom I do not believe I exchanged twenty words since First Year, simultaneously reacted to her non-listing, and we turned to each other, gave each other an enormous hug and a kiss, and I swear, and I am not making this up for sensationalism, she ground her nether region into mine for about ten seconds. We released each other's grasp, held each other's hands for a few seconds, and went our separate ways. I never saw her again, I believe she's in the Midwest somewhere.

It was an absolutely innocent moment of complete and utter joy and was expressed, at least by her, in the most intense way that she could with the person who happened to be standing right next to her. I'll never forget it and believe me, it was not an assault - it was a manifestation of extreme exuberance beyond comprehension.

This photo represents that much better than my paragraphs above, and all I was doing was finishing schooling and starting a career. These two people were involved in defeating the worst scourge in the history of the planet. They represent unbridled human joy. Let's just stop with the pontificating for a moment and understand the context of this great art.

[jimfields33]

16. Thank you for sharing

Exhilaration is very natural. The mind is so relieved that spontaneous reactions can happen. I’m so happy for both of you.

[Liberal In Texas]

15. Stay. It's a glimpse into the euphoria of the time and place. This wasn't the only scene where people grabbed

each other and hugged and kissed in public. This is one of two different angles of the same couple. This is the Eisenstaedt photo:



For more scenes on that day Life did a layout showing all kinds of people embracing each other. Ironically, even photographer Eisenstaedt kissing the reporter he was with:
https://www.life.com/history/v-j-day-kiss-times-square/

[True Dough]

21. Thank you for adding this angle!

It's just one more factor to consider in the debate, but look at the expressions of the people in the background of the photo you included on top and the one I have in my OP. Interestingly, the onlookers are not repulsed or horrified by what they're seeing. They actually seem to appreciate the moment. Certainly, it doesn't appear as if anyone was compelled to intervene.

I wonder if that would be the same response today?

But, as DU member "yardwork" points out above (post #17), the way the woman who was being kissed felt in that moment is paramount. Was she tickled by it? Was she disgusted? I don't think any of us will ever know that.

[Barry Markson]

47. Just look at the 2 old scolds in the background of the 2nd photo

Their descendants, if they possibly exist today, are still among us.
Some folks have too much time on their hands.

[GuppyGal]

19. OMG how idiotic and stupid. There is such a thing as too politically correct and I ain't that. nt

[jcgoldie]

24. it should go

If we truly care about what we profess to care about and we know the backstory then why show this be celebrated?

[jalan48]

25. Did the woman involved file a complaint?

[True Dough]

28. Some historical context is required

This was long before the "Me too" movement. Many women were far too intimidated to make a formal complaint, even if they felt violated. That's not to imply it's "easy" to do today, because the social media backlash from intolerant individuals is hellish, no doubt.

But, again, it is entirely possible that the woman in this photo was elated by being embraced and kissed. Maybe she's looked at that photo and smiled many times over the years.

I'd like to know, but maybe we never will.

[jalan48]

35. We're on the precipice of an autocratic takeover of our country. In that context I think focusing on this is ridiculous.

We used to have a great Senator, Al Franken, who was forced out of office by these same folks.
I say no thanks, find another, more important problem to solve.

[True Dough]

39. You'd advocate for the majority of threads on this forum

to be removed?

Many of them do not in any way provide solutions to preventing an autocratic takeover of the country. I think it's safe to say that every member of DU is gravely concerned about that.

But some of us will continue to live our lives in the meantime, discussing things of great consequence and things much less so. If you feel that this discussion is not worth your time, I presume it will be the last post we'll see from you here.

[jalan48]

44. I never said remove the post and didn't didn't intend this to be a personal attack on your response.

At this point in time I think it's ridiculous without a complaint from those involved.

[FBaggins]

46. We apparently know more than that

People are applying their own lens to her statements to declare it an assault whether she thought so or not.

[cilla4progress]

26. Disagree.

No info on consent. Only assumptions.

More important things to focus on.

Leave well enough alone.

Causes backlash to progressive principles.

[Demsrule86]

27. No it should not...is is iconic. And seriously we have more important stuff to do.

[Raven123]

29. Keep it

[Think. Again.]

31. IS it a photo of non-consensual contact?

That seems to be the question.

The photo had always struck me as two Americans who were mutually happy about the end of the war and exuberantly celebrating together despite having never met before.

I never saw a negative aura to it, but I have not ever been sexually assaulted. That being said, I can see how even the possibility of the act being forced onto the nurse would be problematic, because it is NOT clear in the photo if the kiss was indeed consensual or not.

[True Dough]

32. Precisely the crux of the issue, Think. Again.

So without knowing, leave it displayed prominently, or remove it from the public sphere?

[Think. Again.]

38. Perhaps a response as undefined as the issue is...

...would be appropriate.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are humans making the decision to either use this photo or not in various applications.

Maybe a policy one way or the other is not needed, and the decision could be left up to the individual who can make the call depending on the appropriateness of the photo including all of it's connotations for the use it is being applied to.

[True Dough]

43. Sounds fair and thoughtful to me

Appreciate your input!

[sinkingfeeling]

34. FFS, learn some history. It was the end of WWII. People in the US were ecstatic, after living with rationing and

death notices of young men in the local paper. Times have changed. Even in the 1970s, an un-solicited kiss was not considered a non-consensual sex act worthy of mass protest.

Leave our photographic history alone!

[ripcord]

51. Time did a nice piece on the photos taken in Times Square that day

https://www.life.com/history/v-j-day-kiss-times-square/

[Scrivener7]

36. Her hand is gripped into a fist. She has been literally yanked off her feet. Her neck is pinioned in the crook of his

arm. Her head has not risen toward him, rather it appears as if she has retracted it. Clearly she will fall if he lets her go, but she doesn't make any move to hold on to him. Instead, she has pulled her arm back and is holding it stiffly away from him.

She. Does. Not. Want. This.

Contrast this photo with the one posted down thread of the couple with the man with the camera. That woman is leaning in, her hands are moving toward the man, her body is active and not immobilized. She is participating. The nurse is emphatically not.

[Marcus IM]

80. Apparently, thinking this is idiotic to some here.

I think that calling other DUers opinions "idiocy" or "idiotic" are tantamount to a personal attack. My opinion. I'll leave the alerting to those who might feel attacked.

[Scrivener7]

82. I don't feel attacked. I am used to often disagreeing with the majority here on

the extent to which poor treatment of women is endemic in our culture.

This IS an iconic image. It does reflect America's values.

[Ms. Toad]

110. I agree with your visual analysis of the image, but in retrospect, she seems to be OK with it.

Thirty-five years later, Mrs. Shain, who was teaching kindergarten in Los Angeles after having been a nurse at Doctors Hospital in New York during the war, wrote to Mr. Eisenstaedt, saying “now that I’m 60 it’s fun to admit that I’m the nurse in your famous shot.” (She was 27 when it was taken). She asked him for a print.

Mr. Eisenstaedt visited Mrs. Shain, and Life reproduced her letter to him in its August 1980 issue, along with pictures he took of her with her family and her students. Mrs. Shain said she had recognized herself in the photo but had kept silent over all those years. “I didn’t think it was dignified, but times have changed,” she told Life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/nyregion/24shain.html

As a kindergarten teacher in the 30s, there were very strict policies for decorum (generally they were required to be single and chaste). I don't know how much of her last comment had to do with her feelings about the kiss, or the implications the image might have on her employment. It would be interesting to know what she told friends at the time, rather than the media a half-century later.

[Scrivener7]

119. But look at her words here:

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2024, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18753992

And when everyone is telling you your photo is iconic, maybe you just shut your mouth about how uncomfortable you previously admitted it made you fee.

I mean, look at this thread. A handful of posters said, in pretty succinct, limited or mild terms, that they dislike the photo.

Some of the reactions to those objections are pretty absurdly shrill and hysterical.

I wonder if she herself didn't run into that kind of foaming-at-the-mouth defense of the image.

[Paladin]

37. Keep it. (nt)

[Aristus]

41. I won't say yea or nay on this. Only:

"He was happy and wanted to celebrate."

I'm not sure I want every boundary-jumping dude-bro in the country using that as an excuse.

[True Dough]

42. Point taken,

good sir! Thanks for contributing.

[Happy Hoosier]

50. It's a truly iconic image...

After years of incredibly destructive war, it was a moment of pure joy.

Yes, there are "problematic" elements to it. My daughter is a rape survivor and I am keely aware of issues of consent. But this was largely an innocent expression of joy, not sexual predation.

I think we can recognize that moment in context without saying it would be okay today.

[ThreeNoSeep]

53. The curl of her fingers is not that of someone caught up in a joyful moment

I do have sympathy for the grumpy terse "leave it" responses of some in this community. I wonder, however, if some men should reconsider that reactionary feeling towards people questioning this photograph. Are they just being overly sensitive? I found this article provided some historical perspective. Apparently there was a lot of "exuberant" assault, even gang rape, occurring during those days following the announcement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/22/wwiis-most-iconic-kiss-wasnt-romantic-it-was-assault/

[Scrivener7]

90. HER perspective, quoted in that article, is what has been missing in this thread so far. It's pretty damning.

“It wasn’t my choice to be kissed,” she told one interviewer. “The guy just came over and grabbed!” Another reporter asked what she was thinking at that moment. “I hope I can breathe,” she said in local news footage since removed from the Internet: “I mean somebody much bigger than you and much stronger, where you’ve lost control of yourself, I’m not sure that makes you happy.”

*snip*
“Sailors call you the vilest names if you ask them to leave you alone,” one area resident complained. Zimmer later related that she had not felt comfortable going out that day in her bright white dental assistant uniform and was anxious to get back to her office.
*snip*

Other “exuberant soldiers and sailors” tore clothes from a woman’s body, The Washington Post reported, “and a policeman who attempted to intervene was knocked down.”

Many women protested, fled or avoided the celebrations altogether. “They don’t ask a girl’s permission,” said one as she stormed away. “They just grab.” Ensnared by a soldier, another woman objected: “I’m married! I’m married!” He responded, “Well tell your husband this is with the compliments of the Third Division,” before giving her a “resounding smack.”

So yeah. An iconic photo that illustrates American values.

Defend away.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

98. What

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sailor-nurse-from-iconic-vj-day-photo-reunited/



I guess she recovered by 2012.

HER perspective.

JEEZ.


PS. I was married to a sailor, and I was NEVER treated with disrespect by anyone he was stationed with, or on any Naval Base, in over ten years. That's bullshit.

[Scrivener7]

99. Do you see something in her words in the CBS article that contradicts her words in the WAPO article?

[Ms. Toad]

134. Those comments are actually from Greta Zimmer Friedman.

She seems to have been disproven as the woman in the story.

As I said, I agree with your visual analysis of the photo.

But in matters of consent, I tend to listen to the women involved. Based on what I can find of what Edith Shain does not, at least in retrospect, object. I have not been able to find contemporary statements from her, because it was a few years before she chose to identify herself to the photographer. She could easily have remained silent - but instead described it as rather fun to admit she was the nurse in the photo. Nothing I have found suggests she was pressured into either admitting who she was, or what feelings she had.

I never suggested it illustrates American values. Simply that the woman being kissed in the photo (not the other behavior you included) has not condemned it in anything I can find.

[Scrivener7]

135. No, Ms. Toad! I know you didn't suggest it illustrates American values! I think you

might be conflating two of my posts, one of which said it reflects American values and the other of which was addressed specifically to you.

[Ms. Toad]

137. You are correct.

I don't know how I got to that post, since I was following the responses to my posts from my "My Posts" page.

Sorry about that!

[Scrivener7]

138. No worries!

[LoisB]

54. Disagree - leave it.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

56. There are NO politics in this Pulitzer Prize winning photo, just the exuberance of victory.

I say leave it.

American women fought in WWII as well be they Nurses, back up pilots, manufacturers, etc. They sacrificed just as much as they lost husbands, sons, brothers, and beloved family members.

Nor do I see any indication of attempts to sexually assault this woman. My father still had the issue of Life magazine with this cover photo on it when I was a little girl. His elder brother was in the US Navy at the time.

[grumpyduck]

57. I don't get it.

If the VA felt like they should remove it, they could have just replaced it quietly with another photo that shows the jubilation people felt at the end of the war. There are probably millions of them.

No need to turn it into a federal case when we have so many other issues confronting us now.

[BannonsLiver]

60. Would be nuttier than squirrel shit to remove it

Glad rational thinking prevailed. This Uber over the top stuff does not help us win elections, in case anyone is confused on that point.

[pinkstarburst]

61. My problem with all the history erasure and cancel culture

is that literally everything that is created can be found to have something objectionable TO SOMEONE if you look hard enough.

The right doesn't like To Kill A Mockingbird because it depicts anti-racism messages. The left doesn't like it because it has a white savior narrative. I think the book is dated to the point there are better choices we could be teaching in public school, but I don't think it should be banned. It is a product of its time. Okay, so let's take a recently written book like Angie Thomas's The Hate U Give, which is outstanding, but it also has people who want it banned and they'll find any little thing like language or drug use but their real problem is the book is a bestseller by a black author and depicts a strong female main character who is black. Recently written books are being banned for having LGBT content, and books written 30 years ago are being raked over the coals for having dated language because they are a product of their time. We can't go back in a time machine and rewrite every song, TV show, book, newspaper article and courier pigeon message from the last 300 years to make it acceptable to 2024 standards. Even if we did, the media that we are creating today will be just as unacceptable to people 20 years from now for reasons we cannot guess. It should not be destroyed or banned. Nor should this photograph.

We need to accept these things as a piece of history, as a product of their time and not be afraid to examine them as historical artifacts and have discussions about them. "This happened in 1945. This was what was going on then. Now, 80 years later, we have more informed conversations about consent. Would something like this still be appropriate today?"

[ratchiweenie]

62. Given that the woman involved was not offended and participated in a re-enactment many years later, this is just

much ado about nothing and truly a case of political correctness run amok. This was a case of "joy of the moment" and the photo is absolutely an iconic representation of that!!!!!!

[True Dough]

70. Thank you for pointing that out

It's best to know how the woman involved felt about that moment.

[ThreeNoSeep]

125. Was it "joy of the moment"?

“It wasn’t my choice to be kissed,” she told one interviewer. “The guy just came over and grabbed!” Another reporter asked what she was thinking at that moment. “I hope I can breathe,” she said in local news footage since removed from the Internet: “I mean somebody much bigger than you and much stronger, where you’ve lost control of yourself, I’m not sure that makes you happy.”

[SYFROYH]

63. Images can act like Rorschach tests for all sorts of personal experiences.

The history of the image is that it wasn't explicitly consensual, but Greta Zimmer, the woman in the photo, didn't say she felt or thought that she was violated when interviewed about the experience. In fact, she agreed to recreate the image 60 years later and was happy about the experience.

[True Dough]

69. This is important historical context

thank you for mentioning it! It makes me inclined to say it's acceptable to continue displaying the photo publicly.

[Celerity]

64. Keep it. nt

[-misanthroptimist]

66. No, it should not be removed

Christ, there's such a thing as being too vigilant. Let it go.

[KS Toronado]

67. Let's not be like Florida wanting to rewrite and hide history.

[XorXor]

68. So, no one can even say with 100% certainty who the couple is

And the woman who is widely believed to have likely been the nurse, never stated that the photo caused her trauma (or whatever). So, assuming that is the woman, are they not removing her own agency by telling her that she should have been traumatized and that she should feel like a victim of assault? And if it's not those people, then for all we know they could have husband and wife, no?

[MorbidButterflyTat]

97. YES, they can

Try google.

[XorXor]

123. I did and that is why I said what said

Many people have claimed it was them. But if we assume it's the woman who is widely attributed as the woman, her own description of the events do not sound as if she views it the same way as some feel she should feel. As far as I can tell, she never stated she didn't like seeing the image, or that it caused her any traumatic harm. If you can provide any sources that absolutely confirm it was her, or even that she would have wanted the photo forgotten, then id appreciate seeing them.

That being said, in my above comment I said it's possible they may have even known each other. But even if the widely accepted identity of the woman isn't correct, we can say with decent likelihood that the man and woman didn't know each other based on the description of events by the photographer.

[Silver Gaia]

71. Leave it be! The woman in the photo has spoken for herself

and here's what she said about it in 2005:

"It was just somebody really celebrating. But it wasn't a romantic event. It was just an event of 'thank God the war is over' kind of thing."

"It wasn't that much of a kiss, it was more of a jubilant act that he didn't have to go back," she said. "And the reason he grabbed someone dressed like a nurse was that he just felt very grateful to nurses who took care of the wounded."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/karinabland/2019/02/20/post-war-kiss-iconic-picture-unwanted-sexual-advance/2928622002/

This is much ado about nothing.

With thanks to PSPS, who posted this in another thread about this topic a couple of days ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143204322

[Oneironaut]

73. Leave it, stop censoring the past.

[Emile]

74. As old sailor, I say leave it!

[BlueTsunami2018]

75. Apparently they're doing it so what does it matter?

I never think about this photo until something like this comes up or they show it on the anniversary of winning WWII. I think it’s a cool historic snapshot.

But defending it is not a hill I’d be willing to die on. It’s not that important.

But you can bet it’ll be more fodder for the whole “Military is woke!?!?!” outrage.

[gulliver]

76. The idea that it is even a question is a big reason we might get a lunatic moron (Trump) in the WH

Leave it. Use it as a test. Anyone who walks by it and frowns should be scheduled for therapy. There's no evidence whatsoever that this is non-consensual.

[beaglelover]

77. DISAGREE! It's an iconic image.

[Jilly_in_VA]

78. What's next if you censor this?

Putting TWs on every single photo of soldiers being killed, or the photos of prisoners in the camps? Or the bodies at Buchenwald and Auschwitz? I say HELL NO! You don't and can't censor history, no matter what it was.

I've told the story before, of finding the US Camera 1946 in our attic when I was 9 (all the other editions were in our bookcase, but not that one) and seeing the picture of the bodies piled at Buchenwald. I stared at it for a long time, sitting there on the attic steps, and then went downstairs and asked my mother about it. She gave me an explanation, suitable I guess for my 9 year old brain, and that was it for the time being, but it shaped how I thought about WWII, and it shaped much of who I am today. It may have been wise to keep that book away from my younger brothers at the time, However, when they were older, it reappeared on the shelves.

[JustAnotherGen]

79. Can we not care?

It seems like a distraction from defending our Democracy from the very real danger we are in.

[Croney]

81. That nonconsensual kiss in soccer...

I do see the difference, but I'm not sure there are no similarities; they're just hard to prove. I'd leave the iconic photo I guess.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/spanish-soccer-kiss-controversy-continues/story?id=102674353

[anamnua]

83. You could say that all those joyous

embraces of American GIs by French ladies during the liberation of France in 1944 were also ‘non-consensual’.

[BannonsLiver]

92. Drilling down, I think joy is the real reason why some object to it.

[The Third Doctor]

84. Leave it. Smh

[walkingman]

85. I'm glad I'm old. This kind of stuff sounds ridiculous. Can't believe it is even being debated.

[ificandream]

86. Leave it.

It's history and a reflection of the times. Not that I'd agree that everything from those times should be preserved, but it's not a historic tragedy or really an embarrassment. That was then, this is now.

[AllaN01Bear]

87. not until the orange orc is in jail or dead.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

88. Get a grip!

They were reunited 14 years ago, and posed again. This info is easily found with a basic search. SMDH

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sailor-nurse-from-iconic-vj-day-photo-reunited/

[rollin74]

89. Keep It

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

91. Disagree

[BannonsLiver]

93. RimaAnn Nelson Should be fired immediately

[Patton French]

95. How does RimaAnn Nelson know it was non consensual? NT

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

96. Glad to see all the problems with the VA has been solved

and we can move on to the important stuff like this. /sarcasm

[WarGamer]

100. There's nothing worse than judging HISTORY by modern day standards.

When I was a kid... all the 007 movies with Sean Connery showed Bond grabbing the girl for a kiss... and sometimes more.

Should we ban 1960's 007 movies, too?

Should a future vegan society ban all references to hamburgers?

[underpants]

101. Disagree 100%

[elleng]

102. Disagree,

but of course these decisions are and will be more and more difficult as time and events move on and change. Nuance is NOT often an American attribute.

[Mountainguy]

103. Ridiculous

"And this guy grabbed me and we kissed, and then I turned one way and he turned the other. There was no way to know who he was, but I didn't mind because he was someone who had fought for me."

"As for the picture," she said, "it says so many things -- hope, love, peace and tomorrow. The end of the war was a wonderful experience, and that photo represents all those feelings."

So the woman in the picture thinks these things about the kiss and the picture. Plus what is the cost : benefit of removing it? Pretty high to very low.

[senseandsensibility]

106. Finally, the woman's side of the story

Thank you, Mountainguy.

[BannonsLiver]

113. She could come back from the dead and lecture the people who seem to think they speak for her in the thread

And it would not matter, unfortunately. Some folks are just so strident in their beleifs that facts don't matter.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

116. No shit

It's stunning, really.

[BannonsLiver]

118. Agreed. It's "trying too hard" for progressive street cred IMO.

[Mountainguy]

124. Progressives seem like they always

have a solution to things that nobody else even knows is a problem.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

128. It's getting ridiculous.

Maybe we could conduct a séance and ask her if she's okay with the VA leaving the photo up. WTAF.

[Omnipresent]

104. Didn't they find that women years later..

To find that she had no problem with that kiss.
I don’t remember hearing anything about her being violated.

[TygrBright]

105. How do they know it was non-consensual? n/t

[CrispyQ]

107. It should be removed.

In another thread a DUer posted that photos of Trump, an actual rapist, are way more offensive but my reply was that this image promotes the type of behavior Trump is guilty of—that a man can do whatever he wants with any woman who passes by.

Take it down.

[Prairie_Seagull]

108. Of course some stuff is worth digging into.

IMO, this ain't that. I vote to leave it and

stop digging. I recognize opinions differ. But come on, really?

[pandr32]

109. Keep it.

It is an iconic photo from a historical moment celebrating victory. It is not today with our present perspective.
We cannot censor everything we don't currently like. Does that remind you of anything?
Social norms evolve. At the time this photo was taken the mood of victory after so many died or were injured fighting fascism and nationalism was ecstatic. People poured into the streets to share their excitement and got caught up in the wave. The picture captured the moment and graced many newspapers and magazines.

[Vinca]

111. Oh, good heavens. That's an iconic photo. They need to get a grip.

[LakeArenal]

112. The stop action of photos, makes a kiss look like it lasts forever.

It was a jubilant fleeting moment in time.

I think it’s lovely.

[johnp3907]

114. Agree

[Goodheart]

122. How do we know it was non-consensual?

[RandySF]

126. No

[Xavier Breath]

129. Disagree.

[True Dough]

130. I appreciate the varied opinions in this thread

It seems like the "leave it be" camp is the majority. But a few of y'all sound like you're about to blow a gasket. It's 10 months until the election. Hope you're going to be okay!

[Raine]

131. Definitely leave it alone!!! nt

[OAITW r.2.0]

132. Did she file a complaint?

I suspect not....it was a moment of joy that this horrible war was over. Sad that this is even a source of debate here.

[Timeflyer]

133. Unconsentual surrender.

[pansypoo53219]

136. we need to stop this bad time travel shit. that was THEN, this is NOW. its a great photo. it was a euphoric time.

don't mis behave NOW.

[Ping Tung]

139. A kiss is just a kiss. From the film Casablamca.

"Much ado about nothing: William Shakespeare