"something that glorifies violence and killing?" Topic

Many moons ago when I fancied the idea of putting out my own wargames magazine (before reality set in, of course) I postulated that one of the regular columns was 'ask a wargamer.' In this regular column various famous wargamers would answer questions asked by non-wargamers such as 'concerned citizens' and parents. To see what type of questions would be floated, I opened to floor to the great unwashed.

Aside from the usual questions about price and safety of children (and that one cheese-wanker who used his question to engage on some obvious axe-grinding against a certain game) one question really hit me, and has stuck with me for years, mostly because I couldn't come up with a decent answer.

As you may guess, the question is this: "Why should I let my child get involved with something that glorifies violence and killing?"

As I've said, I can't come up with a coherent answer to this question. Can anyone else?

Hasn't this been discussed to death?

Same discussion (for many decades already) why kids should or should not play with toy soldiers, toy guns, read comics that contain violence, show violence on tv, etc.etc.etc. Aka moral panic.

I can think of quite a few so-called hobbies that deserve this type of question much more than wargaming.

But to answer the question: "It's a game using toy soldiers and dice, get over it!"

Good answer.

HG Wells gave the definitive answer to this question in Little Wars

And if I might for a moment trumpet! How much better is this amiable miniature than the Real Thing! Here is a homeopathic remedy for the imaginative strategist. Here is the premeditation, the thrill, the strain of accumulating victory or disaster—and no smashed nor sanguinary bodies, no shattered fine buildings nor devastated country sides, no petty cruelties, none of that awful universal boredom and embitterment, that tiresome delay or stoppage or embarrassment of every gracious, bold, sweet, and charming thing, that we who are old enough to remember a real modern war know to be the reality of belligerence. This world is for ample living; we want security and freedom; all of us in every country, except a few dull-witted, energetic bores, want to see the manhood of the world at something better than apeing the little lead toys our children buy in boxes. We want fine things made for mankind—splendid cities, open ways, more knowledge and power, and more and more and more—and so I offer my game, for a particular as well as a general end; and let us put this prancing monarch and that silly scare-monger, and these excitable "patriots," and those adventurers, and all the practitioners of Welt Politik, into one vast Temple of War, with cork carpets everywhere, and plenty of little trees and little houses to knock down, and cities and fortresses, and unlimited soldiers—tons, cellars-full—and let them lead their own lives there away from us.

My game is just as good as their game, and saner by reason of its size. Here is War, done down to rational proportions, and yet out of the way of mankind, even as our fathers turned human sacrifices into the eating of little images and symbolic mouthfuls. For my own part, I am prepared. I have nearly five hundred men, more than a score of guns, and I twirl my moustache and hurl defiance eastward from my home in Essex across the narrow seas. Not only eastward. I would conclude this little discourse with one other disconcerting and exasperating sentence for the admirers and practitioners of Big War. I have never yet met in little battle any military gentleman, any captain, major, colonel, general, or eminent commander, who did not presently get into difficulties and confusions among even the elementary rules of the Battle. You have only to play at Little Wars three or four times to realise just what a blundering thing Great War must be.

Great War is at present, I am convinced, not only the most expensive game in the universe, but it is a game out of all proportion. Not only are the masses of men and material and suffering and inconvenience too monstrously big for reason, but—the available heads we have for it, are too small. That, I think, is the most pacific realisation conceivable, and Little War brings you to it as nothing else but Great War can do.

The correct answer is "Why do morons think wargaming glorifies violence and killing?"

The reason you can't come up with a good answer is that there is a huge assumption that wargaming actually does glorify violence and killing. The question, stated that way, oversimplifies the concept of "wargaming", assuming it is a common thing WRT glorification of violence and killing. It also assumes that glorification of violence and killing is a cohesive enough thing to act as a characteristic.

Additionally, "glorification" is based on a subjective categorization. Again overgeneralization strikes.

The real answer is "What makes you think that wargaming glorifies violence and killing?"

I tell people that wargaming is like playing chess on a very large board, you have to think about your opponents next move. It also teaches children about history and tactics. And it also teaches them how to paint and how to interact with other people. It is far less violent than any video game ever made.

Didn't H.G. Wells pack up his soldiers and never play again after the reality and horrors of the Great War?

I don't think its a problem for the question to come up here from time to time. New people come to the hobby, who haven't discussed it, and I get asked some variation of this every few years, usually by somebody curious about or new to gaming. People wonder about it.

Some years ago, one of my best friends, and my favorite gamer, left the hobby over this issue. He had read a book by a journalist who spend his life covering war, and who concluded that the way we, as a society, address war outside of its conduct, glorify it. The journalist argued that most of the ways that we(society, not just gamers) present and represent war also glorified it. My friend came to share the view in some capacity, and agreed that our hobby served to do this, at least for him or from his vantage point. So he quit.

Now before you go bashing him, understand that he was a veteran and served overseas. He is quite intelligent and well educated. And, he could put forth a good argument that at least some of us do glorify war in some capacity through the hobby.

While I didn't share his view, I respect his decision, and his standing up for what he believes in. I regret the loss of a great gamer from my hobby, and that we've grown apart and followed different paths since. But I still respect his decision; it was not easily or lightly made.

Regarding the question in general, I usually respond that for me, it isn't about glorifying war, but becomes quite the opposite. That the game may involve battle, though not always, and that the game itself is a learning experience (I know some will argue that, but please, lets discuss that elsewhere). It involves a problem solving exercise, and provides me with some experience in and awareness of situations that I would not otherwise encounter. That in the game, and as a result of the game, nobody ever gets hurt. That in pursuit and support of the game, I learn, about every sort of thing. I learn about places, cultures, perspectives, events, about human nature and behavior, etc, etc. I explain that the game is made up of other components, that involve creativity and art, through building and painting. And I mention that for me, the game also involves the growth of my awareness about the horror of war, and the horror of how humans treat other humans. But that unlike war, in the game, the horror never happens. There is no violence, no misery, no death. The game is not war.

In the world, there seem to be a lot of people who do glorify war, darned few of them are not gamers.

There is no answer to that question that can be encapsulated in less than a lecture of thirty hours.

Model Railroading is not a hobby about destruction of the environment or monopolistic business practices, nor is model cars about reckless and drunk driving, nor is model ships about drowning, rum, sodomy, and the lash, and finally, nor is dungeons and Dragons about demon worship and crime. War games actually condemns and denounces violence and killing, but it takes too long to show that by words. On the other hand, these things are self evident to the most casual and uninformed observer if they WATCH a game and PLAY a game.

Morons are morons and it is best simply to ignore them.

In my years of gaming where I have taken the game to schools, to malls, to squiring around persons at conventions who were not war gamers but just happened to be staying at the same hotel, I never once heard this question asked, and all I saw was a sense of wonder and wide-eyed enthusiasm on the faces of adults.

It's a non-question. No one is asking it, and everyone "gets" it as a game and only a game.

Once or twice I had a few people who thought it was a little dodgy, but when I showed them the armies of The PrincessTrixie of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein, or that of Faustus the Grump with names like "The Riseundshine Regiment" and "The Rottingham Horse" the humor dissolved all their trepidation.

If you get questions like the original poster posed, what you need in your game is a big does of Mel Brooks.

Great answers

And anyone who thinks kids don't play like this already has never listened to five year old boys playing Lego – when he was five I asked the Little Prince "Where's the sweetness? Where's the love?" to which he looked up from his Legonaut and said "There's no sweetness in Lego"

Good Heavens! We can't have children playing games that teach them about math, lateral thinking, planning and adapting that plan in the face of set backs, weighing benefits versus costs, and good sportsmanship. Wrost of all they might even learn something about history. They might turn out to be ungovernable.

Let me pose this question in a reverse manner. What kinds of games can there be involving miniatures that represent people from history that are not representative of violence if not at least conflict.

Let's assume that face-to-face interaction in a gaming situation is at least acceptable. So what games can there be that teach cooperation and not conflict using miniature figures.?

Again?
If ever asked, I always say, no more than watching Justified, the shield or…praising fidel castro.

Can I just chip in, calling people who ask questions you don't like Morons isn't helpful. 2016 has shown that to be a fact both here in the UK and the USA, but lets not get into that.

The answer to the threads question is of course it doesn't. Wargaming is not about violence and killing, anymore than a game of Chess or Risk are. Considering the visual violence and killing in console games just about every child in the Western World is playing daily, our hobby is a haven of peace and tranquility. If the parent in question does not allow their child to play console games either, then the answer to them has to be 'you're right, wargaming with miniatures is not suitable for your family'. There has to be an age question as well, it's not really a hobby for young children (doesn't mean it excludes children, don't get me wrong).

A more difficult question is does Miniature Wargaming glorify war/ the military. I hate to say it probably does. But I don't have any problem with that. The use of the word 'glorify' is so subjective I would never describe wargaming in that way. but in the face of a dedicated anti-militarist accusing us of it, I'd have to concede that by their standards we are, but I don't agree with their point of view.

It does, just like every aspect of our society does to some extent embrace, glorify and normalize violence and cruelty.

To some extent, we all make our peace with that. I suspect games are a lot lower on the pole of guilt than the people who ordered such violence and cruelty in real life.

To add to that, I think all we can do is treat the topic respectfully and with some measure of dignity.

A reading of any account of infantry warfare should help dispel any notions of glamour and glory.

Ha, you're in for it now, Ivan!!!

This comes up regularly here on TMP, and I just don't get it. War is killing and wargaming romanticizes war. You can either live with that, or you can't. That doesn't make us warmongers or bad humans. It seems to me we used to understand that war has always been with us and always will, part of the human condition.

It cracks me up to see us tying ourselves in knots to decry war as inherently evil/immoral/counterproductive, to try to separate war from killing to try to make ourselves feel… what? Better? Enlightened? Superior?

Better/more enlightened/superior to what, or whom? That way lies conflict, could lead to violence. We play wargames, it's gonna be okay guys ;)

And Ivan, I would submit war will always hold a certain amount of glamor and glory for certain folks, usually males aged 13 to 21. I recall as a child seeing an interview with the director of "A Bridge Too Far," watching him explain how anti-war he and the movie were. He seemed certain that the operational flaws that led to the failure of the operation and resulted in so many "senseless " casualties would turn people off. Perhaps it did, but all I saw were men doing the best they could in a terrible situation (on both sides), risking all for their county and comrades.

Glory may not be real, but heroes certainly are.

Anyway, way too deep and melodramatic for a website about guys that play with toy soldiers. I need to get upstairs and get some more fights in.

V/R,
Jack

Hah, well sure, but the question was raised and deserved an answer.
After all,I hardly could pass up an opportunity to pontificate :)

Some self-important t**t who publishes wargame rules once said that soldiering is a distilled microcosm of what it means to be human :-)

In the end, like I said, we all make our peace with it because ultimately we like to roll dice, push toy soldiers around a map and imagine that the little lead guy is actually Corporal Jamison and he's going to get Jerry back for what they did to his mate back at Arras.

I play mini's games and board games with the kid and he approaches it like a fun game (when he wins anyways).
When I show him photos of the trenches in Flanders in 1916 and ask him what he thinks it'd have been like to be there… he gets very thoughtful and somber.
Kids aren't dumb :)

It teaches history and history shows what a horrible thing war is.

Well, to most people, anyways. To those that it doesn't, well, I suspect that their parents wouldn't think glorifying war is a bad thing, anyway.

This is my most succinct answer.

Because, in an abstract way, it makes us consider the price of war, without the ruinous consequences.

I am at the age that I do not care what they think.
I provide historical based information on how to simulate historic situations called battles. The interest often comes in the research on the uniforms.
So if they get upset on the content, then do not read it and go away. I have no desire to debate morale aspects by ignorant people.

There is no answer to that question that can be encapsulated in less than a lecture of thirty hours.

30 hours? I think the prospect would drive me to violence & killing. Although Polonius was neither soulful nor witty, I'd direct you to his advice on brevity.

Put a large 28mm WW1 trench game on at Historicon. First time we decided to replace figures with dead figures for all of the casualties. It made the game more real and made you think about it. Both my grandfathers fought there. One German, one English. Not sure how they could have done it.

War is part of reality. Sadly, people who don't like to accept that are liable to become victims of it. If you don't learn about history you may repeat it – and that can result is harsh lessons… if your enemy is prepared for war and you aren't, you lose when it comes.

That saying 'walk softly but carry a big stick' – well, walking softly and carrying a big stick is not very effective if the guy attacking you knows that you are never going to use it, and even if you did you don't know how to.

No, wargaming is not a preparation for war, neither is playing with toy guns. But play is about learning physical and social skills and attitudes that serve you in adult life. Sadly, war is part of that life.

So no, wargaming doesn't glorify war. It does, however, help in a small way to protect us against the possibility. Anyone here say that the US and all other Western nuclear powers should give up nuclear weapons in the hope that Russia and China will do the same?

So why should we give up the mental processes that help protect us? Nuclear weapons,etc, are big sticks… give up wargaming, and playing with toy guns, or video games,and being in various army cadet forces, etc… that will convince potential enemies that we will never use them; eventually it will convince them that, as nations, we wouldn't even know how to use them.

Glorifying violence and killing is important. I don't think it is good to glorify needless violence and killing but war is not always that. Glorifying heroic things people did to defend themselves and their way of life is a good thing.

One of the problems is assuming that violence is inherently bad. It is not. It is one tool among many to solve problems. Sometimes it should be a tool of last resort, sometimes not. Not recognizing the utility of violence is a mistake.

To answer the OP's question, you should let your child get involved in something that glorifies violence and killing. You should encourage your child to get into it and you should discuss when violence and killing are useful and when they are not.

Can I just chip in, calling people who ask questions you don't like Morons isn't helpful.

It's not a question I don't like. It is a logically fallaciously constructed question that is directed at denigrating others. And I didn't actually recommend calling them morons, but I used a mirror back offensive question using the same type of circular logic base as a dramatic counterpoint device. And I ended the post with a genuine question that would lead to substantive discussion of the topic with the person asking.

I like what a favorite character in an Alfred Leo Duggan novel said about killing. "I don't look forward to killing men, though it comes easily enough and I sleep well afterwards. Besides, how often do you kill a knight? You knock him off his horse and leave him to take his chance on the ground. As to the common foot, there's seldom any need to hurt them. They will run, or surrender, as soon as their leaders are beaten. No, the real thrill of battle is seeing all that crowd of men eager to kill you, and not letting them do it. There's no finer sport in the world." -- Lord Geoffrey's Fancy

That is the spirit and soul of wargaming. And the only glory about war: survival against all odds.

Reminded me of Marlon Brando's monologue in "Apocalypse Now" about horror.

Well I am an example of that sort of thinking. My parents both believed the 1960's malarkey that if we didn't glorify war and violence that wars would end.

So my parents didn't allow me to have toy guns, swords etc or even to play with toy Soldiers. I kept borrowing the neighbors toys and making guns out of sticks. I grew up to be an Airborne Ranger and retired as a Colonel, when I had children of my own my parents wanted to ensure that I DID allow them to play with those warlike toys.

A Soldier soon realizes that combat is a brutal and ugly business. However not defending your nation or other nations that need your help is an even uglier business.

Wargames do not glorify war and violence but rather lead to the study of what war is like. as previous polls here have shown most wargamers are not combat hardened veterans we are just people who enjoy playing thought games with models that resemble Soldiers.

It's a good question, and one I wrestle with occasionally. In my view wargaming does glorify war. If the war part of it wasn't important we'd be playing monopoly, careers, or euchre.

As has been said before by others, we all have to make our peace with it, or not.

The fact that something is necessary or morally justified does not mean that any discussion or simulation of it glorifies it.

Got any examples of glorification of cleaning the bathroom? TV commercials try hard to make it look as non-heinous and quick as possible and to get you to focus on the outcome (to justify the process) rather than the process itself. In fact, you probably can't show the worst parts of it on TV …

etotheipi, not sure that's such a great example…. If there was a bunch of people getting excited about the purchase, painting and photography of models for toilet adventures in 15mm, who would spend hours playing with them, and hours more compiling after action reports to put on their blogs, you'd probably think they had a bit of a fixation, wouldn't you? :)

Cheers,
Aaron