Operation Toy Box

By | March 2nd, 2011 | Militarization, Ministry of Cool

Military-themed toys under fire

By Karen Muller

Cap guns, G.I. Joe dolls, green plastic army men and other fake weapons: they are known as classic artifacts of the American childhood, but to some, they represent a potentially dangerous trend among children and the toy industry. These playtime staples were born out of a patriotic culture that holds its military with high regard, but today, these toys are under fire for the idea that they seem to glorify violence and are aimed at young children.

This controversy isn’t new; since the launch of the first gaming systems, violent video games, such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, have been criticized for content also—entire court cases have sprung from the controversy. Still, some researchers argue in favor of the games, claiming that there are positive, cathartic benefits attached to occasionally playing such video games.

Image by Chinny Udokwu

As media, video games are regulated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, who determines what content is appropriate for which age bracket. However, there is no concrete equivalent system for rating children’s toys, and according to many parent groups, violent and military-themed toys are not appropriate for any children. Regardless, such items have remained popular, and have been a mainstay in the toy industry for decades.

In 1964, the first G.I. Joe doll was created without political or militaristic intentions in mind, but rather, as the male-toy counterpart to Mattel’s wildly successful Barbie doll, which had risen to popularity years earlier.

The male doll was a quick success, so Joe’s presence extended into a series of comic books, movies, video games, and other variations of the original figurine.

Children were fascinated with the dolls,  so other toy companies began to capitalize on the idea. If young children were turning to war play to emulate their heroes—specifically, war heroes—then the industry was prepared to make it easier for them, with new variations of war toys. Small, plastic army men also reached the height of their popularity by the ‘60s.

The ‘70s marked the true beginning of the military toy controversy; outrage over American involvement in the Vietnam War led to a decline in sales of war-themed items. G.I. Joe dolls were even recreated as peaceful astronauts and deep-sea divers, in an attempt to stay ahead of public opinion. Along with the anti-war movement, and Americans becoming less comfortable with symbols of war, parents began to show disapproval of violently-themed toys, ranging from tiny plastic soldiers to more realistic-looking toy weapons.

The trend became even more pronounced in the late 1980s, shortly after the FCC began to allow the advertisement of items linked to television shows, including ads for toys that targeted children. In the ‘80s, television became more violent, as did related toys, so concerned parents and teachers spoke out.

Joanne Sheehan, representative of the “Stop War Toys” campaign and parent, acknowledged the challenges that rise when raising a child in a war-toy-free household.

“When my son Patrick was 4, five of the top six selling toys were war toys. Most kids he played with [had] them and their parents didn’t see a problem with them,” she said. “It can be a challenge to be different…Kids want things they aren’t supposed to have.”

Sheehan explained some parents believe forbidding children to play with military toys seems to only increase their allure, but added she hasn’t found this to be the case. Furthermore, she disagreed that such games encourage children to experiment with the roles of “good guy” and “bad guy,” claiming it is not a healthy way to teach children about identity or emotions.

This sentiment is common today. Parents and protesters alike have developed concern that playing with war toys desensitizes children to concepts of violence and loss. The very idea that children simulate violent acts, just for fun, is disturbing. Another concern that has been voiced recently is that some military-themed toys may be used to indoctrinate young people, as a sly and ethically questionable recruitment technique.

However, according to Nancy Carlsson-Paige, author and expert on early childhood education, “war play” or use of these military-themed toys, can actually prove valuable to a child’s development. According to her research, through playing the role of an army hero or superhero, children are able to experience a feeling of confidence and competence. Additionally, by participating in pretend fights, children learn about boundaries, and what kinds of behavior are socially acceptable.

The benefits Carlsson-Paige expects from war play entirely contradict the message that non-violent toy proponents want to send. While the fear of desensitization is common among anti-war-play protesters, in an article that she wrote about war play, Carlsson-Paige claims exposure to the reality of violence is exactly what children need.

She wrote on her website, “Young children see and hear about violence in the world around them—in their homes and communities and in the media they see. … War play can be a helpful vehicle for integrating and making sense of this violence. For example, a child might see soldiers fighting on television news, and bring this image into ‘war play’ in an effort to understand it or make it less scary.”

This opinion is far from mainstream; Promoting Cultures of Peace for Children, a Canadian non-profit, has designed a creative solution to encourage children to embrace an environment of peace, rather than one of war play.

Susan Ruzic, a representative of the organization, explains that the group’s major campaign, “Acts of Transformation: War Toys to Peace Art,” asks young children to surrender violently-themed toys, which are used to create peace-themed art. The process of doing so gives the kids a feeling of direct involvement with the movement of turning violence into peace, as well as a chance for creative expression.

Ruzic explained the message is generally well-received, “The children who surrender their toys to make peaceful transformations are very happy to do so, once they understand the connections that glorified violence on TV and in video games have to actual schoolyard bullying.”

While asking children to turn in their toys sounds like it could be a difficult task, Ruzic said the organization usually gets through to the kids, and can make a great impact on their outlook toward the need for peace in the world.

“Children who have violent video games and toys at home, and whose parents often play those games at home with them, are usually surprised to hear that someone would want to surrender these toys to make something peaceful. But after mentioning to them that these toys are violent and do not help people to learn peaceful problem solving skills, they think about it and agree that they would like to have more peace in their lives.”

_______________________________

Karen Muller is a freshman IMC major who will kick your butt in Call of Duty. Email her at kmuller1@ithaca.edu.

    Buzzsaw Also Recommends:
  • Small Soldiers on the Small Screen by Alexa dAngelo (March 9, 2011)
  • THE COOL: Growth of Gaming: Our New Careers by Jocelyn Codner (April 22, 2010)
  • A Loss of Innocence by Jacob Ryan (March 7, 2014)
  • A Common Thread of Nonviolence by Taylor Barker (December 11, 2013)
  • WHAT’S HAPPENING: The Hunger Games: A Pretty Adult “Young Adult” Novel by Adam Polaski (December 29, 2010)
  • 2 Comments on “Operation Toy Box”

    1. gospodarka

      I’m really inspired with your writing abilities as neatly as with the structure in your blog. Is that this a paid topic or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a nice blog like this one today..

    2. Chance Munselle

      I signed up for the gamefly 10-day trial and I added the two games I wanted to the queue. After two days I recived an email saying one of my games had been shipped (I only put two because I really only wanted those games and both were at least six months old and had high avail.) There was no message about a second being shipped so I put a few more games in my queue. Two days later the sent out the last one on my queue. I did not see a game until five days after theemail and I will have to send both games back ( i recieved the second two days after the first) because I sure as hell don’t want to be charged for a full month of the same crappy service. It was so slow that I haven’t had time to play the second game because it took 7 of my 10 day trial to come! I will just wait until something actually worth my money comes along.

    Leave a Reply