Skip Nav
Wedding
The Story Behind This Couple's Heart-Stopping Photo Will Leave You in Tears
Amazon
The 12 Best Sex Toys Found on Amazon
Sex
32 Sexy GIFs From Tumblr That Will Fog Up Your Screen

Time Cover Showing Iwo Jima

Do You Think This Time Cover Disrespects Veterans?

Controversy is raging over the image on this week's cover of Time magazine. It shows that famous picture of soldiers raising the flag over Iwo Jima, but in the place of the flag, is a tree. Earth Day is this week, but co-opting this famous image in the name of ecology has made some veterans livid.

"I am a Marine, 82 years old that landed on Iwo Jima Feb. 19, 1945. This crap you have on your magazine – you can put it where the sun does not shine."

Another Marine, the man who led the platoon that actually raised the flag on Iwo Jima addresses the crux of the cover saying, "global warming is the biggest joke I've ever known."

Forced to address the backlash, the associate director of public relations for Time certainly sees it differently:

TIME has the utmost respect for our nation’s veterans and we well understand the power of the iconic image of the raising of the flag over Iwo Jima. We believe this is a respectful use of this symbol of American valor and courage and serves to highlight another great challenge facing our nation.

I asked my grandfather, whom I consider my go-to expert for all matters of the military and patriotism and he said, "It's not that they were disrespectful of the image or the event, it's that those men didn't get a say whether they wanted their likenesses from that moment in time, used for another purpose other than its original meaning."

What do you think? Is the cover just a creative way to take an iconic struggle and assign it modern meaning? Or is Time way out of line?

Join The Conversation
yesteryear yesteryear 9 years
hartsfull: i think potc totally understands and his/her comment sums it up nicely. and the comments thus far have not given one sound reason this is offensive - at least one that's not based on an emotional response to the image rather than a critical look at the message. if it was the cover of cosmo and the soldiers were pulling up a gigantic dildo and the headline was "give yourself more orgasms" i could see how this would be offensive... but it's not. it's a tribute more than anything else.
hartsfull hartsfull 9 years
Potc, If you really don't understand, please go back to the first comment and read from there. Very good points have been made.
potc-crazyy potc-crazyy 9 years
All right. I honestly can't see how it's offensive. Maybe it was a bit rude of time to not notify them that the photo was going to be used--- but it IS public domain. But really--- I see the message of this photo as, "We can defeat our climate crisis just like our victory in WWII". What's so wrong about that? I don't see why a veteran would be offended, unless they don't believe in global warming. This is showing the soldiers in a good light, saying "They helped 'save the world.' We need to do it again." ... right? MissyCat... how is it offensive? I'm just really curious--- honestly!
yesteryear yesteryear 9 years
i really wish i hadn't been in meetings all day and had been able to point out the many flaws in the arguments against the "concept" that humans created global warming. thank god hypnoticmix was around to be brilliant. seriously. if you want to bury your head in the sand and continue believing that as long as we aren't wholly to blame we shouldn't waste any money devising a plan to reverse the damage that's already been done, then go ahead. but it's nothing compared to what we're spending on the war - so while you're arguing against research that could possibly save the entire planet, i hope you're also fighting against the trillions of dollars we're spending to run a country called iraq into the ground.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
Harmony: Hmmm..."work"...what is this concept of which you speak? (Me, too!)
harmonyfrance harmonyfrance 9 years
:ROTFL: hypno AND thanks everyone who congratulated me on going gold. I got pulled away. I had to "work"
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Yes I watched that brilliant show. I was blown away at how many cell phones get tossed in the U.K. in one month alone. Imagine the number in the U.S.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
hypnotic: Very nice logic in 109, I bow to you. And while I love to pester people by throwing curve balls, this was not one of those instances. However, as mere humans, our idea of how to best survive is very limited in scope compared to big climatic cycles and the lifespan of the earth. Everything alive impacts the environment. Our best approach can only be to do so in as balanced and careful a manner as possible. There was a great show on BBC-America a few weeks ago called "Dumped". They took a busload of volunteers (without telling them the destination) and dropped them off at a landfill. They had to survive using stuff they salvaged (except for things like food, of course). Did anyone else see it? Very enlightening!
MissyCat MissyCat 9 years
As a military veteran, I find it insulting. Period.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
wackdoodle: There *is* opposition. Here are three instances I found without looking too hard. I chose them because they are very different kinds of sources, but not just opinion blogs. From the CATO Institute. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Here's one item, citing specific instances. It's not a formal news outlet, but cites sources, and is objective and factual. www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm This one looked interesting, I have heard similar comments but want to read this article more thoroughly. "Global Warming as Religion and not Science" www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm Professor John Brignell (Professor Emeritus (ESD)) "He...dedicates a considerable amount of his time to editing a web site called Number Watch at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ which deals with wrong numbers in the media and politics...."
hartsfull hartsfull 9 years
I am way behind in comments guys. Bear with me, pleeeeeaase!
hartsfull hartsfull 9 years
Wackdoodle, That's incorrect. He took several pictures. The one where they are putting up the flag, he thought didn't take. I can't remember why. Anyway, they then did a "posed" picture but the flag was already up. When the editor (I think it was the editor) asked him if he had them pose for that, he thought he was asking about the posed picture. He said, "yes". He didn't know that the one where they were putting up the flag actually came out.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Once in a blue moon my dear...once in a blue moon.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Nice curve ball Lainetm, but living green isn't interfering with the natural process it's interfering with our unnatural man made process of doing things. To answer your question directly if a natural process truly posed a threat to society on a continental or global level the instinct to survive (which is natural) would be appropriate and I am sure that in our diligence to save our very existence we won't destroy the world completely knowing that yes we do still have to live on it.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
There is enough opposition to "conventional" global warming theories to make them fairly easy to find with a quick google search. I did find one interesting article, though. It's old--from 2000--but has more concrete data than I often find. Besides, this is (or so they say) an old issue, anyway, so that shouldn't matter much. www.oism.org/news/s49p1083.htm Just for the record, I'm not a gross consumer, we try to be sensible, recycle, etc. It's good to be environmentally conscious. However, these folks with quick, short-term solutions to *perceived* problems, who don't take the time to study and analyze, only make things worse. I'm always for making changes carefully and thoughtfully, just as a good work habit.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
haha syako we should make a documentary consisting entirely of emoticons.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
hypno i didn't know you liked to be on the receiving end ;)
wackdoodle wackdoodle 9 years
The photo is property of the US government and the US people and is public domain. And there is no question in the science community that Global Climate Change is in effect and speeding up do to humans. What is in dispute is how to go about slowing it or whether its possible to stop it and reverse it within the next 50 to 100 years before it becomes irreversible.
syako syako 9 years
I judge a little too cab ;)
syako syako 9 years
let's make a pirate documentary using only computer generated images :yaar:
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
cabaker27, I personally would have used real footage myself because I would want to cross my t's and dot my i's in a preemptive response to any counter attack such as (they used computer generated footage in some seines). As far as I'm concerned though this instance which you point out is special effects people run amuck and had their way with some editing. But like I said makes not difference to me on the receiving end of the information.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
Besides, wouldn't a *real* environmentalist support allowing the planet's natural cycles to continue undisturbed? Good point Lain. I never thought of it like that.
wackdoodle wackdoodle 9 years
Nope not disrespectful at all. It's re-imagining a piece of art/propaganda to make a point. There's nothing disrespectful about it in the least. Especially when you know the history of how that photograph was staged and how the military used it as propaganda even way back in the 40s. For-pete-sake the soldiers didn't know their photo was being taken until the photographer asked them to repeat the freaking spontaneous raising of the flag that they had just done because he missed the first shot. Those soldiers had already raised the flag and were leaving when the photographer asked them to take it down and do it over a again. Saddest thing about the original photo is if I remember correct from the History Channel show about it, is that only one soldier made it back to the US alive. All the other guys even the men who were cropped out of the photo were killed shortly after the photo was taken.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
A couple of small but not minor points: (1) Does anyone know if they got the original artist's permission to use his work in their cover? (2) Has anyone else noticed that the more information there is questioning the global warming folks, the more strident their claims become? raciccarone: cabaker covered in comment 62 pretty much what I would have said. The science is nowhere near proven, and claims that humans have caused a significant part of the vague and indefinite problem are not established. Besides, wouldn't a *real* environmentalist support allowing the planet's natural cycles to continue undisturbed? What if this is just another of those natural cycles? Shouldn't they be *opposed* to tampering with it? (Even at the expense of those cute, cuddly polar bears?)
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
haha! I know, watches are INSANE. My husband is addicted to them, we have to stop in every luxury store to look at them... I thought he died and went to heaven when we were in Vienna and its just luxury store after another. Luckily he is smart enough to know that we can't afford any of it, so he has to keep dreamin!! That being said, I always notice a man's watch now... and I tend to judge a lil... I'm so bad...
How to Remove Sweat Stains
How to Travel Without Hurting the Environment
Who Will Nick Viall Pick on The Bachelor? Poll
How to Clean Your Stainless Steel Sink
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds