Jane Fonda
Photo from Wikimedia Commons
What was the accusation?
In 1972, Hollywood actress and political activist Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, when the country was enemy territory for the United States. Her trip was already controversial because Fonda had become one of the most visible American opponents of the war, but the backlash intensified after a photograph showed her seated near North Vietnamese soldiers and anti-aircraft artillery. Many critics interpreted the image as a sign of sympathy with the enemy and hostility toward American service members, and the nickname “Hanoi Jane” followed her for decades. Fonda has repeatedly said that she opposed the war because of what she had learned from American soldiers and veterans, not because she opposed the troops themselves.
Over the years, Fonda apologized privately and publicly for the photograph and for what it seemed to convey. In a 2012 episode of Oprah’s Master Class, she described the photo as an “unforgivable mistake,” said she would regret it for the rest of her life, and explained that she did not realize in the moment how the image would appear. In 2015, she again emphasized her regret, calling the photograph a “huge, huge mistake.” Her apologia combines mortification with defeasibility, bolstering, and corrective action: she accepts responsibility, explains her emotional and situational state, distinguishes her anti-war activism from anti-troop sentiment, and points to later efforts to meet with Vietnam veterans and listen to their anger.
Key Apologia Strategies:
Mortification, Defeasibility, Bolstering, Corrective Action
Video
N/A
Transcript
“I made one unforgivable mistake when I was in North Vietnam, and I will go to my grave with this. On my last day, I was taken to a military site. It’s not something I wanted to do. I was an emotional wreck by now. I don’t know if I was set up or not. I was an adult. I take responsibility for my actions. There was this little ceremony. These soldiers sang a song. I sang a song in a feeble Vietnamese. Everyone was laughing. I was led to a gun site, and I sat down. And I was laughing and clapping, and there were pictures taken. And as I walked away, I suddenly thought, ˜Oh my gosh! This is going to look like I was shooting.” I mean, there were no planes. The gun was not operable. It didn’t matter. This is an image that belied everything that I was. I was in Vietnam. I was against the war because of what I had learned from soldiers. I’d spent three years working with active-duty servicemen. And I understand the anger about that. And, by the way, I have apologized for that photograph over and over and over again, privately and publicly, and I’m doing it again now. Years later, when I was in Waterbury, Connecticut, I was making a film, Stanley & Iris. I had my PR person there. I asked him to try to organize a meeting of Vietnam veterans just Vietnam veterans, in the basement of a church. And there were about 40 of them that came. And I came in alone. And I suggested that we go around in a circle and we all tell our stories, and we did. Some of them were they had hats that said traitor. There was one who later said to me, ˜I came with he was it was the Delta Death Squad, and he had an ace of spades, and that was the card that would be thrown when he was going to kill someone, and he brought it with him, and he was intending to challenge me and throw it at my feet There was a lot of hostility a lot of tears from all of us. It lasted many hours. When it was over, my PR person came in and said, ˜I don’t know who told the press. It wasn’t me. [It certainly wasn’t me.] But there are some press people outside. What do you want to do?’ And I said to the men, ˜What do you want to do? I’ll do whatever you want. We can all go out the back. Whatever.’ And they said, ˜Let ’em in.’ It’s not what the press expected. I don’t mean that every single man there suddenly was fond of Fonda, but there was a lot of healing, a lot of healing. The guy with the ace of spades ended up tearing it up and throwing it in the trash, and he’s remained my friend, and we’ve talked a lot about this event. And what I learned: we have to listen to each other. Even when we don’t agree, even when we think we hate each other, we have to listen to each other’s narratives. Not interrupt defensively or with hostility, but really try to open our hearts and listen with empathy. I learned so much from that meeting. It was a very difficult thing to do, and it was one of the best things that I ever, that I ever did in my life. Look what scares you in the face and try to understand it. Empathy, I have learned, is revolutionary.”
Sources
Related Apologia Cases
Readers interested in this political apologia case may also want to review: