[email protected]

In a message dated 9/29/02 9:30:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<<
I'm wondering why this toy is considered offensive? Or more offensive than a
regular GI Joe? >>

Here's my .02.....
A regular GI Joe is just a figure depicting someone in the military. Just
like playing with any doll that depicts some line of work, be it a doctor,
model or Mom.
But that "house" is depicting a ruined house with weapons and miltary
paraphenalia all over it. Obviously it was formerly a family home. Kinda sick
to me when I think of the fact that warfare has killed and destroyed so many
families and cities.
Making something that should be taken seriously, into a toy is just making a
mockery of the seriousness of war.
That's totally different to me than my kids playing with toy guns or GI Joes.
Neither of which they've been very fascinated with actually.
They prefer the medieval weaponry for the most part.
I think I'd rather have my kids interested in shooting real guns than playing
with that GI Joe house. That's just me though.
War makes me sick to my stomache, real though it may be.
And just because a person is interested in guns, shooting, weaponry etc...
that does not equal making a mockery of the seriousness of war and what it
does to real people, as that toy does.

Ren

Ren

[email protected]

In a message dated 9/29/02 11:54:23 AM, starsuncloud@... writes:

<< Making something that should be taken seriously, into a toy is just making
a
mockery of the seriousness of war. >>

In "Material World," there is a Bosnian family, and the photos of their stuff
and neighborhood and apartment are truly sad, but true.

Maybe it's better for kids to have the idea that even private homes become
involved than to have the more sanitized vision of deserts and jungles and
battlefields away from towns that kids have from many photos of Desert Storm,
Viet Nam, and WWII.

Sandra