In-Game War Protest

[Circe]

As part of the anti-war protest taking part in the gaming environment, Joseph DeLappe is protesting the war in Iraq via a his in game character who recites the names of the fallen US soldiers.

As sent to WG:

Artist Joseph DeLappe presents documentation of a work-in-progress of online gaming intervention - "dead-in-iraq". The project involves connecting to America's Army, the online first person shooter game/recruiting/PR tool of the US Army; DeLappe logs into the game using the screen name "dead-in-iraq" and, rather than have his character participate in the proscribed mission to seek and destroy opponents, DeLappe's soldier functions as a passive participant. While his soldier is standing in place, DeLappe proceeds to type, using the game's text messaging system, the name and date of death of all the soldiers who have died in Iraq, one line at a time. The text information appears on all team member's screens interspersed with other mssages from players and a running accounting of the progress of the game. dead-in-iraq" is eventually killed by opposing players. A new game commences and the process continues. To date, over 300 names have been typed live into the gamespace. The project will continue until the end of the war.

Visit http://www.delappe.net to view screen shots and further text
information related to this project.

This work is intended as an online memorial and a protest.

Previous works in online intervention/gaming performance (Quake/Friends, Howl: Elite Force Voyager, ET tu Sir Alfred) may be viewed on his website or by viewing DeLappe's podcast now available on itunes:

itpc://www.podnv.com/joe/podcast.xml
(you will need itunes to view this)

[Brummbar]

Ban him.

[booger]

A protest is NOT a memorial. A memorial honors the sacrifices of those who have died. A protest spits on their cause.

[Fierce Polly]

Couldn't he do something more original than name all the dead? That's been done like hundreds of times.

[Meera]

I didn't see where he said this was a protest. Of course, I could have missed it. It's just an artform he's found which serves as a reminder of those lost. And, so what if it's been done before? Does that make it less important?

M

[booger]

I didn't see where he said this was a protest.

Circe said it right in the first sentence of this thread.

As part of the anti-war protest taking part in the gaming environment, Joseph DeLappe is protesting the war in Iraq via a his in game character who recites the names of the fallen US soldiers.

[Meera]

Yes, I read that. I was referring to his site.

M

[booger]

Ah, sorry. My bad. For some reason I had it in my head that you were referencing my post where... y'know what... never mind. It's early and I'm still working on my first cup of coffee. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

The whole thing strikes me as a protest, rather than a memorial... whether the guy labels it a protest or not. I mean, the guy's going into game servers and harassing players by yelling out the names of the dead. That doesn't really strike me as honoring their memory so much as attempting to scare potential volunteers into thinking they might also die.

Edit: First sentence on the website labels it as a protest -

View documentation of this in-progress, online gaming performance/protest.

[Squall7]

The whole thing strikes me as a protest, rather than a memorial...

Can't it be both?

I mean, the guy's going into game servers and harassing players by yelling out the names of the dead. That doesn't really strike me as honoring their memory so much as attempting to scare potential volunteers into thinking they might also die.

The way I see it, is that it'a a peaceful way of protesting. There are worse ways, and at least this way, everyone hears it, even if they don't want to (isn't that the aim of a protest?) Also, I think marking out the real people that have died is a respectful way of discouragement. It personifies the countless casualties of the war, which so many news reports negate, rather than coughing up facts and figures to be manipulated.

Is there any point in protesting anywhere else? Considering the protester would be villainised if they either go to the whitehouse/congress, or out to the public. Personally, sometimes I don't like what the British government does with it's troops, and I certainly wouldn't join any force, but if theres one way to try and stop something that you believe is wrong (when it comes to the forces), it's to try to influence all the would-be soldiers into not enrolling in the first place.

Anyway, that's my rant over. Hope nobody has a problem with my perspective, afterall, I'm not claiming to be 'correct', just sympathetic.

[Fierce Polly]

I think the 'artsiness' is an excuse for the guy's pet cause.

[booger]

The whole thing strikes me as a protest, rather than a memorial...

Can't it be both?

See my first post in this thread. As a vet, I can honestly say that I wouldn't want someone memorializing my death by marginalizing the things that I died fighting for. If it were a memorial, it would be focused on the accomplishments of those who died... instead of saying that what they died for wasn't worth the effort. That's not a memorial... that's pissing on their graves.

Protest, sure. You have the right, even the responsibility to speak up when you feel that something is wrong. However, don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of most veterans by pretending that a protest is a memorial. It's disgusting to me when I hear someone say that they support our troops by wanting them to return home. That's not support, that's self serving cowardice.

[Frigo]

I always hated ANY politics inside of games or any other forms of entertainment. Games are games to me, and I don't like if one wants to manipulate me with them.

[Athena]

I agree with you Squall! Protesting can be the most patriotic thing a citizen can do. If you see injustices happening in your country, protesting can sometimes be the only vehicle that one has to inflict change (aside from voting; not that the popular vote helped in the 2004 election). Booger, how can you say that protesting is spitting on the cause of the troops? I support our troops but I think (as does apparently a whole host of military personnel) that the manner in which this war was carried out was a complete disaster! I think that people are fed up with hearing the "If you are not for us you are unpatriotic" mantra. Talk about brainwashing.

[booger]

I talk to a lot of vets and military personel. Naturally, there are some who oppose the war. However, a fairly signifigant majority of them, in my personal experience and general observations, support the war effort.

I'm not saying that protesting is unpatriotic. I'm not saying that being against the war is un-American. What I'm saying is that a protest is not a memorial, and that wanting the troops home (before their job is finished) is not supporting them.

Support for the troops is support for their cause, what they are fighting for. It's their job. It's what they're paid for, going to war. Saying that you support them by wanting them to come home is akin to saying that you support construction workers by asking them to not build roads. Not the best analogy that I've done, but hopefully the spirit of it comes across.

As for the "if you are not for us you are unpatriotic" mantra... the only place I ever hear this mantra is from people who don't support the war, who cite it as an example of how they are being portrayed as unpatriotic. As if they believe in their heart that this is what every stereotypical redneck believes. Sure, there are probably people out there who believe that philosophy... but not enough to warrant using it as an argument, surely.

Edit: Perhaps this thread should be moved to the political forum. It's not really about gaming.

[Squall7]

I'm not saying that protesting is unpatriotic. I'm not saying that being against the war is un-American. What I'm saying is that a protest is not a memorial, and that wanting the troops home (before their job is finished) is not supporting them.

Yes, but this is a 'job' that Bush wanted them to do, rather than the Iraqis themselves (not saying that some Iraqis aren't in favour of the US forces being there, but they certainly weren't invited). What is a memorial, but the rememberance of the dead? Should we remember the cause that they fought for, or the life they led? Isn't that the reason why wars and general fueds are fought well past the generation that started it?

Support for the troops is support for their cause, what they are fighting for. It's their job. It's what they're paid for, going to war. Saying that you support them by wanting them to come home is akin to saying that you support construction workers by asking them to not build roads. Not the best analogy that I've done, but hopefully the spirit of it comes across.

True, but technically they're 'peace keeping'. Perhaps when people say that they support the troops, they don't mean the cause, but the actual people. You can support somebody but still want them to come home. Besides, there are different reasons for joining the forces, some want (any) jobs, some want glory, some were pushed into it to 'straighten them out', but in the end, if a soldier cannot say "No, I won't go because I cannot see how the war can be justified", then he has no right to protest (which I think is wrong). They're not simply doing a job out there. One can refrain from doing a job, whereas one cannot willfully quit the forces without proper notification/fulfilled contracts.

As for the "if you are not for us you are unpatriotic" mantra... the only place I ever hear this mantra is from people who don't support the war, who cite it as an example of how they are being portrayed as unpatriotic. As if they believe in their heart that this is what every stereotypical redneck believes. Sure, there are probably people out there who believe that philosophy... but not enough to warrant using it as an argument, surely.

I see a similar mantra being recited in all sorts of areas of the US. I see them being used for things like gun ownership too. There might be fewer than I expected with this attitude, but by the same token, that is a justification that some use. It's a justification that whittles down to "I'm right and you're wrong". Now anybody using that kind of arguement scares me.

Edit: Perhaps this thread should be moved to the political forum. It's not really about gaming.

Agreed.

As a vet, I can honestly say that I wouldn't want someone memorializing my death by marginalizing the things that I died fighting for. If it were a memorial, it would be focused on the accomplishments of those who died... instead of saying that what they died for wasn't worth the effort. That's not a memorial... that's pissing on their graves.

Then as a vet, you're biased (sorry, everyone is biased in one way or another, but having gone through something like that also counts as indocrination). What about those killed who didn't actually want to go on to Iraq? Should their wishes be quashed for the sake of the many wishes? Memorials don't have to focus on accomplishments of this particular war though, they could be memorable moments in each one's life. I don't think that trying to get more of both US and UK soldiers back would be pissing on any graves, just reevaluating the people in charge (Bush and Blair), because if people die for an unjust war, it doesn't suddenly make them noble nor heroic. It makes them unwarranted casualities, which is something that must be rectified.

Protest, sure. You have the right, even the responsibility to speak up when you feel that something is wrong. However, don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of most veterans by pretending that a protest is a memorial. It's disgusting to me when I hear someone say that they support our troops by wanting them to return home. That's not support, that's self serving cowardice.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence about this issue, just raising a few points. One of the best deterents for war is the casualty loss. When casualty loss comes to such lengths as WW1, 2 or even this war, you've got to reevaluate the situation. Bush doesn't seem to be doing this, and neither does Blair. One of the reasons for insurgents in Iraq is because the UK and US are playing police. Without them, there would be a returning to normal (hopefully now that the new government has been elected). All we seem to be doing out there is antagonising and on the odd occasion find somebody that likes the 'security' of our forces because we're dying instead of them. Which is more cowardly, withdrawl from an area that is finding it's bearings or staying in, putting lives at risk because you don't trust them to run things themselves?