-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

OK, a few points here, and then we should really leave this thread
behind:

a.) like it or not, the Iwo Daemon image _was_ explicitly modeled after
    the famous statue of the flag raising on Suribachi, and brings that
    to mind quite intentionally.  To not see the similarity involves
    either willfull misunderstanding to make a point or a sort of
    cultural ignorance which is unfortunately more and more common.

    The feverish pitch of the rest of your post suggests the former.

b.) `offensive' or `not offensive' is a red herring.  The question is
    one of propriety.  You are quite right that if an image is a good
    one for the purpose, that it might offend some people is not of
    itself a reason not to use it.  Missing, though, is a realization
    that an image might be proper or improper _of its own merit_.  The
    current image trivializes the heroic (and often mortal) struggles
    of the USMC in the Pacific by suggesting that we consider our
    project of equal gravitas.  IMO, that makes it in poor taste
    regardless of who may be offended by it or not.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Richard Rauch wrote:

>> > No, I was not; you're quite right there.  But, it has a very strong,
>> > pervasive meaning presently.  See my other comment.
>>
>> Fine, that it does. So is it a matter of degree with you? Somehow I think
>> that the Iwo Jima thingy would be just as offensive to people whose direct
>
>Just as offensive as what?  I'm sorry, but I'm unoffended by any of these
>images, as I hope is everyone else.
>
>
>> relatives fought there--so is it a difference of thousands of offended
>> people versus a handful to you?
>
>I'm thinking more about threshholds, here.
>
>But, as long as you raise the issue of the number of people, you're going
>to have a very hard time finding even a *logo* that has *any* value yet
>which does not offend *someone*.
>
>
> [...]
>> > > where I'm headed with this right?--Thus while you appeared gravely
>> > > offended by the
>> >
>> > I can't remember the last time that I was gravely offended.  Sorry.  You
>> > are over-interpreting responses, here.  I don't actually take symbols to
>> > be anything more than a compact way to express things, based on
>> > representation and shared culture.
>>
>> Fine then: You weren't offended and I'll leave my "assumptions" to myself.
>> The point is you specifically said I was going overboard, and I'm
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Where?  Or do you mean over-interpreting people?  You clearly
>over-interpreeted me as being offended when that was about as far from the
>case as is possible.
>
>
>> explaining to you that I was trying to make a point which you validated by
>> telling me I was going overboard. Or over the top. Or whatever it was you
>> said.
>
>Is your point, then, that you are over-interpreting people's non-offended
>responses as being offended?  Surely that's not what you were trying to
>say.  But, I honestly don't see any other point to what you were saying.
>
>I suggest a direct approach in writing.
>
>
>> > ``Doesn't really care'' doesn't live in the same house as ``offended''.
>> > Sorry.  If he doesn't care, then move on to the next contestant.  Maybe
>> > you can find someone who's offended, if you look hard enough.  If that'
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [...]
>> I did say "mildly annoyed". I was trying to suggest that it didn't matter
>
>Exactly.  The best that you have turned up is someone who is mildly
>annoyed but who doesn't really care.  That says about all that we need to
>know about that.
>
>
>> > It would be neat to have a proper logo, yes.  It's harder to commnicate
>> > as much in a logo, though.  So we probably could stand to have two images
>> > (hopefully immediately related), one of which is relatively rich in
>> > interpretation, and the other suitable for use as a logo.
>>
>> *shrug* No argument here. I don't think the Iwo Jima one is particularly
>
>Careful, we don't have the Iwo Jima photo up there.
>
>When other countries emulated the Uncle Sam ``I Want You'' posters, for
>their own propoganda, were they endorsing the US armed services?  Were
>they using ``Uncle Sam'' posters?  No, they were using a successful image
>composition for their own ends.  That's all that I see going on here.
>The original image *was* a propoganda; there are reasons why it worked
>well.  There's nothing wrong with using the good ingredients to make an
>effective image for an unrelated cause, anymore than another country
>making an ``I want you'' knock-off is promoting the US armed forces.
>
>
>> good as the more elaborate option, but I freely admit that I personally
>> have no problem with it with regards to only myself. Just like I wouldn't
>> have any problem with the symbol of a burning white house. Which my
>> ancestors cheerfully ignited.
>
>I should hope you wouldn't.  Symbols should never cause people problems.
>
>
> [...]
>> Err..  the inspiration is obvious. Don't try to sever the conceptual link
>> with false analogy. You're grasping for straws here.
> [...]
>
>If you like.  I don't see it that way, but clearly this isn't getting
>anywhere, since your response amounts to a dismissal rather than analysis.
>
>
> [...]
>> I'll thank you to let me keep my friend's anonymity in the meanwhile if
> [...]
>
>Your welcome.  Both times.  You needn't thank me a third time.
>
>
>> So don't tell me I'm exporting my interpretation onto my Japanese friend.
>> You're insulting him by insinuating he is unable to make up his own mind
>> in the face of my (wildly inaccurate, apparently,) words.
>
>No.  I was insinuating that you were forming an idea in your mind and
>imagining how other people might plausibly react.  That is what is meant
>when one speaks of projecting one's own ideas onto others.
>
>As far as the idea of forming an opinion in a vacuum, people don't work
>that way.  I believe that the context was under the assumption that the
>image had no established meaning outside of the U.S.  How could someone
>see a placeless, nameless drawing of a handful of fictional characters
>planting a flag and immediately gain interpretations of WWII, if they
>weren't familiar with the photo?  Only if someone told them.
>
>That was the context.  There was no insult intended, and I don't think
>that there was any actually given, even unintentionally.  If, however, I
>mis-spoke and your friend feels that I insulted him, then I offer my
>apologies.
>
>
>> > A better analogy would be to ask about an image that showed a group of
>> > people apparently returning from some taksk to receive honors and
>> > congratulations from friends.  And it may be explained to me that the
>> > image has similar composition to a famous one in Japan representing the
>> > return of the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor.
>>
>> You're stretching it here. That image is generic enough that it could be
>
>No, the analogy is almost exact, here, while your analogy was completely
>off.  If you don't agree to that, we cannot begin to make a comparison.
>(Though, to answer your previous question: No, I woudln't be offended.
>Though your question really is not at all related to the present
>situation.  Neither the NetBSD web site, nor the original photo, says
>anything about anyone sucking rutabegas, nor is any even remotely similar
>message contained therein.)
>
>I deleted most of your other off-hand dismissals, but I'll elaborate a
>little here:
>
>
>Planting a flag is also pretty generic. It could be *anywhere*, with *any*
>people, and *any* flag.  It's only if you know about the Iwo Jima photo
>and it's particular composition that you can make this association.
>
>The implicit assumption in my analogy is that the composition of the
>hypothetical ``returning heroes'' picture would be similarly distinctive
>and immediately recognizable.
>
>Suppose that there existed an almost exactly analogous photo and derived
>image pair.  Is there *any* reason for a US citizen to feel offended at
>the use of the derived image?  I can't see any.
>
>It's not a straw man.  It *almost*exactly* captures the whole matter, with
>the nationality reversed.  If you feel that there is a flaw, somewhere,
>please put your finger on it rather than dismissing it, if you wish me to
>take seriously your further comments on this subject.  (To my mind, the
>only flaw is that if there *any* basis for offense, then the reversed
>scenario of my analogy would cause more offense.)
>
>
>> anything. Like I said, I'm not the one who came up with this (according to
>> you) wildly inaccurate interpretation of an image that was used to rally
>
>When did I ever say that the original photo wasn't used for propoganda?
>Of course it was.  Please don't attribute words or beliefs to others that
>they do not espouse.
>
>
>> > Then we could ask: Would I be offended by such a derived image?  I would
>> > not find that offensive in the least.  I would only be concerned with
>> > what the actual image conveyed, not the context in which the image's
>> > ``ancestor'' was originally created.
>>
>> You can't divorce the interpretation from what its creators and promotors
>> so long ago intended the inspiration image to mean. And you're building a
>> big straw house here.
>
>No, I built an analogy.  If it looks silly to be offended at the
>hypothetical analogous derived image, then you should take the same
>critical attitude and apply it to the thesis that the current web image is
>offensive.
>
>
>> > > If I wanted friendliness I'd be running something other than NetBSD.
>> >
>> > What, pray?  Mac's and MS-WINDOWS are insulting to the user, not
> [...]
>> Mac OS X is really, really cool. The GUI-building, FREE development suite
>
>(shrug)
>
>Okay, I haven't really paid enough attention to OS X.  I'll leave that
>point open.  Maybe if I find myself with a few thousand dollars that I
>can't use, I'll buy a Mac.  I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.
>(^&
>
>
>> > What you say that you want in a system is *exactly* what I'd call a
>> > friendly system: It's obediant.  It doesn't tie your hands and do what it
>> > thinks is really in your best interest.  You can trust it because it's
>> > not running its own agenda.
>>
>> But Mac's are so .. cool! And my friends aren't very obedient. :) I'd be a
>
>Being a friend != being friendly.
>
>Perhaps it was a ill choice of words, though.  In any case, the daemon
>looks cooperative and helpful.  The creature looks like something I'd
>rather avoid having in my apartment---especially while I'm sleeping.
>
>
>> little scared if they were--there's some nasty ulterior motives going on
>> if they get me a beer when I order them to. :)
>
>I think that the creature would just burp at you and maybe throw
>something, if it couldn't be bothered to come over and maul you.  (^&
>
>
> [...]
>> Okay, so the image isn't for everyone. That's why I've only half-heartedly
>> suggested it. I was quite explicit when describing how *I* feel towards it
>
>Maybe if you seriously suggested a alternative, that would be more
>effective?
>
>
>> though. :) I freely admit that fundamentalist Christians would probably
>> not like such an image. However, since so much of what a fundamentalist
>> Christian believes in is unreasonable, I really don't think having such
>
>Well, if you're a/the webmaster for www.NetBSD.org, you can decide
>whatever you like about the content on the site, of course.  And if it
>offends you (or your friends), you can certainly make changes based on
>that.  But, aside from that, who are *you* to decide who is reasonable?
>(^&
>
>
>> > Christians seem to come in all shapes and flavors.  Just today, in fact
>> > (when I was explaining this email exchange to a fellow grad student) I
>> > was told a story about a woman who had a shirt with the BSD daemon on it.
> [...]
>> See now that's just funny. =]
>
>I tend to agree.  But the point is: People take real offense to the daemon
>image.  This seems to be much stronger than what you report your friend
>feels.
>
>
>  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu
>

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8kWPON71lEcOYcw4RAjbmAJ9uvrn1v+zG95rak7IyXuQuEV6IfACgu40p
6PWLHLlOAhF1sMOI5etXh3Q=
=XG8f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----