To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 12179
12178  |  12180
Subject: 
Re: Factions (and violence)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:55:11 GMT
Viewed: 
1525 times
  
In lugnet.castle, Leonard Hoffman writes:
In case it hasn't been thrown out, how would the Sopwith Camel play into the
Lego non-implicit violence scheme?

ive recently read the book _Modernity and Warfare_ by pk lawrence, in it he
describes air power as the apex of modern warfare, in being both aesthetic and
horribly violent.

   That's just swiping JFC Fuller!  :)  Read Fuller's treatises on
   air power, written just after the horror of WWI, to see how much
   they feared the bomber.  ("The bomber will always get through",
   all of that.)

the war plane itself (be it biplane, divebomber, or stealth fighter) was built
with the idea of being used to strategically bomb.  the first bombing raid was
done by Italy before ww1 while attacking the Turkish territory of libya. i dont
know too much about the sopwith camel specifically, but im sure it either
bombed enemy troops or fired on them.

   It could theoretically fire machine guns at people--but trust
   me on this, taking a biplane down anywhere near the trenches
   raised the very real possibility that it wasn't ever coming
   back up again.  They were tossing a LOT of lead around down
   there--and the only advantage to taking a plane's MGs down
   to the trenches is a slightly better angle for a few seconds.
   Better to stay in the sky, unless you're balloon-busting.

   I don't think Camels were ever fitted with any serious
   ordnance. (I know that various Spads got antipersonnel bombs--
   little 20-lb ones--at some point, though.)

   The romance of the Camel is that it was the weapon of the
   "knights of the sky," not the mud-festooned tool of the ground
   pounders.  The air was the only place where any chivalry seemed
   to exist during the war--it left the land after the Marne, and
   when the _Emden_ was finally destroyed, there was no more at sea.

   (Actually, if you want to get to this grand shift in thinking,
   Modris Eksteins's _Rites of Spring_ is still one of the very
   best--a good read.  I have to lecture on WWI on Tuesday, in
   fact, and he's been a big help yet again.)

i think a big point to consider when talking about the Sopwith Camel in
specific is the dual nature of the war plane as both aesthetic beauty and
genocidal weapon of war.

   Again, in WWI, the aircraft wasn't yet considered a "genocidal
   weapon of war."  The idea of true genocide from the air doesn't
   float until 1918, after a few visits to London by the dreaded
   Gotha bombers.  I'd argue that the Camel is emblematic of the
   nimble fighter, not the highly unsporting civilian-killing bomber.

i can understand that lego doesn't glorify war, but, especially with the
sopwith camel, it is glorifing the methods (or perhaps tools) of war. and the
nature of lego system is continually shown as violence of some sort: almost all
themes are of soldiers and warriors fighting eachother.

   Uncompetitive life isn't that exciting, really.  It's our nature
   as violent beings.  One could argue that sports are also "soldiers
   or warriors fighting each other."  We've just agreed as a group
   on a proxy for death and destruction, given that our age makes
   life and limb so cheap.

   (By the way, _Gallipoli_ is a great, Australian-themed movie
   about how useless athletic bodies really were in total war.)

   Just a few thoughts.

   best

   LFB



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Factions (and violence)
 
(...) LFB After reading your above statement I must ask, where do you teach at? After spending 4 (long) years at West Point I must say that hearing your previous post brings me back to my days as a cadet in one of my military history classes. I was (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Factions (and violence)
 
(...) ive recently read the book _Modernity and Warfare_ by pk lawrence, in it he describes air power as the apex of modern warfare, in being both aesthetic and horribly violent. the war plane itself (be it biplane, divebomber, or stealth fighter) (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.build.sculpture, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR