> The issue I think isn't Diana but the common
> understanding of her, which is deeply flawed,
> to say the least.
Though this addressed a comment of Sid's, my answer is that Diana,
for reasons I've already mentioned, was and is a profoundly British
phenomenon. Let the Brits sort her out; the best we can really do is
follow that debate.
> My suggestion is that the public is far from
> "sorting this out"; rather, it seems to be in
> the midst of constructing the grossest of
> fantasies.
During a certain gray weekend in 1963 JFK fared even "better."
Give time a chance.
> > [...] It took Robert McNamara's book tour _culpa mea_ in 1995
> > to confer legitimacy upon the anti-war movement, something that the whole
> > American left had been unable to achieve in the preceding 20-30 years.
> > Would any of you have him recant because of who he is or what he was?
>
> Good grief. The anti-war movement became
> legitimate when the last US helicopter left
> Saigon. We sure didn't need Robert McN.
No, we of the movement certainly didn't need his take on reality then,
but that's just when antipathy toward us reached a high point.
That point remained a static perception in the country's VA wards and
GI bars for the next two decades, with aging vets still yelling
"We could've won except for those goddamn students," while getting
no deeper into the question of just what winning meant in that situation.
McNamara's admission helped somewhat where that was still psychologically
possible. It was the sort of thing that China still demands from Japan,
Armenia from Turkey, etc.
> Abbie Hoffman had more influence than Diana.
He didn't leave behind anyone who can dissolve Parliament,
or who can wreck the C of E by becoming a Buddhist.
> I defy anyone to specify concrete, noteworthy
> social changes resulting from her existence.
I suspect you're ideologically committed to the idea of her worthlessness,
so I won't waste time challenging your defiance.
No hard feelings, of course, but I'm past this debate.
valis
Occupied America
