Top critical review
10 people found this helpful
3.0 out of 5 starsCompelling case against Fonda
ByMichael M. Rosenblatton July 20, 2011
Many people protested this war, both actively and passively. Some even went to prison as a "fruit" of their protest. Some went to Canada to avoid the draft. Many took part in various public events and protests. Whether you choose to indict that large group or not, it is true that (almost) none of them went to give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. With one major exception:
Except for Jane Fonda, by actually contacting the North Vietnamese, and using her public persona and fame to visit the POWs, make defamatory statements about them and posing in front of weaponry used to fight against the US. This was an entirely new and unprecedented type of "protest."
Now that I write this, there are still South Vietnamese ex-residents who were severely damaged by the loss of the War. By this I mean they were forced to leave in tiny boats, many drowning in the process, spend years in "re-education" camps in starvation, lost all of their property, and in some cases were actively tortured by the "winners."
Pacifism always has a cost. True, it was a civil war. But when we left (after doing everything we could to try to prevent loss of the war), there were consequences.
Pacifism (or if you prefer, non-intervention) is still a very active topic of discussion and has great relevance today, as much as it did during the Vietnam War.
Fonda seemed to support the doctrine of pacifism, at least in this war. I am not familiar with any comments she has made about subsequent US conflicts. For example, as an erstwhile supporter of woman's rights, what has she done to further the rights of the women of Islam? Nothing...to my knowledge. If she would wish to be consistent, she has an obligation to defend the rights of Islamic females who remain enslaved by that religion and culture. This is not an unrelated issue. Either she stands up for the "downtrodden," or she does not.
Instead, she continues to promote herself. That is her right in the US. But according to the authors of this book, she deserved to face a jury for treason. As an over-privileged, indulged, wealthy female blessed with exceedingly good looks, she has much to be thankful for. The authors present a compelling case for their indictment.
Fonda never to my knowledge had a university level experience on Modern Communism. At the least, prior to accepting the "new left's" statements as facts, she was bereft of knowledge on this subject. What did she know about the Stalin purges? The take-over of Europe and the East by Communism? The genocides of Mao? The mass starvation of millions to a failed economic system. Instead, she swallowed the doctrine of Communism and dialectical materialism hook, line and sinker...without so much as a glance to its history. Nobody expected her, as basically an uneducated entertainer to read Hegel or Marx...or to understand their critics. But she openly accepted their doctrines as unquestioning as many who signed up for the draft to fight this very war.
Forgive me if I continue to hold her in contempt, not just for her "Vietnam" years, but all of the years subsequent. She has openly welcomed and accepted REAL capitalism with a capital C for herself. Yet, she denied that to the very people in South Vietnam who wished for the same privileges.
It's possible to write inflamed and angry posts about Jane Fonda. But none is more egregious than Fonda's personal embrace of capitalism...and her utter refusal to allow others in the Third World to share it by her open acceptance of North Vietnam's Communism. That act alone re-defines selfishness and greed.