second tier iconic U.S. history images from the 1960s?

First tier images are:

1) JKF riding in open limousine before his assassination, or a picture from his funeral.

2) Civil Rights protest,

3) Vietnam War, and/or protest

4) picture of hippies or music concert,

5) Apollo rocket launching (either Apollo 8 or Apollo 11)

What might be another first tier image and/or one or two second tier images. Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
Maybe a picture of Fidel Castro giving a speech to represent the Cuban Missile Crisis?

* people (more so outside AH) tend to forget this because nothing happened, but it sure could have
 

Philip

Donor
The Beatles arriving in the US

The_Beatles_in_America.JPG


It's not really hippies or a concert.
 
I've said this before, but I think that this ad deserves to be at least as famous as the Democrats' Daisy from '64.

Maybe the reason that it never reached First Tier status is that, unlike LBJ's petal-plucking moppet, it didn't focus on one single iconic image, symbolzing existential annihilation. It's still pretty freaky, though, especially with the psychedelic musical interludes.
 
MLK in front of the Lincoln Memorial and the aftermath of his assassination are two first tier images. Add in the photo from Apollo 8 of the Earth rise.

Second tier images might include Joe Nameth in Miami, poolside before Superbowl 3.
 
If the gay rights movement had gotten into fuller swing about five years earlier, and hence was garnering more attention by 1969, images from the Stonewall Riot might be considered more iconic.

As it happened, though, the post-Stonewall flowering of gay-rights took place mostly in the 70s, a decade which, for some reason, seems to have evinced less interest in iconic imagery.
 
If the gay rights movement had gotten into fuller swing about five years earlier, and hence was garnering more attention by 1969, images from the Stonewall Riot might be considered more iconic.

As it happened, though, the post-Stonewall flowering of gay-rights took place mostly in the 70s, a decade which, for some reason, seems to have evinced less interest in iconic imagery.
Being gay was literally illegal in every state except Illinois in 1969. That's why you did not have gay rights awareness until the seventies.
 
Being gay was literally illegal in every state except Illinois in 1969. That's why you did not have gay rights awareness until the seventies.

http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fstonewall-riots-45th-anniversary%2Fstonewall-riots-june-28-1969-8.jpg


Stonewall riots alone. But there was plenty of gay activism… they got just got beaten or swept under the rug. Awareness for the broader public? Well plenty of liberals and hippies, but not something covered in your regular newspaper sure.
 
Last edited:
Being gay was literally illegal in every state except Illinois in 1969. That's why you did not have gay rights awareness until the seventies.
I read a gay activist who made the case that the "medicalization" of being gay was if anything even worse than the criminalization.
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4841839/

' . . . In the fall of 1979, 25 years after the de-criminalization, homosexuality was de-medicalized when it was removed from the Swedish Classification of Diseases. . . '
This is Sweden for crying out loud, where they did not stop considering being lesbian, gay, or bi- a mental disorder till 1979. Doctors quick on the uptake may have done it sooner. Or not made a big deal about it, basically taking the view that someone LGBTQ of course deserves the same good quality healthcare as anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Stonewall riots alone. But there was plenty of gay activism… they got just got beaten or swept under the rug. Awareness for the broader public? Well plenty of liberals and hippies, but not something covered in your regular newspaper sure.
The Stonewall Riots (1969) were generally regarded as the kick-off for gay rights. Once civil rights, voting rights and Vietnam were settled, then attention turned to gay rights. For obvious reasons, women's rights became a hot issue as soon as the draft ended in 1973.
 
This is Sweden for crying out loud, where they did not stop considering being lesbian, gay, or bi- a mental disorder till 1979. Doctors quick on the uptake may have done it sooner. Or not made a big deal about it, basically taking the view that someone LGBTQ of course deserves the same good quality healthcare as anyone else.

Sweden does not actually have that great a record for issues relating to the social and legal control of sexuality.
 
https://www.aglp.org/gap/1_history/

" . . . When the diagnosis of homosexuality was deleted in 1973, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] did not initially embrace a normal variant model of homosexuality . . . "

" . . . The APA Committee agreed with the opponents and the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from DSM-III-R (1987). . . "
The American Psychiatric Association typically receives credit for the 1973 date, more than it should. For you see that they didn't remove this other diagnosis till 1987, for crying out loud!! There was even another diagnosis in the late '70s and early '80s of "Sexual Orientation Disturbance."

=============

In general, I think the fields of psychiatry and mental health have been very uneven human liberators, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
There was a controversy in Canada a few years back about some provinces still listing treatment for homosexuality as a billable item for doctors under government health-plans.

I believe, though, that in a lot of instances, the doctors were using the diagnosis of homosexuality for purposes of double-dipping eg. if a patient sees a shrink because she's depressed about her family, and one of the reasons she doesn't get along with her family is because they hate her for being a lesbian, the shrink would bill for treatment of depression, and throw in an extra charge for homosexuality, simply because that played some role in the patient's situation. Even though the doctor didn't actually try to "cure" her of homosexuality.

At least that's what I remember from the media reports.
 
Can I say I don't understand the question? What is 1st tier and 2nd tier?
Alright, by first tier I mean this: If there was a short news segment leading into the '60s, they might show a series of images: MLK at the Washington Monument, funeral for JFK, American soldiers in Vietnam, an Apollo rocket taking off, or Woodstock.

By second tier, I mean things almost as famous but not as often included in these kind of montages. For example, maybe dancing at a gay nightclub, maybe Joe Namath poolside before Superbowl III, etc.*

And then they'd be a third category of things which should be first tier, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. We all dodged a bullet on that one

* some of this would become more common images for the '70s, including activism for women's equality
 
Last edited:
There was a controversy in Canada a few years back about some provinces still listing treatment for homosexuality as a billable item for doctors under government health-plans.

I believe, though, that in a lot of instances, the doctors were using the diagnosis of homosexuality for purposes of double-dipping . . .
Just like peoole cheat on their taxes, figuring that everyone does it, I’m not going to be the only sucker or one of a small minority.

So, I’m guessing that doctors convince themselves that it’s common practice, there’s plenty of other things they’re way underpaid on, that it’s “expected.” When it really is not expected.
 
Top