Chappie Sympathizes with Playmobile's Good Intentions...

I sympathize with everyone in this little story I happened upon while wasting time on-line this morning. Well, I don't have much sympathy for ME...

How could I resist "Dark-skinned doll wearing 'slave collar' ignites outrage"?  After reading this account of a Sacramento mom who was horrified to discover her little boy playing with a toy which required attaching a "slave collar" to a dark skinned toy pirate figure, went ballistic and called the company, Playmobile, to account on Facebook, I had a think about it. Something didn't seem right. It occurred to me that it's just possible that Mom was concerned that her little boy had come upon the leather slave collar in the nightstand of her bedroom? Holy Shmoley!  Bad joke--I apologize. But, in fact, Mom is African-American and is experiencing for the umpteenth time the history of her people seen from the perspective of corporate America. Corporate America, by the way, is white. As much as I sympathize with her, I see no easy way around this problem. Appearances can be deceiving.

Kunta Kinte (LeVar Burton) in Alex Haley's Roots, 1977 (David Wolper Productions)

Doesn't Playmobile get credit for making the slave collar accessory optional?  The outraged mother, who is clearly very bright, recognizes this fact but not its significance when she writes, "I suppose it's optional as to whether a kid chooses to then place said character into chains or into a prison cell at the bottom of the ship."

EXACTLY!  "Optional" means free to choose what to do. A five-year old will probably not fail this moral test. He or she might do as the mother suggests and place the dark figure in chains in the hold, but then...he will feel something about that, he will create a counter-narrative freeing the confined figure? Why not? Five years old is when we begin to recognize others who are as powerless and vulnerable as ourselves.  It's all a crap-shoot and we have to let them learn from the earliest possible moment.

No, I'm not being funny.  I know exactly what the designer intended. The applicable/removable collar permitted the child (or adult) player to MANUMIT the captive...to REMOVE the collar as would have happened when some runaways or captives were selected to join pirate crews, perhaps as slaves at first but with the chance of freedom after proving themselves.  You didn't know this? I've got news for everyone: this is exactly what happened repeatedly. Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't quite get it right...there were many African descended men in pirate crews (and working as crew on other ships) and they didn't get there the easy way. And only a few were slaves.  There is strong evidence of at least one former slave who became a pirate captain--Black Caesar. Though the account of his career on Wikipedia is unsourced and sounds very Hollywood, the fact is that at the end of the day an African pirate leader was hanged at Williamsburg Virginia in 1718. This proves something...

Removable slave collar detail (Playmobile)

No, I'm not reading too much into this. I'm reading it as I would have when I was a child and as the game's designer no doubt DID when designing it. Good guys and bad guys doing what they do. Children don't have pure minds and don't need to be protected from everything, especially not from realities which involve limitations placed on human freedom. Children all know about limitations on human freedom. This smacks of the sadly officious parents who won't let their children have toy guns or play "violent" games. No, I don't mean Ms. Lockett whose shock I understand. I mean all the "well-meaning" trolls who will jump on Playmobile for being responsible to history and human nature. Grow up, people. In her classic 1993 memoir, Love's Work, Philosopher Gilliam Rose referred to this propensity of avoidance,

"...the decision to stop small children, girls and boys, from playing with guns, pugnacious video games, or any violent toys. This brutally sincere, enlightened probity, which thinks it will stop war and aggression, in effect aggravates their propensity. This decision evinces loss of trust in the way that play (fairy stories, terrifying films) teaches the difference between fantasy and actuality. The child who is able to explore that border will feel safe in experiencing violent, inner, emotional conflict, and will acquire compassion for other people. The child who is locked away from aggressive experiment and play will be left paralyzed and terrified by its emotions, unable to face or release them..." (page 126)

Yes, perhaps it's a bit too much historical reality for a parent who is understandably ignorant of certain facts of history and wants her child to remain ignorant of certain unpleasant facts about the Past. That's the parent's choice even if its mistaken, in my view. Surely the manufacturer should advertise that the toy is "historically accurate and may upset some sensibilities."  But the mother in Sacramento should breathe a sigh of relief. At least Playmobile doesn't seem to have included certain other edgy realities in the game, realities suggested by the titles of books such as: Rum, Sodomy and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity by Hans Turley or B. R. Burg's 1983 classic  Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth-Century Caribbean. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with rum, sodomy(a meaningless legal term now) or the lash if properly applied--but not for children. I sound as if I'm channeling a Seinfeld episode...not that there's anything wrong with that. As for rum, stay away from that horrid spiced stuff...

Is that EYE MAKE-UP on Jack Sparrow? (Disney)

To conclude, this episode indicates that today's parents are severely burdened by expectations of inculcating political correctness (if that's really a thing) or of just preventing their children being desensitized by our hyper-sexualized and humanly indifferent environment. I sympathize. But Playmobile did nothing wrong--quite the contrary.

I hope they'll send me a complimentary copy of the game for my sandbox...

Chappie Gets Asked a Question: How are Gun Owners Different from Muslims?

Though I commenced to grinding my teeth upon reading the following words from a reader/friend manning a lonely outpost on the shores of Lake Michigan, once I engaged my brain I recognized that it is a fair question. The words referred to go,

"...[You, Chappie, are] pretty harsh on gun ownership in general. You lampoon gun owners as Neanderthals, wackos, and reprobates - as a general class. Yet you, above others, are adamant that all Muslims are not to be judged by the action of a fringe group of fanatics. I think you should ponder this."

 I should. Where to begin?  Well, for starters Chappie knows that gun owners are overwhelmingly no better and no worse that any other group of Americans. Yikes! Since 33% of us may be gun owners or live in homes where there are guns, GOs are larger than any religion or political party we have. Catholics are only 27%!  It is also obvious that most gun owners probably don't identify themselves as wacked out paranoids and don't act politically in accord with this narrow and bizarre (and phony) identity of GO. I say "phony" because the entire premise of Wayne La Pierre's religion is a fantasy. A lot of his support may one day prove to be a fantasy as well. I sure hope so. Until Wayne & Co (the NRA) raised the non-issue and began getting rich many years ago, there was no issue. Chicken Little had the same insight in another dimension... by the way, the NRA still provides excellent technical firearms instruction as a side dish to it's now principal purpose--the political role in service to the firearms manufacturers (lobbyist)...

Arizona couple target shooting  (Joshua Lott/Reuters)

Anyway, I'm wandering and being unnecessarily controversial. I'm a liberal and I don't want to take away anyone's guns. I want those so inclined to buy more guns (as they, as a shrinking group, seem to be doing) in the certain knowledge that no one is as endangered by their guns as they are. Studies show that firearm ownership is actually in decline. The third of American who own or live with firearms today is down from 50% in 1980. Smoking rates have similarly tumbled in these years...maybe we're smarter than we know?  The fact is that gun ownership is dangerous to one's health.

White males 65 and older (like me) are the group most likely to use their firearms to kill themselves. Holy Smokes! Nearly 20,000 Americans killed themselves with firearms in 2010. Read that sentence again. How many do you imagine did it last year? And, here's the catch: every one was either a gun owner or lived with a gun owner.  And yet GOs are worried that liberals like me want to take their guns away?  That's enough about that.

I guess this is a good time to ask if I'm lampooning or ridiculing gun owners?  Well? I can't say that I respect them as a self-identified group: quite the contrary in view of their mass delusion of increased safety. But I can't honestly say that I limit my identification of and respect for more than a tiny group of  economically motivated fanatics to the "gun owner" label.  If I lived in the country, I almost certainly would be a gun owner, too. I love to shoot a 1911 .45 as long as it belongs to someone else and they have lots of ammo. I'm not made of money!

Next let's get to the main course and compare gun owners and Muslims, ignoring the fact that in some cases the two are one and the same. First, both have some of the characteristics of a religion. Muslims have the Koran and gun owners have... well, they don't necessarily read...Wait a minute, Old Chap, that is more than a bit harsh. Stick to your purpose: a fair examination of the original charge.

I could observe that Islam is one of the world's great religions and "gun owners", as I have made clear, is an American religious cult. I think there is some validity to this characterization. Neither will listen to any criticism of their core beliefs. I'll take a pass on any need to justify this remark vis a vis Islam and pass onto a consideration of GO (not the Japanese board game but my moniker for the gun owners cult.)

Do gun owners universally revere The Shooter's Bible (107th ed.)?  I have no idea. I doubt it very much. What GO do revere and refer to constantly are the words "second amendment right". However, they NEVER actually quote the brief but specific wording of the amendment. Only their opponents do. Seriously. Odd, don't you think?  But understandable in that they probably find the reference to "well-regulated militia" off-putting and having little to do with the SCOTUS's bizarre decisions in DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.  These decisions have created the kinds of cognitive dissonance in thinking people not experienced since Dred Scott v. Standford and Plessy v. Ferguson to pick just the most famous. How about First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) which opened the door to all corporate money in politics? What did you say? Citizens Uni-?  OK, OK, I'm not here to argue the law (though I have been doing so.)  I'm making the point that many SCOTUS decisions are grossly off  (politically inspired) a great deal of the time. People left and right should agree with this observation. Let's get back to our comparison.
                                                                          
Though Islam is the great proselytizing religion of the current day, most Muslims are born Muslims just as is true with the members of all religions. We are generally born what we are and some few choose to change. The same is true of political affiliation as well. Are most gun owners BORN gun owners? Don't know (can't know) but I am sure that a great many are. Many inherit firearms. There are said to be 300,000,000 in the US. Nonetheless, it is certain that the ranks of GOs have been swelled  significantly by political efforts over the past 35 years. It would be very interesting to know the numbers on these things. The crusade to "preserve" gun ownership (really handgun ownership until the rise of the military-style assault rifle) against a liberal "plot to disarm America" has come along since Chappie was a little chap. Back in those days, guns were non-controversial. There were probably a lot more people hunting then, too.  Then came Wayne LaPierre (the same age as Chappie!) but that's another story....

Islam is as legitimate and worthy of respect as any of the world's great religions are. Or disrespect if militant atheism is your thing. But said religions are life systems with long histories. The GO is a cult and will probably not become a religion (though a merger with The Church of Scientology might increase the chances...), no matter how beautiful many people find the objects of their veneration.

Smith & Wesson 1911 .45 automatic (photographer unknown)

To conclude, I would agree with my original interlocutor that the members of no group "be judged by the action of a fringe group of fanatics." It was never my intention to give that impression. I would suggest that each individual consider his or her alliances and whether they conform with their deep beliefs and best interests. Islam is in crisis and most Muslims know it. I want my fellow citizen gun owners to consider only how the presence of firearms in their homes and in their lives serves their actual security and health.

Chappie will be considering some approaches to the maintenance of a healthy "gun culture" in a future posting if he discovers that he actually gives a damn....

Chappie Says Mass Murderers OVERWHELMINGLY Were Not Criminals Until They Started Shooting People...

Chappie shakes his head every time he hears the little NRA wind-up puppets reciting the old saw that once the gun laws have taken away all "our" guns, only the criminals will have guns.  Or was it "outlaws"? "Outlaw" is an absurd word like "warrior" favored by absurd people who preen themselves in a comic book version of reality. Such inane words ALWAYS follow every mass shooting in our country because these slaughters are, sadly, terribly reassuring to some people.

     REALLY?

What is actually the most common cause of a fatal firearms accident?

For adults, the most common fatal accident is caused by a falling gun that discharges; most commonly an exposed hammer firearm with no hammer block.

 

OOOoops.

 

However, at the moment, my focus is narrow. It mimics the mental range of the gun lovers: simple words for simple souls. So, gun lovers out there, tell me if I get it right: when the guns of all the good people have been taken away, only bad people will have guns, right? Good or bad, law abiding or criminal?

It dawned on me a long time ago that I have never heard of a single mass murder perpetrated by a criminal. That's right. All the massacres I have ever heard of were carried out by people who would have been identified (up to the moment they climbed a tower or walked into the post office, the McDonald's, the elementary school and opened fire) as law-abiding (if not necessarily admired) and sometimes well-liked, normal people?  That's right: normal. You know: postal workers, physicists, college and high school students, junior high school students, international students, Army doctors, nurses, lots of unemployed people and people with children?  Forget the airline pilots: they have a weapon WAY better than any gun around... There are very few women and few people of colors other than white. No robbers, burglars, forgers, drug pushers, kiddie pornographers, pimps or corporate executives. That's all. That's my point. No need to read further.

       Charles Joseph Whitman ( U. S. Marine, Eagle Scout)  

                                                              

A criminal means someone convicted of a crime, a convicted felon, someone associated by society as engaged in crime of some sort (eg. "white-collar criminal".) Though a few of the shooters have had past encounters with the legal system, I have yet to come across one who was obviously and by conviction, a criminal. It may be that criminals of the common type are not interested in murdering large numbers of strangers. They have better things to do.

The murderers BECAME criminals by the very act of abusing their (usually) legal possession of arsenals of weapons. Obviously no one knew they were going to BECOME criminals with a single act of cruelty, cowardly in the sense that they do avoid armed people and tend to kill themselves in cowardly terror when the police, dumbfounded and usually inept, arrive. Their families and friends usually proclaim themselves to have been taken aback by events. I believe most of them. These killers are few and far between, and we are seldom expecting them. We are NEVER prepared.

The fact is that anyone who owns a firearm is a POTENTIAL criminal (as is anyone who does not own a firearm.)  There's no indication that possessing firearms inclines one more to become a criminal. But when the gun owner goes criminal, the consequences for the rest of us are out-sized. We see, routinely now, how different the destruction is when it comes from the firearms owner.  Keep in mind the thousands of suicides who use their own or their family members' firearms to destroy themselves every year. Thank Heaven for small favors. Alas, too many of them choose to settle accounts with those they dislike before blowing out their own brains. Or, finding themselves unable to settle their own hash, force policemen to do it.

Will I become a criminal someday?  Who knows?  However, my non-ownership of any firearms means that I will have to go to much greater lengths if I want to loose Hell on my neighbors. My 

wrist-rocket© slingshot does make me a minor force to be reckoned with, but I wouldn't be able to turn the slingshot on myself and take the coward's way out.

Fifteen years ago I testified as a prosecution witness in a capital triple murder case in Alameda County, CA Superior Court. During cross examination, the defense attorney asked me if I owned any firearms. I replied that I did not. He then asked me why I owned no firearms. I only had a second to consider my reply, but it was easy: because, I said, I'm afraid I might shoot someone.  The judge had to use his gavel to quell the laughter in the court. But even he was smiling. Is that really so funny?