I feel like I should preface this by saying that I think guns are bad. I think war is bad. I think fighting is bad, especially when it's over the number of rubber bands in one's possession (see earlier post on this topic in honor of Mother's Day). Like my parents before me, I will not give my children toy guns to play with.
Full disclosure, however: The one who went as a cowboy this Halloween had two toy pistols in his possession for a single night, which only served to prove the point, since they were immediately turned on his brother, who in turn wielded his ninja sword, and the rest is history, as are the toy weapons. And, shocking disclosure--My parents, who would never in a million years give me a cap gun or a GI Joe when I was a kid, gave my children toy soldiers. Huh?? Luckily, the soldiers aren't so attached to their roles; they make good farmers, too.
Children don't need toy guns. All parents know this to be true. Children make guns from whatever is handy: Legos, play-doh, fingers, blocks, tree branches, breadsticks, baby carrots, and don't forget rubber bands (see earlier post). To me, this is still preferable to an actual toy weapon.
So, if we're talking nature vs. nurture, here's the point: Nature wins.
One of my kids has a video game called Civilization. It's like SimCity, for those who know that one, but you create historical worlds that coexist with other historical worlds. You establish trade routes. You practice diplomacy. Here's what my son had to say about it:
"Everyone wanted to do diplomacy, so I did diplomacy with lots of leaders, the Incas, Napolean, the Egyptians, and then it got boring. So when Catherine the Great contacted me and told me she liked my country, I told her I thought her head would look good on the end of a pole, and I went to war with her."
Now I understand. Don't you?
Would you believe it if I said my son is a peaceful and thoughtful child, and that he wrote an anti-war speech for school that had other parents suggesting a future diplomatic career? In other words, he knows the game is just a game, and it's a safe, acceptable place to be aggressive.
As one who regularly doodled smoking revolvers on the outside of my notebook in junior high school, and still grew up to be an adamant supporter of anti-gun legislation, I am not surprised. I was, however, when I learned that the following is not permissible artwork at school: Any sort of weapon, battle scenes with soldiers, explosions, etc. I learned this when one of my kids drew a picture of a firing weapon to demonstrate his understanding of a particular topic on a school paper. It could, I was told, be taken the wrong way. Hmm, because ballistics is not useful in the understanding of physics? Or because we are going to have a knee-jerk reaction to a common childhood obsession that is after all only a reflection of common adult obsessions?
Now, I realize that school has to cover all the bases, and they have a hard job. I don't envy them this. I'm sure that there are situations where concern is warranted. But, please! Drawing pictures of weapons and battles of various kinds seems like fairly standard operating procedure for kids, particularly for little boys.
What I find more disturbing is the potential attempt to eliminate aggression from art by making it somehow subversive, or even shameful. Well, hmm, can you see where that might backfire? It's not only impossible, it's undesirable to eliminate art as a safe outlet for aggression even, yes, even in school. A drawing is one of the few acceptable places for a smoking gun, as far as I'm concerned.
Because if we really want to reduce violence in our society, the way to do that is (apparently) to make little boys feel bad about it. If you can't suppress your imaginary aggression, if you must let it out where it will appear on paper, shame on you.
Now, we are to control our imaginations, is that it?
It's a brave new world.