It is often hard to articulate why it takes so long for victims of sexual violence to come forward. So often women are questioned as to why they didn’t leave a domestic violence situation as soon as the abuse began. Survivors of child sexual assault are questioned over the legitimacy of their claims when they only come forward after many others have, or when some kind of class action is occurring. Women who claim that wealthy men, or men in positions of power, have abused them are often labelled as gold diggers or it is insinuated that there is some kind of ulterior motive, other than justice, for speaking out. It is so hard to be taken seriously when talking about sexual assault, and therein lies the flaw in our society. The character of the victim is often what is being disputed, rather than discussion around the actual allegations. This week, Kesha has unknowingly become the personification of the deep-seated problems in our dialogue about sexual violence.
An American court denied Kesha’s injunction that would have allowed her to break her contract with Sony and Kemosabe. In 2014, Kesha filed a lawsuit against Dr Luke claiming that he had sexually abused her from the age of 18 (claims that included him drugging and raping her) and had driven her to an eating disorder via emotional abuse (for which she stayed 60 days in rehabilitation in 2014). Dr Luke quickly counter-sued stating that Kesha was trying to “extort” him. These lawsuits went back and forth until late 2015, when Kesha filed this injunction to free her from her contact with Sony and Kemosabe and would allow her to make music without collaborating with her alleged abuser.
Which seems like a fair enough request right? The prospect of being forced to make SIX more albums with someone who took advantage of you at such a young and vulnerable age would be overwhelming for anyone, especially someone recovering from an eating disorder triggered by emotional abuse from the very man you are being expected to work with! But, the good old American court system has put commercial interests before a human being. The judge deemed that there is literally a price on personal safety, and that is $60 million. Sony have spent the last ten years “investing” in Kesha and Dr Luke and they want both parties to “succeed”, but that comes at a cost and that cost is Kesha’s body autonomy and security.
It seems as though the court has lost the ability to distinguish between a corporation and human being as both parties are being treated as equals, rather than human rights being placed at the forefront of any decision. Sony now has a mandate by which to guide Kesha’s relationship with her alleged abuser and legally force her to collaborate because the court has told Sony and Kesha, that Sony know what is right for Kesha, more than she does. Despite her saying that she categorically cannot work with him because she does not feel safe; a commercial contract must be protected more than her. Her human right to not be sexually abused is less than important.
And while we’re talking about legal responsibilities, does it not seem extremely odd that no one is talking about Dr Luke’s legal responsibility to NOT RAPE anyone? You may say that these are just allegations, but does it really make sense that Kesha would put herself through this public rigmarole if there were no truth. False rape allegations make up less than 5% of all reported assaults, and only 1 in 6 sexual assaults ARE reported. Someone in her position, who has a lot to lose, would not put themselves through this public legal battle if these allegations were not true. You need only to look at the devastating photo of her crying in court to see how distressing this outcome is for her.
Back to my original point; Kesha is a wealthy white woman with access to many legal resources and support and even she is not taken seriously enough to have a CONTRACT voided. She is probably in one of the strongest positions to have her story heard. She has privilege that most people cannot even dream of, yet she is still not taken seriously. She is told that her personal safety is not important. She is told that she said vs he said is not enough for courts to even break a contract so HOW THE FUCK could she possibly contemplate pressing criminal charges? How can any of us? If it is your word vs someone else’s, then that is not enough. Even if you do have the legal resources to attempt a civil action, just so you don’t have to work closely with the person for the next 6-10 years, then that is not enough. Even if you do have the strength to speak up and come forward, then that is not enough.
We have a problem in our society and for those of us that are not white cis-males, we are the ones who suffer because of it. We are the ones who will continue to be trampled on and told that we do not matter, unless we do something about it I stand with Kesha because if we allow this to be ok and we don’t fight with Kesha, then it will only get harder for other victims to come forward. It will only make it more difficult for our children tell us if, god forbid, something like this happens to them.
I stand with Kesha because we are worth more than commercial contracts.
Saigon Execution – Eddie Adams, 1st of February 1968. Published by Associated Press in the New York Times on the 2nd of February 1968
When the New York Times published Eddie Adams photograph “Saigon Exection”[1] it was in the wake of one of the most devastating losses that the United States had felt during the war to date, the Tet Offensive[2]. The protest movement was growing as transformation of the United States public opinion on Vietnam grew with increased media coverage[3]; Foner christened 1968 the “year of turmoil”[4]. Although Adams didn’t intend on creating the embodiment of the anti-war sentiment, his photograph is often cited as the turning point of public opinion in the United States[5]. The ramifications of the image, although immense for America as a nation, were also significant for Adams himself and General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan[6].
Eddie Adams joined the Associated Press photojournalism team in 1968. After a keen involvement with photography since High School, Adams served as a Marine combat photographer during the Korean War and continued to shoot for various publications up until his death in 2004[7]. Adams went to Vietnam three times during the conflict and it was on his third journey that he snapped his most infamous photo “Saigon Execution”. Adams claims he felt “nothing”[8] after taking the photo; he said “when I did the picture, I stopped back at the AP (Associated Press) office and I handed them this roll of film and I said ‘I think I got somebody killing somebody’ and I went out to lunch. It was that simple”[9]. The polarising photo is one of the most influential photos take during the Vietnam War[10] and won Adams a highly coveted Pulitzer Prize in 1969. Despite the acclaim that came with the award, Adams felt a certain lament due to the reactionary nature of the photo[11] and refused to speak about both the photo and the award for some time after. Adams never recognised the significance of the photo; “people were getting shot, you know, like they do in all wars”[12]. He thought of this incident as “just another day in Vietnam”[13] and wasn’t attempting to invoke the response the photo received.
The photo became “a symbol for everything that was going wrong with Vietnam”[14]. The American public began to ask why their sons were being sent to Vietnam if the South Vietnamese were capable of taking care of problems like these themselves. It painted a ruthless picture of the South Vietnamese; despite the many crimes of the man being executed[15] he gave the appearance of a helpless civilian and reinforced to the American public that they were participating in a war that perhaps they shouldn’t be[16].
Adams felt largely responsible for the repercussions for General Loan after the publication of the image. Adams leapt to his defence in later commentary of the image saying “How do you know you wouldn’t have pulled the trigger yourself?”[17] The man pictured had murdered the family of one of General Loans deputies just hours before, and was a known Viet Cong conspirator that had long been “undercover” in the South Vietnamese village. Adams said that after the execution General Loan walked over to him and said “they killed many of my people, and yours, too” and walked away[18]. Just three months after the photo was taken General Loan was injured by a gunshot, which resulted in the amputation of his right leg. He was taken to Australia for treatment, but upon recognition of the General from the photo, he was sent back to Vietnam. When Saigon fell to North Vietnam, General Loan pleaded with the American Government for assistance fleeing the country, but he was ignored. He eventually escaped with his wife to the United States, however, upon his detection, the US government moved to have him deported as a war criminal. He eventually settled in Northern Virginia where he opened a pizzeria, until, once again, his true identity was recognised and his business went bankrupt.[19] Adams considered himself responsible for ruining General Loans life[20]. An execution that was seen as a standard part of life in Vietnam was galvanised as all that was wrong with Vietnam and it haunted Loan and Adams until their deaths.
Adams carried guilt regarding Saigon Execution up until his death in 2004. Not only did he feel that it was the least significant photo he had ever taken; Adams said “When I see the picture, I wasn’t impressed. And I’m still not impressed”[21]; he credited it to the subsequent treatment of General Loan in Vietnam, Australia and the United States of America. In his interview with Donald Winslow, Adams states that his greatest achievement was his photo set entitled “Boat of No Smiles[22]” which documented Vietnamese refugees journey in boats from Vietnam to the US, in which Adams boarded the boats with the refugees, not knowing his own fate. This led to the US Congress granting entrance to 250,000 Vietnam “boat people” seeking asylum[23].
The Winslow Interview also paints a picture of the type of photographer Adams was and how the reverence of a photo that Adams didn’t mean to take affected him. His contempt for “reactionary photography”[24] grew after his Pulitzer Prize win for “Spot Photography” in 1969. He began to despise the photograph and the notoriety that came with it. The negative connotations and the personification of anti-war sentiment that came from the photo were too much for the ex-marine, and eventually he stopped discussing the photograph all together. In Winslows’ article he attests to this through the recollection of the phone call Adams made just prior to his death stating that he didn’t want the photo mentioned in his obituary or eulogy.
Despite the obvious adverse effects that this photo had on Eddie Adams mental health, its repercussion stretched far and wide. The publication of the photo on the front page of the New York Times gave fuel to the anti-war fire that was raging throughout the United States. His inability to distance himself from the photograph caused great amounts of stress on Adams throughout the rest of his life. This was mainly due to the consequences for General Loan, who was pictured in the photograph. The vulgar treatment of the General from many different nations was due to the photo that Adams had taken and he later felt responsibility to defend the Generals actions. Overall, this photograph has many times been cited as a turning point in the Vietnam War and continues to be the personification of the attitudes in late-sixties America.
[2] Jason, December 13 2011 “The Tet Offensive” Tet Offensive Blog, accessed August 30th 2013 from http://jason-tetoffensive.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/summary.html
[3] Brady Priest, Shayla Schneider, Marty Whited and Brian Coates, “The Effects of Photojournalism on the Protest Movement during the Vietnam War” Wellesley College, n.d, accessed August 7th 2013 from http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/ThreeImages/brady2.html
[4] Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! Volume Two (New York: Norton & Company Inc. 2012) 997-998
[5] Priest, et al “The Effects of Photojournalism”
[6] Donald R. Winslow, “The Pulitzer Prize Eddie Adams Didn’t Want” New York Times April 19, 2011, accessed August 7th 2013 http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-pulitzer-eddie-adams-didnt-want/?src=tptw&_r=2
[7] “Collections. Photojournalism: Eddie Adams” Briscoe Center for American History, accessed July 18th 2013, http://www.cah.utexas.edu/collections/photojournalists/adams.php
[8] YouTube “Pulitzer Prize 1968 commented on by its photographer, Eddie Adams” publisher unknown, uploaded by DocsOnline accessed August 30th 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf5pJXr3gWQ
[9] YouTube “Pulitzer Prize 1968”
[10] “Collections. Photojournalism: Eddie Adams”
[11] Winslow, “The Pulitzer Prize Eddie Adams Didn’t Want”
[12] YouTube “Pulitzer Prize 1968”
[13] Winslow, “The Pulitzer Prize Eddie Adams Didn’t Want”
[14] Priest, et. al. “The Effects of Photojournalism”
[15] Jason Zasky, “Saigon Execution: The real story behind Eddie Adams’ iconic Vietnam War photo” Failure Magazine, n.d., accessed August 30th 2013 http://failuremag.com/feature/article/saigon_execution/
[16] Andy Grundberg, “Eddie Adams, Journalist who showed Violence of Vietnam, Dies at 71” New York Times, September 20th 2004, accessed August 7th 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/arts/20adam.html?_r=0
[17] Grundberg, “Eddie Adams, Journalist who showed Violence of Vietnam, Dies at 71”
[18] Horst Faas “The Saigon Execution” The Digital Journalist, October 2004, accessed August 30th 2013 from http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/faas.html
[19] Robert Thomas “Nguyen Ngoc Loan, 67, Dies; Executed Viet Cong Prisoner” New York Times, July 16th 1998, accessed August 30th 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/world/nguyen-ngoc-loan-67-dies-executed-viet-cong-prisoner.html
[20] Winslow, “The Pulitzer Prize Eddie Adams Didn’t Want”
[21] Lisa Kennedy “Through the lens, he captured the horrific and the sublime. An Unlikely Weapon: The Eddie Adams Story” The Denver Post, July 2nd 2009, accessed 30th August 2013 http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12735365
[22] For the most well-known photo from the “Boat with no smiles” photo set, please see http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartdetail.asp?wid=425412081&gid=424079904
[23] Winslow, “The Pulitzer Prize Eddie Adams Didn’t Want”
[24] This is a photo that is not staged or set up. It takes little to no skill as it is purely a reaction to a feeling that something important is about to occur. Such as fellow Pulitzer Prize winner, Bob Jackson, who won the award for the photo of Jack Ruby lunging at Lee Harvey Oswald with a gun in 1963.
Bibliography
Cah.utexas.edu. “Eddie Adams – Photojournalism – Strengths – Collections – Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.” 2013. http://www.cah.utexas.edu/collections/photojournalists/adams.php (accessed 18 July 2013)
Faas, H., “The Saigon Execution” The Digital Journalist, October 2004. http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0410/faas.html (accessed August 30th 2013)
Foner, E., Give Me Liberty! Volume Two. New York: Norton & Company Inc., 2012
Grundenberg, A., ” Eddie Adams, Journalist who showed Violence of Vietnam, Dies at 71″ New York Times, September 20th 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/arts/20adam.html?_r=0 (accessed August 7th 2013)
Kennedy, L., “Through the lens, he captured the horrific and the sublime. An Unlikely Weapon: The Eddie Adams Story” The Denver Post, July 2nd 2009, http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12735365 (accessed 30th August 2013)
Priest, B., Schneider, S., Whited, M., & Coates, B. “The Effects of Photojournalism on the Protest Movement during the Vietnam War” Wellesley College, n.d. http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/ThreeImages/brady2.html (accessed August 7th 2013)
Tet Offensive Blog, The. http://jason-tetoffensive.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/summary.html (accessed 30th August 2013)
Thomas, R., “Nguyen Ngoc Loan, 67, Dies; Executed Viet Cong Prisoner” New York Times, July 16th 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/16/world/nguyen-ngoc-loan-67-dies-executed-viet-cong-prisoner.html (accessed August 30th 2013)
Winslow, Donald R.. “The Pulitzer Prize Eddie Adams Didn’t Want.” New York Times, April 19, 2011. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-pulitzer-eddie-adams-didnt-want/?src=tptw&_r=2 (accessed 7 Aug 2013)
YouTube. “Pulitzer prize 1968 commented by its photographer, Eddie Adams.” 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf5pJXr3gWQ (accessed 30 Aug 2013)
Zasky, J. “Saigon Execution: The real story behind Eddie Adams’ iconic Vietnam War Photo” Failure Maagzine, n.d. http://failuremag.com/feature/article/saigon_execution/ (Accessed August 30th 2013)
