okay, let me deliniate my points
a) wrt to political correctness, well, I've never been branded with that
label, so I can't disagree with wanting to leave if it gets too touchy
feely.
b) lots of people I know like my spit(fire, ahem). of those people, I
doubt any more than one or two even know what a supermarine spitfire is,
what it did, or why.
c) triumph associated the car with the plane because the brits _adore_ the
memory/image of the plane. it literally _saved_ their country. I seem to
remember reading somewhere that the name spitfire was plastered on
hundreds of products in britian in an effort to sell the line(s). sort of
as if f14 tomcats shot down hoardes of russian bombers every day for a
year and saved the east coast from complete devestation. the word
'tomcat' would be revered. triumph did this to _sell_ a car. just 'cause
they did it in attempt to raise sales doesn't make it a good idea--i.e.
two wrongs don't make a right.
d) the plane is/was an instrument of _war_. it was developed and used for
the sole and primary purpose of _killing_ people. that's it. stop, right
now, and actually _think_ about that. think about it again. and again.
would you plaster an image of an m16 on the side of a car if it's
name/model number happened to coincide with the car? how about a
hand grenade? a tank? how about a picture of a b17 carpet bombing
dresden? or one being blown out of the sky by a/a fire, or maybe an
me109? or how about a spitfire shooting down a junkers? you see where
I'm going with this? the above were made for a _serious_ purpose. an
_important_ purpose. people were killed by and died in them in an attempt
to protect our country. I really like my spitfire, but it will never rise
to this level of importance. the car is a trivial, fun thing. war is
neither trivial nor fun. too many people sacrificed too much for me to
treat it at all otherwise.
e) a wwii vet has license to give you a pass. you/we don't have license
to accept it. he can be nonchalant and gracious about it because he was
there, and you weren't. he _earned_ the right to act gracious about the
subject. you (I assume) did not. ask the vet if he wants to relive all
his old war experiences, though, and I'll bet you he doesn't. I don't
know about your relatives, but as a very small child I couldn't get much
at all out of either of my grandfathers about too much of their
experiences. both flew in bombers, and both were wounded. both had a
few stories they told if asked, but that was it, and I was told by my
parents not to press the issue too much. they were kind to the immature
kid who wanted to hear about how cool and glorious it was, and they were
nonchalant to a degree about the whole thing, but as an adult, I can see
in retrospect how they never brought it up, didn't seem to want to talk
about it, and were ready to ask me about school when I asked them about
what it was like to be in the war. it was the same sort of look my uncle,
an infantry marine in vietnam (wounded and nearly killed), got when my 6
year-old cousin would run around making 'blam blam' noises with his toy
guns. he never looked too excited about the idea.
this 'squadron' idea reminds me of my cousin. it sounds a hair too close
to immaturity, to 'wow, that's soooooo cool, tell me again what it was
like to kill the krauts, dude. was it cool, huh?'
I'll agree most vets wouldn't object, but ask how many wanna brag about
how many of the enemy they killed and I'll bet you don't have many takers.
I think their attitude in this respect (towards a spit 'squardon', with
capitans and military patches) should be viewed as the same attitude my
uncle had towards his son. they know you mean well, so they'll give you
the pass. that doesn't make it right. if you _really_ want to show
respect to the vets of wwii (or any war, really) the local v.a. hospital
would love a check, I'll bet. or just volunteer your time. visit a vet
who doesn't have family. old people love to talk, to anybody. I'll bet
they'll appreciate that one hell of a lot more than a sticker on the side
of a car.
the bottom line is, to my way of thinking, I'd feel like I was stealing a
part of something I didn't help earn, an honor I didn't help build. it
isn't my place to share in the shine of what they did, because I wasn't a
part of creating it. I did not fight in a war, and I think it shows lack
of respect, _and_ a general lack of maturity to trivialize those who did
by pretending my car and its associated club stack up with what they did.
I'd probably feel differently if I was a vet, but I'm not.
and if you think it honors veterans to put a spitfire sticker on the side
of your car and call yourself 'colonel smith of the n.a.s.s., sir
<salute>', or 'rear admiral jones', go for it. like you said, they
probably won't complain. and those who object don't have to come into the
tree fort. when my cousin gets his license, I'll buy him a parts spit
and send him your way.
scott
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 HD50EL@aol.com wrote:
> For those of you on the list who assume that any reference to the Supermarine
> Spitfire, or use of aviation terms, would be offensive to WW2 vets, why don't
> you go find a WW2 vet, and ask them! You may be surprised at what most of
> them will say to you. I have asked a few vets as to what their thoughts about
> it were, and all of them thought it was a really neat idea. So here is what I
> have to say about it. Membership in the NASS should be 100% voluntary, which
> means if you don't like the connection the Triumph Spitfire has with the
> Supermarine Spitfire, and WW2, then you don't have to be a part of it! My two
> cents,
>
> John C. Smith
> 75 Spitfire
|