John Wayne Memorial Bigotry

[JulesVern]

The funny thing in all of this is that John Wayne would have never agreed to having the airport named after him in the first place. He lived under the flight path and not only hated it, he fought against it allowing jets in the first place.

[MissBarbara]

We can't change what John Wayne thought and said, but that does not mean we should ignore it either.  If folks would like to change the name of their airport because he is no longer seen as a great role-model, I would understand.

After all he only played heroes in the movies. That does not make him a hero, proclamations of such aside.

I agree with you, and with your parallel post above.

John Wayne, as others have noted, is one in a long list of celebrities whose status has been "re-evaluated" in the light of revelations of things they have said and done in the past. Bill Cosby and Michael Jackson also spring to mind. And, after all, Abraham Lincoln was a "racist"!

I grew up listening to Bill Cosby records, and to this day, more than 25 years later, I can still recall (and laugh at) some of his bits, like "Chicken Heart," "Buck Buck," and my all-time favorite, "Noah's Ark" ("How long can you tread water? Ha, Ha, Ha!").

Today, just the sight of Cosby's face or the sound of his voice is absolutely repulsive to me, and I would never watch or listen to anything by hum ever again. The fact that he was a sexual predator and a serial rapist does not change those old bits one iota, nor does it make them any less funny. And yet, with hindsight, his actions render all of it repulsive to me.

John Wayne's words clearly pale in comparison with Cosby's felonies. Yet I agree with Lois: If a sufficient number of people find having an airport named after John Wayne is inappropriate, then I've no objection to renaming the airport.

Though this comparison is inexact, we recently changed the U.S. $20 bill, replacing the face of person who was a slaveholder and strong proponent of slavery with the face of a person who was born a slave, escaped from slavery, and dedicated her life to helping slaves and advocating for the abolition of slavery.

[psiberzerker]

I celebrate things like this, and for example De La Poer's cat, "Nigger-man."  H.P. Lovecraft, "The Rats in the Walls." 

I consider myself reasonably Progressive, but you can really appreciate what we have today, if you look back at the record.  Our history, and how fucking savage we were a hundred years ago, or longer.  Isn't that what "Manifest Destiny" was all about, bringing Freedom to the Savages, or was it about our survival.  Taking the land we need to grow from the selfish Indians that wouldn't let us have it?

We have to Think about it, to learn from it, though.  It's not just memorizing the dates, or the Gettysberg Address.  It's not just the memorable quotes, like what the queers are doing to the soil, Stuart.  It's the dialog, between peers, instead of the lectures from our elders about what's wrong with "Those People' that allow us to grow, together.

Think about that phrase, "Grow together."  What does that mean, grow closer, or mature, by figuring out what's right for all of us, by talking, AND listening to each other.  Appreciating each other's perspectives, and gaining an angle we didn't consider looking down from our de-lux apartment in the sky, or out over the barbed wire around our Reservations?

In order to do that, become A nation, and reach a consensus on who's right to lead us.  Which laws benefit US the most, instead of only considering what benefits me, and others like me, we need to talk about this stuff.  Our pasts, our futures.  Our fathers watched Spaghetti Westerns, and even our mothers can pick the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly out of a lineup even without the titles appearing onscreen.

So can the Mexicans, the Blacks, and even the First Tribes grew up watching westerns for a couple generations.  Even in the progressive 60s, when the most progressive show on TV was a utopian future with an autocratic socialist military government (The Federation) fighting the savage Klingons, and the almond eyed intellectually superior Romulans with bowl cuts...

Okay, Captain Kirk was a Cowboy, leading a "Wagon Train to the Stars," the Klingons were Apaches, and Romulus was fucking China.  Yeah, Captain Kirk made it with a green alien, and a black woman with a Zulu name, but it's more proper to say that Star Trek was "Progressive For The Time."

He was still a womanizer, shooting savages, and punching out genetically engineered super-beings ("KAAAAAAAAHN!") to save the day, and all the aliens, all the PoC were still subordinates.  Decades later, we saw another leader like that in Bill Clinton.  Our current leader sees himself as a leader like that, and believes he has the "Absolute Power" to pardon himself.

Wonder where he got an idea like that?  We've come a long way, baby, but look where we came From.  Now, look where we're headded, and try to think of some way to make it better.  Not worse.  A good first step just might see exactly how a female leader makes mistakes.

[psiberzerker]

This is the Browning 1918.



That is how savage we were a century ago.  You could turn it around, and say that's "Heroic," or what made America "Great," but that doesn't change what it was, and who we were.  

At best, we can use it to change who we Are, and who our children will be...

This is the latest generation, alongside one of their peers:  

This is the symbol of American Progress:    A "Real American Hero."

Back in John Wayne's day, it was the Colt "Peacemaker."  Not the Colt AR-15.  That's how far we have come, from the "Savages" we took this country away from. Just for a little perspective.

That's what we need to learn from our elders.

[_priapism]

I do remember seeing somewhere that many soldiers in WWII didn’t like John Wayne because all he did was to portray  military men in movies , and never served. They were incensed that they were getting shot at in reality, and john Wayne was getting shot at in movies.

John Wayne: The World War II Hero Who Didn't Serve

John Wayne received a 3-A deferment from the draft for family dependency since he was a father of four...  Thirteen wartime movies later, and the flag of heroism he rose in the said Sands of Iwo Jima was still awaiting his recruitment in real-life. And this was a fact that John Ford, now a commander in the U.S. Navy, never shied away from letting the Duke know about. He would frequently berate Wayne “to get into it,” saying that he was growing rich as other men died.

[Elizabeth]

Isn't it amazing how we can all sit here in KB and pick on the dead.
If the man was a product of his times...so be it, times change, dead people don't.
I can understand removing his name from the airport and removing the statue, again times change, just get it done....there's no need to write a 34 page essay about why or what or when and even more so trying to explain the 70's compared to now.
You want his name removed then do it, I quite sure "The Duke" won't really care one way or the other.

Love,
Liz

[psiberzerker]

I just thought it was interesting.  I didn't share this to pick on the dead, and I already learned that John Wayne hated that damned airport himself!

[Jed_]

I do remember seeing somewhere that many soldiers in WWII didn’t like John Wayne because all he did was to portray  military men in movies , and never served. They were incensed that they were getting shot at in reality, and john Wayne was getting shot at in movies.

John Wayne: The World War II Hero Who Didn't Serve

John Wayne received a 3-A deferment from the draft for family dependency since he was a father of four...  Thirteen wartime movies later, and the flag of heroism he rose in the said Sands of Iwo Jima was still awaiting his recruitment in real-life. And this was a fact that John Ford, now a commander in the U.S. Navy, never shied away from letting the Duke know about. He would frequently berate Wayne “to get into it,” saying that he was growing rich as other men died.

My grandfather that raised me was in a similar situation, except tired of the grief he was getting for not serving in WWII, went and tried to volunteer at around age 30.  They wouldn’t take him.  It wasn’t the 3 kids (4th was born in 1946).  He was a chemical engineer for a pulp and paper company and considered essential industry.  It seems, and especially back then well before the e-information age, you can’t have a war without paper.

[_priapism]

I do remember seeing somewhere that many soldiers in WWII didn’t like John Wayne because all he did was to portray  military men in movies , and never served. They were incensed that they were getting shot at in reality, and john Wayne was getting shot at in movies.

John Wayne: The World War II Hero Who Didn't Serve

John Wayne received a 3-A deferment from the draft for family dependency since he was a father of four...  Thirteen wartime movies later, and the flag of heroism he rose in the said Sands of Iwo Jima was still awaiting his recruitment in real-life. And this was a fact that John Ford, now a commander in the U.S. Navy, never shied away from letting the Duke know about. He would frequently berate Wayne “to get into it,” saying that he was growing rich as other men died.

My grandfather that raised me was in a similar situation, except tired of the grief he was getting for not serving in WWII, went and tried to volunteer at around age 30.  They wouldn’t take him.  It wasn’t the 3 kids (4th was born in 1946).  He was a chemical engineer for a pulp and paper company and considered essential industry.  It seems, and especially back then well before the e-information age, you can’t have a war without paper.

My grandfather was 37 when the war broke out.  He was turned down, but served on the draft board and put up billboards around town supporting the Seabees.

[MissBarbara]

Isn't it amazing how we can all sit here in KB and pick on the dead.

If the man was a product of his times...so be it, times change, dead people don't.

I can understand removing his name from the airport and removing the statue, again times change, just get it done....there's no need to write a 34 page essay about why or what or when and even more so trying to explain the 70's compared to now.

What you describe (and condemn) is what historians and historical writers do for a living.

No one here "picked on the dead." In this thread, we discussed -- quite civilly, for the most part -- a germane and relevant issue, and an historical perspective is needed to properly discuss the issue.

If someone was "a product of their time," then that's a fact. But discussing that person's errors isn't "picking on the dead," nor should "he was a product of his time" be used as a discussion ender. 

So, please don't denigrate an entire profession (one which, I hasten to add, at least one KB member chose as their profession).

[Elizabeth]

Isn't it amazing how we can all sit here in KB and pick on the dead.

If the man was a product of his times...so be it, times change, dead people don't.

I can understand removing his name from the airport and removing the statue, again times change, just get it done....there's no need to write a 34 page essay about why or what or when and even more so trying to explain the 70's compared to now.

What you describe (and condemn) is what historians and historical writers do for a living.

No one here "picked on the dead." In this thread, we discussed -- quite civilly, for the most part -- a germane and relevant issue, and an historical perspective is needed to properly discuss the issue.

If someone was "a product of their time," then that's a fact. But discussing that person's errors isn't "picking on the dead," nor should "he was a product of his time" be used as a discussion ender. 

So, please don't denigrate an entire profession (one which, I hasten to add, at least one KB member chose as their profession).

Actually I tried not to.
But to change the present because you or we don't like it doesn't change the past.
Tearing down all the civil war statues does not change the fact that the civil war happened nor that it was an ugly time in our history.
Trying to get "Tom Sawyer" removed from the library's all across the United States will not change the fact that the book was written and the words spoken as a particular time in our history. History is fixed and can not be changed, Changing the present does not change the past.
The problem isn't necessarily the past, The problem is "us" now not being able to come to terms with our past. Tearing down John Wayne's Statue and those Civil War Statues changes nothing, it simply removes reminders of our past but does nothing to change it. Just because you have removed a statue of (example) General Lee, doesn't mean he never existed or never did what he did as a solider.
Same thing with Sherman's March To The Sea, I'm sure those folks from the South wish it never happened and the burning of Atlanta is something we all want to forget, but it happened, it won't go away It's part of America.

Love,
Liz

[psiberzerker]

Okay, now what about talking to your racist neighbor about the rebel flag, he's flying along with the American one?  It doesn't change what happened in the civil war, But It's Still Fucking OFFENSIVE.

We're not asking you to forget the past.  We're saying maybe it's about time we stop GLORIFYING it.

Is that clear now?  Those deutschebags in Charlottesville had heros, and now they see themselves as role models.  

[Lois]

An interesting read from the Sacramento Bee:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article227087484.html

From John Wayne's 1971 interview:

“With a lot of blacks, there’s quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so,” John Wayne said. “But we can’t all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility.”

While this may come a point of ignorance and racism, these do not sound like the words of a white supremacist. A white supremacist would not belive blacks can be educated.

Of course in the interview he also said some rediculous stuff justifying the USA/First Nations conflict, and he objected to movies concerning homosexuals like "Midnight Cowboy" with some foul language.  And he thought McCarthyism was a great thing and took part in ruining the lives of actors suspected of being communists along with Ronald Reagan.

THe full text of John Wayne's 1971 Playboy Interview can be found here:

https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Wild_Wild_Cold_War/files/2011/11/John_Wayne_Playboy_Int2.pdf

[psiberzerker]

A white supremacist would not believe blacks can be educated.

Why not?  He just said "I believe in white supremacy."  In my book, that's supporting White Supremacists, even if he goes on to say "Until the cows come home." 

[MissBarbara]

Isn't it amazing how we can all sit here in KB and pick on the dead.

If the man was a product of his times...so be it, times change, dead people don't.

I can understand removing his name from the airport and removing the statue, again times change, just get it done....there's no need to write a 34 page essay about why or what or when and even more so trying to explain the 70's compared to now.

What you describe (and condemn) is what historians and historical writers do for a living.

No one here "picked on the dead." In this thread, we discussed -- quite civilly, for the most part -- a germane and relevant issue, and an historical perspective is needed to properly discuss the issue.

If someone was "a product of their time," then that's a fact. But discussing that person's errors isn't "picking on the dead," nor should "he was a product of his time" be used as a discussion ender. 

So, please don't denigrate an entire profession (one which, I hasten to add, at least one KB member chose as their profession).

Actually I tried not to.
But to change the present because you or we don't like it doesn't change the past.
Tearing down all the civil war statues does not change the fact that the civil war happened nor that it was an ugly time in our history.
Trying to get "Tom Sawyer" removed from the library's all across the United States will not change the fact that the book was written and the words spoken as a particular time in our history. History is fixed and can not be changed, Changing the present does not change the past.
The problem isn't necessarily the past, The problem is "us" now not being able to come to terms with our past. Tearing down John Wayne's Statue and those Civil War Statues changes nothing, it simply removes reminders of our past but does nothing to change it. Just because you have removed a statue of (example) General Lee, doesn't mean he never existed or never did what he did as a solider.
Same thing with Sherman's March To The Sea, I'm sure those folks from the South wish it never happened and the burning of Atlanta is something we all want to forget, but it happened, it won't go away It's part of America.

Love,
Liz

Here's the point you're missing: No one is trying to change the past. History isn't "fixed," but history is what happened.

Ironically, the people who are taking down Confederate statues are not trying to change the past. But the people who erected the Confederate statues are trying to change the past. They are trying to whitewash what you call "an ugly time in our history," and they are honoring the military and political leaders who launched a bloody war that killed 750,000 Americans in the name of protecting slavery and the right to own slaves. By taking down those statues, or by arguing for the removal of those statues, we are trying to undo those changes, and to clarify what actually happened. That's the point.

Again, no one in this discussion or any parallel discussion is trying to change the past. But we are trying to understand the past. That was Lois's excellent point, above. This very discussion that we're having here is enormously beneficial for that very reason: we're seeking clarity and understanding. We -- I mean, the handful of KB members having this discussion -- aren't going to change anything. Nor do we wish to. We're trying, via this discussion, to understand the past in the best way possible.

And that, to my mind, is always a very good thing.

[watcher1]

We -- I mean, the handful of KB members having this discussion -- aren't going to change anything. Nor do we wish to. We're trying, via this discussion, to understand the past in the best way possible.

And that, to my mind, is always a very good thing

Two pretty good quotes that most of us know.

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) said "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." George Santayana (1863-1952) said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[Katiebee]

Those quotes seem to indicate that too many Americans neither know the past nor would understand the implication of those quotes, vis a vis our current POTUS.

[psiberzerker]

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) said "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." George Santayana (1863-1952) said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

There's some translation in there, so the exact wording (Of Santayana) is open to interpretation.  I prefer "Those that do not Learn from History are doomed to repeat it."  Knowing History is 1 thing, but the Nazis knew the history of the Napoleonic Wars...

They still repeated the same mistake.  Studying History is kinda useless, if you don't Learn from it.  I still say that we can Remember our past, but Celebrating it, specifically Slavery, Sexism, Homophobia, and Genocides.  The Romanticized version of History, where the Cowboys were Heros, the Indians "Savages."  Men were real men, womanizing was a sign of Verility, and smoking everywhere wasn't symbolic of addiction, or lung cancer.  Drinking wasn't sad, or even commented on, we all remember the old trope of the Police Cheif with a bottle of scotch, and a couple glasses in his desk drawer.  Nobody ever really talked about the nightmare of our police going out to investigate crimes, drunk.

The good ole' days when women Swooned.  So overcome with emotion, they fainted right there on the spot until smacked back to consciousness.  That's not real history, it's a false narrative.

Wearing Blackface, as a celebration of all the white actors, portraying negros as stupid, ignorant, and comical.  We can remember that, without continuing that fucking racist tradition, right?  then why do we still have Klansmen cosplaying as Inquisitors ranting about a "Witch Hunt" and flying the American Flag with the Nazis, and the Rebel Flag?  "Don't tread on me."  I don't think they really got the true meaning of that message.

Hold onto the parts of the past that are worth celebrating, but don't celebrate the parts that we don't want to repeat, at anyone else's expense.  Recognize the passive aggressive bigot that John Wayne was, and not the charming hero he portrayed on TV.  

[_priapism]

William Faulkner famously wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."  We live and struggle with the aftermath of the Civil War, 150 years later.  I’ve been called a snowflake, liberal, and libtard, in discussion groups on racial issues.  My usual response is “my ancestors were slave owners, plantation owners, mill owners.  I have black cousins who are the ancestors of slaves my great grandfather raped, whereas you are the descendant of white trash sharecroppers who needed blacks to feel like less than the piece of shit they were, or are.”

Race ultimately comes back to a caste system that we created in first 250 years of the “land of the free,” and perpetuated another 150 with Jim Crow, disenfranchisement, intimidation, and bigotry.  I’ve used the “n word.”  Not frequently, but on more than one occasion in 60 years.  So we are fighting as a society, and on an individual level, to turn the tiller on our direction as a society.  I’m cautiously optimistic.  But there are an awful lot of DJT’s who see nothing wrong with racism, and social media has given them a way to network that never existed before.

[psiberzerker]

William Faulkner famously wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

...And Santayana wrote "Only the dead have seen an end of war."

I have nothing else to add, I agree with pretty much everything else you have to say (Except for possibly the ancestry of the strawman, because I have no idea who you're talking to, in that quote.  I can neither agree, nor argue with that.)