Full Version: Queen and Country
This normally would have been a heart-warming story of an artist honoring the fallen soldiers of war. But, it seems that Britain is a lot like the US in that they’d rather not have a visible reminder of those who died.
Steve McQueen (his real name!), a British artist, wanted to commemorate each killed Iraq soldier with a portrait on a postage stamp, but met government resistance in getting photos of the soldiers. He eventually contacted each family on his own, and created his exhibit “For Queen and Country” with the photos he received. The exhibit has been met with positive response.
However, the government is reluctant to issue the stamps officially, saying that it could take years. McQueen pointed out that Britain’s cricket champions got stamps issued in weeks. His end statement was this:
Is the exhibit appropriate?
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
Steve McQueen (his real name!), a British artist, wanted to commemorate each killed Iraq soldier with a portrait on a postage stamp, but met government resistance in getting photos of the soldiers. He eventually contacted each family on his own, and created his exhibit “For Queen and Country” with the photos he received. The exhibit has been met with positive response.
However, the government is reluctant to issue the stamps officially, saying that it could take years. McQueen pointed out that Britain’s cricket champions got stamps issued in weeks. His end statement was this:
QUOTE
"If you cannot honor them correctly, do not send them to war," he said. "End of story. Simple as that. If you don't want to recognize them, if you want to switch off and not sort of let these people be visible in a real, dignified manner, don't send them to war." LA Times
Is the exhibit appropriate?
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 2 2007, 10:09 PM) 
This normally would have been a heart-warming story of an artist honoring the fallen soldiers of war. But, it seems that Britain is a lot like the US in that they’d rather not have a visible reminder of those who died.
Steve McQueen (his real name!), a British artist, wanted to commemorate each killed Iraq soldier with a portrait on a postage stamp, but met government resistance in getting photos of the soldiers. He eventually contacted each family on his own, and created his exhibit “For Queen and Country” with the photos he received. The exhibit has been met with positive response.
However, the government is reluctant to issue the stamps officially, saying that it could take years. McQueen pointed out that Britain’s cricket champions got stamps issued in weeks. His end statement was this:
QUOTE
"If you cannot honor them correctly, do not send them to war," he said. "End of story. Simple as that. If you don't want to recognize them, if you want to switch off and not sort of let these people be visible in a real, dignified manner, don't send them to war." LA Times
Is the exhibit appropriate?
I believe the exhibit would be appropriate. I am inclined to require that the families give consent first however.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
They certainly should not just because Mr. McQueen thinks they should. I'm sure there are many other considerations that go into preparing for a new stamp. If given enough time I could probably come up with a dozen appropriate suggestions for honoring the dead also. If the state does not pursue these suggestions it does not necessarily mean they are attempting to "switch off". In your opening commentary you seem to be suggesting that Britain's reluctance to consider Mr. McQueen's suggestion is just that. Could you clarify where you draw that conclusion from?
Is the exhibit appropriate?
".....but we tend to balance that against overly personalizing the loss of one person, or a couple of people, and the kind of distress that causes families in general, across the services," ministry spokeswoman Tricia Croasdell said Thursday." LA Times
What in the world is wrong with people when they worry more about the "political correctness" of a postage stamp than they do about honoring those young men and women who have given their lives for their country!
Of course the exhibit is appropriate! It definitely says something about the times we live in that this question would even arise. What greater way could these folks be honored?
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
A definite "YES"! If the families agree, then each image should be placed on a stamp and issued in the normal way. If the family is in favor, then for heaven's sake, let's not bend over backwards trying to "balance" and weigh each little consideration real or imagined! Whether or not one agrees with the war, the question of honoring these women and men should not take longer than it takes to contact the families involved.!
".....but we tend to balance that against overly personalizing the loss of one person, or a couple of people, and the kind of distress that causes families in general, across the services," ministry spokeswoman Tricia Croasdell said Thursday." LA Times
What in the world is wrong with people when they worry more about the "political correctness" of a postage stamp than they do about honoring those young men and women who have given their lives for their country!
Of course the exhibit is appropriate! It definitely says something about the times we live in that this question would even arise. What greater way could these folks be honored?
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
A definite "YES"! If the families agree, then each image should be placed on a stamp and issued in the normal way. If the family is in favor, then for heaven's sake, let's not bend over backwards trying to "balance" and weigh each little consideration real or imagined! Whether or not one agrees with the war, the question of honoring these women and men should not take longer than it takes to contact the families involved.!
I haven't heard this story yet - well done for picking it up.
Is the exhibit appropriate?
Yes, I think it is.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
I think it is very nice and appropriate to float the idea.
However, issuing real stamps - while a philatelists dream (think how cool your stamp geek buddies would think you were if you had the whole set!) - would be fraught with practical issues. Usually, sets of stamps issued in the UK have 10 or maybe 20 different designs at most.
A set with over one hundred different designs would be a problem.
Then you've got the precedent setting; no doubt some veterans groups for prior wars would, quite understandably, want their fallen honoured in the same way.
If the Iraq War was practical to honour in this way, maybe it could happen for the last Gulf War or the Falklands War, because they both had similar numbers of fallen.
The Northern Ireland troubles - with four or five times the number of casualties - would be even more difficult and expensive.
And if you then go back to look at WW2 - in principle, a suitable case for, say, 2015 and the 70th anniversary of its end - and you'd be talking about something like half a million different stamp designs. The cost of each stamp would be several times the cost of the postage.
So in practice, while a nice way to honour the dead, the only practical effect would be to completely bankrupt the Post Office.
What's wrong with a nice Portland stone monument with carved names on it? That was good enough for the dead of WW1 and WW2. It should be good enough for the dead of Iraq.
Is the exhibit appropriate?
Yes, I think it is.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
I think it is very nice and appropriate to float the idea.
However, issuing real stamps - while a philatelists dream (think how cool your stamp geek buddies would think you were if you had the whole set!) - would be fraught with practical issues. Usually, sets of stamps issued in the UK have 10 or maybe 20 different designs at most.
A set with over one hundred different designs would be a problem.
Then you've got the precedent setting; no doubt some veterans groups for prior wars would, quite understandably, want their fallen honoured in the same way.
If the Iraq War was practical to honour in this way, maybe it could happen for the last Gulf War or the Falklands War, because they both had similar numbers of fallen.
The Northern Ireland troubles - with four or five times the number of casualties - would be even more difficult and expensive.
And if you then go back to look at WW2 - in principle, a suitable case for, say, 2015 and the 70th anniversary of its end - and you'd be talking about something like half a million different stamp designs. The cost of each stamp would be several times the cost of the postage.
So in practice, while a nice way to honour the dead, the only practical effect would be to completely bankrupt the Post Office.
What's wrong with a nice Portland stone monument with carved names on it? That was good enough for the dead of WW1 and WW2. It should be good enough for the dead of Iraq.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 2 2007, 05:09 PM)
.... it seems that Britain is a lot like the US in that they’d rather not have a visible reminder of those who died.
{chuckling} perhaps their reaction is the universal reaction of every bureaucracy (governmental or nongovernmental) to control its own image -- rather than a byproduct of an ethnic stereotype.
the first war to be photographed was, coincidentally, the British campaign in the Crimean War. there was a predictable uproar over the publication in the mass newspapers of the time of photos showing the dead. these photos cast war in a very different light than the heroic school of painting in which war had traditionally been depicted by artists. see: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/251_fen.html
war photography came into its own, so to speak, with the photographs of the American Civil War by Mathew Brady. at the end of the war, the public (temporarily) lost interest in his work, and some 3000 of his plates for which no prints had yet been made were destroyed. see: http://www.multimedialibrary.com/framesml/im11/im11.asp
Robert Capa was the only photographer credentialed by the Allies to photograph the D-Day invasion. he shot 4 or 5 rolls of film as the troops were wading ashore (with his back to the incoming hail of bullets and artillery!). in a rush to develop the negatives, the photo lab fried all but fewer than a dozen of these images. see: http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html
perhaps the most famous WW2 photograph was Joe Rosenthal's "Flag-Raising at Iwo Jima" (the subject of a recent Clint Eastwood movie). see: http://www.r-s-r.org/rsr/images/iwo-a.jpg
Is the exhibit appropriate?
the (American) public broadcasting network, PBS, exhibits photos of all American war dead at the end of every broadcast of the evening "News Hour", as soon as they are announced. (you'll sooner die of asphyxiation if you hold your breath waiting for PBS (or NPR) to depict -- even once in four years -- instances of heroism on the part of those who survived safe and sound. hmmm ....)
so, sure, exhibit away.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
sounds to me like a great way to hono(u)r their sacrifice.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 2 2007, 05:09 PM)
Is the exhibit appropriate?
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
1.) It all boils down to personal belief. If you find it questionable or lacking morality, there would be no law in place to fore you to view it. Simple.
2.) The government will do as the government will do. In a perfect world, certainly. But it is up to officials and policy-makers at this time to choose and it seems likely they shall keep homeward exposure to a minimum, a reverse 'seen but not heard' directive, if you will.
Is the exhibit appropriate?
Sure.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
I think Jules raises an excellent point. Though on the surface, the IDEA of having a series of stamps to honor the war dead is nice, it might be cost prohibitive. I can think of more realistic and cost-effective means of honoring the dead. Perhaps a fountain, a monument, or a park.
Per McQueen's quote, "If you cannot honor them correctly, do not send them to war. End of story. Simple as that. If you don't want to recognize them, if you want to switch off and not sort of let these people be visible in a real, dignified manner, don't send them to war."
I guess all of the dead British soldiers of WWII were not honored correctly? They certainly didn't all get their own set of trading stamps. I guess then, the WWII Germans knew how to "really honor" their war dead because they made trading cards for them (sort of like baseball cards, but with pictures of dead German soldiers along with their ranks, and some personal information. Example). Of course they also summarily executed 50,000 of their own soldiers for "desertion" (maybe those guys got their own trading cards too?). Way to go Nazi government.
Sure.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
I think Jules raises an excellent point. Though on the surface, the IDEA of having a series of stamps to honor the war dead is nice, it might be cost prohibitive. I can think of more realistic and cost-effective means of honoring the dead. Perhaps a fountain, a monument, or a park.
Per McQueen's quote, "If you cannot honor them correctly, do not send them to war. End of story. Simple as that. If you don't want to recognize them, if you want to switch off and not sort of let these people be visible in a real, dignified manner, don't send them to war."
I guess all of the dead British soldiers of WWII were not honored correctly? They certainly didn't all get their own set of trading stamps. I guess then, the WWII Germans knew how to "really honor" their war dead because they made trading cards for them (sort of like baseball cards, but with pictures of dead German soldiers along with their ranks, and some personal information. Example). Of course they also summarily executed 50,000 of their own soldiers for "desertion" (maybe those guys got their own trading cards too?). Way to go Nazi government.
Is the exhibit appropriate?
At first, I though yes, it is. As a purely private exhibit, then I would say "yes." The problem is this was initiated by the Imperial War Museum as the commemoration of the war, not just of those who've died. As a result, I have to say, no, I don't think its appropriate.
'It's not antiwar, it's not pro-war. It is what it is. It's a reflection on our participation in the war in Iraq.' - McQueen.
Contrary to what McQueen says, its also a reflection of a specific viewpoint, as the LA Times reveals.
But by the time he arrived, the worst of the fighting against Saddam Hussein's army was already over, and the insurgency was not yet a day-to-day reality. His six-day trip to Basra was filled with visits to schools under reconstruction and smiling soldiers introducing themselves.
Frustrated, McQueen sought permission to return to Iraq with U.S. forces and visit Baghdad.
He didn't want to tell the story of reconstruction in Basra or of smiling soldiers, the story of the living, of success. His meme is death and loss, if for no other reason than that those are more evocative. We do not honour only soldiers who are dead. We do not honour only because they are dead. We honour our soldiers, living and dead, because of how they lived, and why they died.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
No, for all the practical reasons outlined by Julian, and also for the simple reason that McQueen himself alludes to in his explanation of why he didn't include the 18 most recent casualties. McQueen chose not to include them because he considers the pain too fresh. I will grant that McQueen seems to be a decent chap, how will he feel if the fiancee of one of the fallen receives a wedding invitation from some clueless college chum, with her dearly departed's face staring out at her, and is so shocked that she spirals into suicide? The potential for personal devastation is too great. Grief is a dangerous, tricky and unpredictable thing, not to be trifled with.
If you cannot honor them correctly, do not send them to war," he said. "End of story. Simple as that. If you don't want to recognize them, if you want to switch off and not sort of let these people be visible in a real, dignified manner, don't send them to war."
Aside from the commonplace artist's hubris that his way is the only correct way of doing things, McQueen's dead wrong. His cricket comparison illustrates why. The cricket champions were being placed on a stamp for success. As sad as it is to say this, getting killed in combat is a sign of failure. To commemorate that on a national scale, whether it be personal failure on the part of a troopie who did something stupid, sheer bad luck, or command failure that got somebody else killed, does not honour them. The only criteria for getting on the stamp is getting killed. McQueen isn't advocating that those who've been awarded medals for heroism be on stamps. This is the same problem with the NewsHour deathroll. They don't honour the living heros.
You honour people by identifying and commemorating their successes.
At first, I though yes, it is. As a purely private exhibit, then I would say "yes." The problem is this was initiated by the Imperial War Museum as the commemoration of the war, not just of those who've died. As a result, I have to say, no, I don't think its appropriate.
'It's not antiwar, it's not pro-war. It is what it is. It's a reflection on our participation in the war in Iraq.' - McQueen.
Contrary to what McQueen says, its also a reflection of a specific viewpoint, as the LA Times reveals.
But by the time he arrived, the worst of the fighting against Saddam Hussein's army was already over, and the insurgency was not yet a day-to-day reality. His six-day trip to Basra was filled with visits to schools under reconstruction and smiling soldiers introducing themselves.
Frustrated, McQueen sought permission to return to Iraq with U.S. forces and visit Baghdad.
He didn't want to tell the story of reconstruction in Basra or of smiling soldiers, the story of the living, of success. His meme is death and loss, if for no other reason than that those are more evocative. We do not honour only soldiers who are dead. We do not honour only because they are dead. We honour our soldiers, living and dead, because of how they lived, and why they died.
Should the British government issue postage stamps with the images?
No, for all the practical reasons outlined by Julian, and also for the simple reason that McQueen himself alludes to in his explanation of why he didn't include the 18 most recent casualties. McQueen chose not to include them because he considers the pain too fresh. I will grant that McQueen seems to be a decent chap, how will he feel if the fiancee of one of the fallen receives a wedding invitation from some clueless college chum, with her dearly departed's face staring out at her, and is so shocked that she spirals into suicide? The potential for personal devastation is too great. Grief is a dangerous, tricky and unpredictable thing, not to be trifled with.
If you cannot honor them correctly, do not send them to war," he said. "End of story. Simple as that. If you don't want to recognize them, if you want to switch off and not sort of let these people be visible in a real, dignified manner, don't send them to war."
Aside from the commonplace artist's hubris that his way is the only correct way of doing things, McQueen's dead wrong. His cricket comparison illustrates why. The cricket champions were being placed on a stamp for success. As sad as it is to say this, getting killed in combat is a sign of failure. To commemorate that on a national scale, whether it be personal failure on the part of a troopie who did something stupid, sheer bad luck, or command failure that got somebody else killed, does not honour them. The only criteria for getting on the stamp is getting killed. McQueen isn't advocating that those who've been awarded medals for heroism be on stamps. This is the same problem with the NewsHour deathroll. They don't honour the living heros.
You honour people by identifying and commemorating their successes.
I've been thinking about this kinda thing a lot lately...
don't take me for an ingrate... but when did 'supporting the troops' become such a vacuous, almost self-centered debacle?
I'm not saying our soldiers don't deserve our deepest gratitude, far from it... if anything they deserve an appreciation that is virtually unspeakable. Short of Lincoln's Gettysburg address or some Churchillian speech from the days of lore, there aren't a lot of words that really manage to express the gratitude we owe to our soldiers. Thus, we often commemerate them in abstract ways: memorials, special cemetaries, national holidays like veterans day or memorial day, etc. Which is why I find the current means of supporting one's troops -- namely tacky bumper stickers, equally tacky platitudes, and now stamps -- so cheap.
When I first read this I thought, thats great. We live in a day an age where every troop we've lost can be recognized as an individual, singled out and appreciated for his or her deeds. In and of itself seems harmless and admirable enough.
But why do we have to live in a day an age when we need recognition so badly? These stamps remind me of that self-congratulory Time Man of The Year award - "you." So now, the reward for heroism in war is now fifteen minutes of fame via the British Postal service? Why can't dedication, sacrifice and heroism be their own awards? I mean, these are soldiers, casualties, heros-- not American Idol contestants.
Sometimes I suspect our times of being fraught with the most incurable narcissism. Of course, our brave men and women aren't responsible for that plague of egomania, so maybe, like "You," Kelly Clarkston, and everyone else, they should get to share a piece of the fame pie- everyone gets a fifteen minute slice.
But it seems to me like we're cheapening some of the most valuable institutions we have left.
don't take me for an ingrate... but when did 'supporting the troops' become such a vacuous, almost self-centered debacle?
I'm not saying our soldiers don't deserve our deepest gratitude, far from it... if anything they deserve an appreciation that is virtually unspeakable. Short of Lincoln's Gettysburg address or some Churchillian speech from the days of lore, there aren't a lot of words that really manage to express the gratitude we owe to our soldiers. Thus, we often commemerate them in abstract ways: memorials, special cemetaries, national holidays like veterans day or memorial day, etc. Which is why I find the current means of supporting one's troops -- namely tacky bumper stickers, equally tacky platitudes, and now stamps -- so cheap.
When I first read this I thought, thats great. We live in a day an age where every troop we've lost can be recognized as an individual, singled out and appreciated for his or her deeds. In and of itself seems harmless and admirable enough.
But why do we have to live in a day an age when we need recognition so badly? These stamps remind me of that self-congratulory Time Man of The Year award - "you." So now, the reward for heroism in war is now fifteen minutes of fame via the British Postal service? Why can't dedication, sacrifice and heroism be their own awards? I mean, these are soldiers, casualties, heros-- not American Idol contestants.
Sometimes I suspect our times of being fraught with the most incurable narcissism. Of course, our brave men and women aren't responsible for that plague of egomania, so maybe, like "You," Kelly Clarkston, and everyone else, they should get to share a piece of the fame pie- everyone gets a fifteen minute slice.
But it seems to me like we're cheapening some of the most valuable institutions we have left.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.