So, Scott, are you saying that you think we are forming a whacko militia
group of terrorists? I think most in your camp have taken this to the
extreme. It wasn't intended that way, and I think when we settle on the
logo, etc. you'll all see we aren't a bunch of immature
kid-wanna-be-a-kraut-killer types looking to grab some glory 'cause we ain't
got nuthin' goin' in our life types. I appreciate your comments and
concern, and if it turns out the club is more like your description, than
mine, I won't be a part of it. In fact I think it would be an extremely
small club.
Terry Banbury
> ----------
> From: Scott Hall[SMTP:sch8489@garnet.acns.fsu.edu]
> Reply To: Scott Hall
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 1:35 AM
> To: HD50EL@aol.com
> Cc: spitfires@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Plane vs car
>
>
> 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' 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
>
|