Statue of WW2 kiss vandalised after US sailor's death - Sensationalist Headlines

Unconditional Surrender (sculpture) Turns out this dude built a handful of them around the world. Starting in 2005. Coincidentally the same year the woman first mentioned how she felt about it. I guess before 2005 or 1980 no one had a reason to believe they were strangers?

Yeah then there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't just take them down or move them to an area which provides necessary context if they're that recent. Hell, it'd be like someone glorifying the KKK and setting up public statues about how 'the south will rise again due to the war of northern aggression' some five years ago. It wasn't that the artist lacked the necessary historical context; they either ignored it or are dodging it to lionize sexual assault.

Things sucked back then, too, they just sucked without indoor plumbing.

The Giambologna statue isn't ancient. That being said, it is a little weird ridiculous to compare the value of a statue made in 2005 to one made in c. 1500 in Renaissance Florence. Also, the Giambologna statue depicts the Rape of the Sabine Women, a historical atrocity, and by no means honors the rapes/rapists. Also, the aforementioned incident, the Rape of the Sabine Women, may not have even been a mass raping. Many scholars believe the term "rape" was misused to present a mass abduction, not mass sexual assault.

Just because it was "a different time" doesn't mean things were simply 'okay to do'. In a place an time where it was normal and widely accepted to keep slaves, people still suffered from it and fought against it. Where it was normal and widely accepted that women had less legal rights and were considered subordinates, people still suffered from it and fought against it. Not everyone was a fan of witch hunts, constant warfare, ritual human sacrifice and whatnot All these things have ended because sensible people arduously opposed them and slowly convinced most others. Society didn't just suddenly wake up and realise the thing they're doing is bad.

Rape comes from the Latin word Raptus which means Taken. The actual story is that after Rome was founded there were no women because Romulus invited all criminals to become citizens of the city, so they decided to steal some women from another town It's not rape as we mean it today

classic romulus

We shouldn't be seeking a middle ground on matters like consent violations. The statue should have never been made in the first place. The photo should have never been circulated in the first place. If this information was as prevalent as the photo itself when it was taken, it never would have been. The argument is basically "we've ignored the context all these years, so may as well just leave it be." Realize our "oh shit" instead of arbitrarily grandfathering it in.

Huh. Never actually realized the two were strangers. Kind of puts the photo in a different light now. I always thought that posture looked so uncomfortable though.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/239718/574ba46d-ded9-4c22-b0c8-54321404ea54/image.png

Without knowing the context behind this kiss, I always assumed it was a couple. It seemed triumphant and romantic and a cool way to symbolize the feelings at the end of WW2. But if it's coming from a place of inappropriate behavior I think it may be better to part ways with it. There are much better ways to memorialize the end of WW2, a war that both men and women deserve equal respects.

Even if they weren't the idea of people practically high on the feeling that one of the darkest most horrible periods of human history is now over and so overjoyed to be finally coming home after the war that outdid "the war to end all wars" and being so happy you could (and did) kiss someone is a rather romantic mental picture. Not knowing the full context behind it made it the perfect symbol of the end of the war, in retrospect it paints a much different picture. I propose that a second statue, or some kind of plaque be put up with an artists representation of the bloke getting a slap just after the kiss, with a little quote to the tune of "It's great we won and all but don't do something stupid." I'm still kinda bummed that the photographer never got a shot of said slap, woulda been the most perfect pair of images for centuries to come.

I'm beginning to think Resonant just has a fetish for getting banned, considering he got off a month-long ban not even a week ago.

I dunno, on one hand I see the argument here on how it is an immoral piece of art. But I disagree on the concept that it should be struck from history or moved off to the side. It is an iconic piece of history. We don't strike out George Washington for owning slaves (123 from a quick google) from our textbooks and demonize him in the news. We should simply understand the context around it, and move on. Its history from 60 years ago at this point. If anything all it is, is old drama that shouldn't even be stirred in the first place. I get that people are upset by it, but I don't see the good in acting like it is some heinous crime for this statue to exist. Its what I'm getting from a lot of people here at least. Jesus fuck though Resonant. What are you doing?

A statue from 2005 is not really an iconic piece of history. The photograph might be iconic, but that doesn't mean context shouldn't be included. Just like how you don't censor the fact that George Washington had slaves.

Didn't they both patch things up years later and put the controversy at rest? Why bring this up again? Don't bring the "metoo" movement when a vet just died! NEW YORK STORIES I like how they decided to vandalize the statue when both parties are already dead because they don't have the balls to see the full context of the soldiers coming back from home. So disrespectful.

Yeah but is it really part of history tho? I mean, where are all the statues of his slavery?? /s

I should have phrased myself better. I meant it as in it symbolized an iconic moment in History. To explain it a bit further, A statue or monument is usually erected in celebration of 'some' concept that a culture celebrated. I don't know when these were made exactly, and a year is slightly vague. If these were erected on a holiday relating to the celebration of patriotism in the U.S. I see no problem. Americans like Patriotism, and celebrating our victories in the past seems to be the big way we want to do things. You get to the point where we're arguing what was right and wrong historically. We can't really speak upon how things should have been. They were what they were which is the unfortunate truth of the world. In this situation we have a statue that im assuming was erected to celebrate american patriotism. We can't speak on the intention of the statue builder since we don't have that information. So we have someone who built these statues to idolize the mood from the time period. We can't confirm the intention, this is my speculation. I still fail to see the logic here in why these statues are even a bad thing in the first place.

there's no subtext to misinterpret here

What concept is this statue celebrating? Victory in Japan? Why celebrate victory in Japan with a statue of an American sailor assaulting an American woman? In 2005? What a ridiculous sentiment. Would you celebrate American nationhood with a statue commemorating the trail of tears? It was acceptable at the time, after all? We can't really speak upon how things should have been, you know, so let's build a statue of it, today, with all we now know. You don't see the problem? No, I'm not saying those events are equivalent at all, by the way.

I'm thinking it's more likely that her interview in which she's talking about it having been non-consensual after all this time might have been brought on by the statue being made, rather than the other way around. The sources cited on Wikipedia go to articles from 2016 though, so I can't find the 2005 dates..

It's like the single most recognizable photo of the end of WW2.

Regardless of context, it truly does symbolize the end of a terrible war. One so terrible that, once over, a man would be driven to clutch the nearest woman and just kiss her. In a different context, it could symbolize what problems deserve our attention post-war. It could represent the idea that, though the war was over, and we had solved the problem in the East, we still have a lot of cultural issues that require attention, too (For instance, the unintentional glorification of sexual assault!). Maybe, instead of treating it as a piece of hot-garbage because it puts sexual assault on full display, we should use it as a symbol of the progress we have made in 74 years, and how we've completely reshaped our cultural landscape as a result.

It's just early BSDM, nothing to worry about.

BDSM is an active-consent sort of thing. Non-consensual 'BDSM' is just abuse. If there's no consent, it's not a kink/fetish thing - it's an abuse thing.

I knew they didn't know each other but didn't realise it might have been straight-up assault, thought it more like a mutual spontaneous thing like a New Years kiss or w/ever. An amazingly symbolic picture either way but definitely a little more to it than just 'a sailor and his dame celebrate victory!'

Regardless of the historical context of the statue or what it may represent today, it's still pretty shitty to do this just days after the guy died. Sure, that's one way to get more recognition for your message, but it's also a great way to get yourself labeled a bit of a massive cunt. I don't entirely disagree with their point and it's a good one to bring up, but man, fuck them.

fuck that stupid ass statue.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. If you equate this to sexual assault on a heinous level https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1f/38/82/1f38825398d1e8ab3c8f2cb0a7e83955.jpg I would suggest you need your head checked. Im going to restate this in the most laymans terms possible. If someone wants to create something like the statue rendered above, there is no law stating anyone cannot. Whomever decided to make them, regardless of the year, likely paid money, filed the paperwork, and so on. Its there now. Its not explicitly stating 'WATCH THIS SAILOR CLUTCH THAT WENCH' or anything of the sort. You can be upset by it, but I highly doubt the intent was to marginalize the female population. Is Austin Powers now a sexual deviant who is a predator to women? I could give a damn when it was made personally. But evidently someone wanted it made. To be honest, it looks quite nice. Also did you ignore an entire section of my post? My honest opinion? This vandalism is getting upset over nothing. There is no explicit confirmation that the context around the photographs is some heinous crime apart from the woman being uncomfortable. Today we know to speak up when we're uncomfortable. In the 1950s women did not because of the culture at the time. Since we realize this today. We can say it is awful all we want, but that does not give anyone the authority to say what is, or what wasn't wrong at the time. It marginalizes the actual intensity of the struggles people went through. I generalized a bit here, but I assume most people would know the difference between crimes against humanity ending in death. And a fucking statue thats been of no issue for the past 14 years. You can argue over the photo all you want but odds are it's still going to be considered a part of history, likely used in a lot of media too. Im not going to argue against this point much further, its not worth the trouble to get upset over.

In my opinion the vandalism can be seen as transformative art in a way. It transforms the message of the original piece and has started conversations about a not-well-known context to a historic moment. This grafitti is a reflection of that historic event with a modern lens, reframing the original piece to portray new meaning and provide the audience with a new way to interpret the piece. I appreciate VenomousBeetle's post proving more background on the original artist's intentions and knowledge of the incident. Ultimately I think this context helps add nuance to the topic to avoid seeing it as back or white. The original artist's intentions to emphasize peace and love following one of humanities worst atrocities, contrasted with the actual event's uncomfortable lack of consent, reflected on with a modern lens via the grafitti of #metoo, overall is a thought provoking experience that has a variety of themes and issues that provide the audience with a conflict. I'd like to see what the sculptor thinks of this, and see what the vandal thinks about the piece. Was their intent to transform the art, or simply to damage it?