Where Are The Jane Fonda's Of Yesteryear?

Put another way, your question is "where is the tolerance for the protesters of the 1960s?" Because Robert E. Lee was still a "patriot" compared to Jane Fonda (at least Lee wasn't aligned with a "foreign" country). So why is Lee being banned while Fonda is still honored?

That question was answered in the book "Generations" by William Strauss and Neil Howe. The issue is that we're in something like the modern 1930s, in a so-called "crisis" era, in the shadow of the 2008 stock market crash (the modern 1929), and 9/11 (the "modern Pearl Harbor") and ISIS. These are times when the ethos is "circle the wagons." and "let's get rid of what doesn't belong." The intolerance of Robert E. Lee (a past bugaboo) is part of the pattern.

According to the book, an era like the 1960s occurs about every 80 years or so, historically in the 1880s, prospectively in the 2040s. This is a very different kind of time, an era of peace and prosperity, like that enjoyed after World War II, when people care more about the less fortunate and fight harder against "injustice" real or perceived.

The "civil rights" generation was the so-called Silent generation of Jane Fonda (born 1937 during the Depression, came of age in prosperity). The modern Silent Generation is the Homeland Security generation, born in the 2000s and 2010s, after "9/11" who will produce and support the new "Jane Fonda's," around 2040.

It is important, when judging past events, to put those events in the context of the time in which they occurred. Trying to judge by today's standards will lead to very incorrect conclusions.

There was a thriving trade in African slaves from the 1600's to the early 1800's. Over 12 million Africans were taken into slavery during this time. Obviously, there was general approval for this activity by a lot of people. Slavery back then was not viewed with the disgust with which it is thought of today.

Consider this chart of African slavery, divided up by destination. From this, you learn some very interesting facts not highlighted in contemporary narratives.

Statistically speaking, the US had relatively few African slaves. Around 300,000, were brought to the US as slaves. The most prolific slavers were the Portuguese, who used over five million Africans in the copper, gold and silver mines of central and south America. The British took over three million, and many fortunes were made on the sugar plantations in the British controlled Caribbean islands.

But, when it comes to denigrating a culture for slavery, the Spanish, Portuguese, British and French aren't mentioned. Only the people from the southeast US, who were second only to Denmark in having the fewest number of slaves. The UK is remembered for trying to stop a trade in which it was the second largest player.

Consider also that most of the founders of the US government were also slaveowners. No one is taking down statues of Washington or Jefferson.

So your friend has a valid reason to feel indignant. Not because slavery was not wrong, but because the real perpetrators have been largely ignored.

I don't know that Jane Fonda is the best example of genuine activism, her protest activities tended to boost her acting career.

One person who spoke out against the war, and sacrificed quite a bit in the process was Muhammed Ali, who gave up his championship by refusing the draft.

Nor are antiwar activities always well received. Charles Lindbergh was a dedicated isolationist who opposed military action in the years leading up to WW2. This public stance, along with expressing admiration for Germany of the mid 1930's, more or less destroyed his previously revered image.