E
- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I suppose there is some deep psychological reason why the odors of combat have stayed with me so long, but just seeing them there brings back that smell.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Because I was having trouble finding the information. On which issue was it the cover? I haven’t been able to find it in these lists of Life covers, despite the listing of the topic in the Sept 20, 1943 issue. The cover for that issue is listed as Cambridge Don Charles Seltman
2neatmagazines.com/life/1943cover.html
2neatmagazines.com/life/1944cover.html
2neatmagazines.com/life/1945cover.html
2neatmagazines.com/life/1946cover.html
2neatmagazines.com/life/1947cover.html
2neatmagazines.com/life/1948cover.html
2neatmagazines.com/life/1949cover.html
E
estesbob
Guest
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
What does it say?
You aren’t even making sense.
First of all, I have not applied PDE. So how can I be using it to ‘get off on a technicality’?
Secondly, if you really had read the link, you would realize that PDE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING THINGS OFF ON A TECHNICALITY.’
I do not believe you have any intention of discussing this. You are making wildly off-target attacks with no relation at all to what I have posted, no sense of logic, no reference to PDE, no reference to the topic of the thread.
Somehow you seem to think that that is an opinion.
The normal thing to do is to refer to an aspect of PDE and say WHY you don’t like it. But in any case you have built a strawman against PDE by claiming that its purpose is to ‘get things off on a technicality.’ On what basis you invented that is beyond me.
There’s nothing to disagree with. You haven’t said anything that is in the least way connected to PDE or to the topic of this thread.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My memory of the cover may be faulty – I was very young at the time. But what difference does it make?
K
KarenNC
Guest
True, it often becomes more difficult over time to remember the precise circumstances under which one may have seen certain images, while the impact of the image remains.
I asked because I wanted to see if “the image that inspired outrage in that war” was able to do so without being on the cover of the magazine and therefore in the face of anyone who walked by a newsstand, a magazine rack in a public library, a coffeetable somewhere. Looks like it did.
Life magazine also seems to have been able to show the horrors of the concentration camp in photographs in the May 7, 1945 issue without putting those photographs on the front cover.
uiowa.edu/policult/politicalphotos/holocaust2.html
“Bourke-White said, “I saw and photographed the piles of naked, lifeless bodies, the human skeletons in furnaces, the living skeletons who would die the next day… and tattoed skin for lampshades. Using the camera was almost a relief. It interposed a slight barrier between myself and the horror in front of me.” LIFE published in their May 7, 1945 issue many photographs of these atrocities, saying, "Dead men will have indeed died in vain if live men refuse to look at them.”
The book, The 1940s by Robert Sickles said “Appropriately enough, the culmination of wartime photojournalism was the shocking series of photographs of the German concentration camps and other wartime horrors (including still-smoldering political prisoners that had been burned alive by retreating German soldiers) taken by Margaret Bourke-White, George Rodger, Johnny Florea, and William Vandivert, which were published as “Atrocities” in a six-page spread in the May 7, 1945 issue of Life. For the public, these photos served as something of an explanation of and justification for American involvement in World War II.” (p. 234)
books.google.com/books?id=G4IkgU7jpLwC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=editorial+life+dead+on+the+beach+buna&source=web&ots=O9ap3kPevr&sig=N-PdYaW8C9IXnpT0uneNyMolcy8
The image on the front cover of that issue is of 3 living men, one with his hand bandaged. Not a pile of bodies.
2neatmagazines.com/life/1945cover.html
These photographs that shaped the nation’s response to the atrocities of war were not ones that were displayed where any child walking by would automatically see them. They still were able to reach their intended audience and make a lasting impact on the public about the extent and reality of the atrocities, as well as spur public outrage on behalf of the victims.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What difference does it make? Everyone saw it – even people who had never bought a copy of Life Magazine before.
It was repulished in Life’s Picture History of WWII, with a lot more ghastly pictures. Examples of those include Japanese rigosenti, lying in bunks at Tarawa, toes through the trigger guards of their rifles and their brains splattered over the wall behind them.
A perfect rationaile for the use of pictures of aborted babies – they will ahve died in vain if people refuse to look at them.
Back to the old argument, eh?
What you should do is concentrate in how you will tell your children about the horrors they will face in life, not how you will hide all it from them.
K
KarenNC
Guest
It makes a difference in the way that the information was presented.
Were these images on the cover?
And a good example for an appropriate way in which to present them.
It’s the only one I, at least, have been having on this thread.
B
boppaid
Guest
From your link:
IMO, you are looking to the PDE to morally excuse people from showing graphic pictures where children can see them. Thus, my comparison to people trying to use a technicality to allow them to push the limit. (“How late can I be for mass so that it still counts till my obligation?”, etc.)
“wildly off-target attacks”?? Are you kidding me? You consider this an attack?
*** I think you’re getting a little defensive.
I actually don’t like the way it’s being used in this thread.
I’m sorry you got offended by my observations. It just made me chuckle.
Then you aren’t disagreeing with me?
And how is discussing opposition to bloody abortion pics not connected to the topic of this thread?
E
estesbob
Guest
Most people who object to these pictures object not so much because they think they will harm their children rather it’s because they dont want to have to explain to their children why they support with the pictures depict.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
I think this statement is indicative of why I this thread has become so foul. It implies that most who take issue with the indiscriminate use of the images are pro-abortion (I think you’d have a hard time on CAF finding many pro-abortion posters).
It’s just sad to me that I can march next to a fellow pro-lifer and they think I support abortion because I won’t carry the same sign they carry.
You fight the fight your way, I’ll do it mine.
R
RPConover
Guest
How about when I go out to lunch and have to drive by a group of protesters with huge pictures of aborted fetuses, and then have to try to eat my lunch with that nauseating image in my mind. I’m pro-life, why ruin my lunch??? It has happened and it ticked me off pretty bad.
E
estesbob
Guest
Are you not aware that many that opposes these images are pro-abortion? As far each of us fighting the way we want to that’s fine-however if you read this thread you will see that most of those who opposes images want to censor their use in some manner.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Bob, I have been reading the entire thread. I do realize that many who oppose of these graphic photos are pro-choice. I just don’t think those pro-choicers are on this thread.
I believe a majority here (myself included) believe there is definitely a place for these photos. Just because I don’t think a billboard is the best place does not make me pro-choice.
I have seen posts linking Bishops who oppose the indiscriminate use of the photos. I don’t think that makes the Bishop pro-choice.
Fact is that, right now, there is no law stopping the use of the photos. So there non use is a moot point. A fear I have is that there could be a law passed stopping their use all together if enough pro-choicers can convince those on the fence to their side. Sometimes the best weapon you have is the one you use where it is most effective. In the case of these photos, I think outside the clinic is by far the most effective.
I’d hate to see their use totally banned. That can happen if someone keeps parking the truck with the photos in front of an elementary school. P***off enough on the fence moms and watch out.
Shooting at an anthill with a machine gun is overkill if you get my meaning.
Believe me, we are on the same side.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, it doesn’t
It made no difference at all – everyone in America saw that picture – including children like myself.
B
boppaid
Guest
Many? In this discussion? No, I was not aware. If that is what you’re saying, could you name 3 or 4?
B
boppaid
Guest
I asked my dad if he saw it, he said no. I asked my husband’s uncle…he couldn’t remember, but didn’t think so. Are you sure you aren’t exaggering? (I’m just asking. Obviously, it was before my time, so I wasn’t there to determine one way or another.)
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My standard answer to those who cite relatives to back up a claim – ask them to come on this thread and post their own answers.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Something objective to back that up?
- Status