Subject:
|
Re: Factions (and violence)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:43:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1553 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.
And more unpredictable. There aren't really "front lines" you can avoid -
they'll hit just about anywhere. The horror of war that it is difficult to
run from.
>
> 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.
This isn't entirely accurate. It was used first as intelligence gathering
(as it still is). It was more effective early on as a tactical bomber
rather than strategic. But as an actual weapon of war, yes, it was a
bomber. Fighters were just there to stop the spying and bombing.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
The Camel was a fighter, and there was even at the time a sort of romance to
the (perceived) knightly duals in the sky. With the rest of the Great War
being a gawdawful miasma, it had a personal quality lacking in the
meatgrinder land battles. I think that the distance in time and the
multipurpose nature of airplanes are what influenced Lego to make the kit -
a tank always remains a weapon of war. Yes, we all know that Lego has
something of odd perception as to what constitutes "violence", but it seems
to be that they feel that something that no one feels threatened by *now*
means it is "non-violent". It seems an odd stance (as I sit here and read
"The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses" and all it's rather nasty
bloodshed and then picture my Black Falcons with those cute smiley faces),
but perhaps more understandable if you are from Europe.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
