Posted on May 26, 2015
Do you think that this art defiles the memory of those who have fallen
17.1K
244
64
4
4
0
(This failed to post from Mobile device yesterday)
I found this art on Facebook, and there was a rather heated argument as to whether it was appropriate or just plain disrespectful. I decided I wanted to get the opinion from the perspective of those who serve, or have served. The only thing I ask is please don't disrespect anyone else if you disagree with them.
(Edited because forgot to attach image on initial post.)
I found this art on Facebook, and there was a rather heated argument as to whether it was appropriate or just plain disrespectful. I decided I wanted to get the opinion from the perspective of those who serve, or have served. The only thing I ask is please don't disrespect anyone else if you disagree with them.
(Edited because forgot to attach image on initial post.)
Posted in these groups: 
Star Wars
Memorial Day
Star Wars Memorial Day
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 42
15
15
0
The Star Wars dork in me loves this. I think the symbolism the artist uses is powerful because although we associate the Galactic Empire as evil, and probably the Stormtroopers that served it did not. They served their state as many of us have. So I think it is more of a reflection on the fallen Soldiers regardless of the state they served. How many people in the world, including our own people view our government as evil? At the end of the day a Soldier is something special regardless of the government they serve. We experience things that only other Soldiers can understand. We see bonds form even among former enemies. Just look at a lot of the gatherings at Pearl Harbor. I firmly believe that nothing can defile the sacrifices made by so many. No work of art will ever take away the importance of what they did. Although, I do think that the artist probably could have use a bit different symbolism to get the desired effect.
(15)
(0)
PO3 Nichalas Enser
Nicely stated, SGT David T. .
At first glance, it may appear to be disrespectful, to some, but if you know the general story of the SW series and of the U.S., to me, it shows a commander remembering the fallen. To others, it may mean something different, but that is why it is 'art' even if not a classical form.
Would like to see a few more of the folks involved in the 'leadership' of the various campaigns display their sentiments, as well. Not that many do not, clearly, show their support for the efforts of the forces under their command, but, overall, the U.S. has some work to do to put some force behind that 'support'. It is great to hear folks say 'thank you for your service' (when they appear to mean it) but when those same folks go on to not fully support - or work to cut - the pay and benefits of those on AD, in the reserves, those injured or wounded, and all others is, definitely, shameful.
At first glance, it may appear to be disrespectful, to some, but if you know the general story of the SW series and of the U.S., to me, it shows a commander remembering the fallen. To others, it may mean something different, but that is why it is 'art' even if not a classical form.
Would like to see a few more of the folks involved in the 'leadership' of the various campaigns display their sentiments, as well. Not that many do not, clearly, show their support for the efforts of the forces under their command, but, overall, the U.S. has some work to do to put some force behind that 'support'. It is great to hear folks say 'thank you for your service' (when they appear to mean it) but when those same folks go on to not fully support - or work to cut - the pay and benefits of those on AD, in the reserves, those injured or wounded, and all others is, definitely, shameful.
(0)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
Great comment, SGT David T. ! Remember, too, that Imperial Storm Troopers were clones, raised by the state and indoctrinated since birth, so they could hardly have been expected to have perspective. Then again, there ARE parallels with those of us who attended government (public) schools.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
This is art, art has been controversial from the beginning. Its not real, obviously meant as a joke. People need to quit being offended over everything that they disagree with. We all dont think alike...therefore realistically we can never 100% be on the same page and get along. Reminds me of the "Feelings Hurt Document". If you dont have thick skin the Military might not be the best place for you...after all we fight everyday for the right of the people to have freedom. Once we start limiting freedom because someone is offended of feelings are hurt then we no longer stand for what is right and or our citizens freedom. Toughen up. Why would we want to linit a right we die for?
(13)
(0)
10
10
0
I don't think it's in bad taste. If we look at Darth Vader, in the end he over came evil and was good. To me this is the new Darth Vader who is now sorry for the loss of men under his command when he was over powered by the dark side. He is now truly sorry for the loss.
(10)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
I like your take on this....It made me stop and think before deciding what I really thought of it.
(1)
(0)
SSG Mark Ives
I'm originally from the steel pot era, where when we first got our Kevlar helmets we thought it was a cross between the German WWII helmets and Darth Vader's helmet. People are going to perceive it how they feel it, positive or negative, good or bad. If it was so negative or evil, IMHO, Darth wouldn't be worried about his storm troopers. Tend to agree with the Sergeant Major!
(1)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
Let's also remember that Obi-Wan left Aniken Skywalker to die a horrible death. He didn't even put him out of his misery, but just left him to burn. I'd be a little pissed off, too.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I think that it's a little insensitive, but clever. As a Star Wars fan and SM, I have both positive and negative reactions to it simultaneously. I don't think it defiles the memory of Vietnam vets, I think it's just borrowing an artistic concept. Our real life loss of a war, and the fictional Empire's loss of a war.
SGT Anthony Rossi
Clever! My thoughts exactly. I'm kind of unsure what to say about it ethically. I can say that it was very carefully put together and therefore almost respectful. Most "art work" that's offensive (in my opinion) seems intentional. I don't think that's the case with this image?
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I'm starting to realize there are waaaay too many Star Wars fans here for this image to really get hated on haha
SGT Anthony Rossi
SGT Anthony Rossi
5
5
0
PERSONALLY: I don't care for it. I am a Star Wars fan, but think that this went just a bit too far. With that being said, I am also not going to plan on any violent shock and awe retaliation to it. I will not support it by buying it and will choose to not observe it when offered that opportunity. It IS still a free country and while I don't care for it, I will not stop this or ridicule others if they should happen to like it.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
So, the artist was probably trying to be funny about Star Wars, not fully appreciating what it might mean to the subjects of the original image (above).
However, this does bear a segue into a VERY good article about lack of realism, tactical and emotional, in Science Fiction movies warfare here: http://taskandpurpose.com/onscreen-science-fiction-military-justice/
It's like they're stuck militarily in some weird combination of pre WWI infantry and armor and early WWII aircraft tactics. Their understanding of the moral cost of war is stuck in a mythological knights and dragons era that never really existed. By failing to apply any real rigor to the depiction of the science, art, reality, tactics, operations, strategy morals and ethics of warfare in our "action" or scifi movies we perpetuate the divide between the military and civilians.
However, this does bear a segue into a VERY good article about lack of realism, tactical and emotional, in Science Fiction movies warfare here: http://taskandpurpose.com/onscreen-science-fiction-military-justice/
It's like they're stuck militarily in some weird combination of pre WWI infantry and armor and early WWII aircraft tactics. Their understanding of the moral cost of war is stuck in a mythological knights and dragons era that never really existed. By failing to apply any real rigor to the depiction of the science, art, reality, tactics, operations, strategy morals and ethics of warfare in our "action" or scifi movies we perpetuate the divide between the military and civilians.
Onscreen Science Fiction Is Not Doing The Military Justice
Onscreen science fiction series ignore military innovation, real warfare strategy, and the grim reality of loss of life in battle.
(5)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
All movies, TV, and Radio are forms of entertainment. Specifically in the case of Science Fiction it is an escape from the real world. If they came too close to depicting war as it truly is, the escapism would be destroyed. War movies are not the same. They fall into one of three categories.
One they tell the story (with extreme liberties taken) of actual battles that occured in history. We were soldiers, Braveheart, Band of Brothers, Pacific, The Great Raid, The Longest Day, Tora Tora Tora, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc...
Two they deal with the human condition during war Band of Brothers and Pacific again fit in with this category along with things like Rambo, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, Flying Leathernecks, In Harm's Way, The Tuskegee Airmen, etc...
Finally you have the romantic films set against the backdrop of war. Pearl Harbor, The English Patient, etc...
All of them have some element of humanity in them, but they are not intended to provide the escape.
Science Fiction movies are meant to escape from reality. If they are set in a war time, they are science fiction first, war movie second. They will have elements from war movies, but go out of their way to maintain the illusion. Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Starship Troopers, War of the Worlds, and other Science Fiction War Movies go to efforts to rebuild the fantasy following the devestation. They may do this in some campy way to remind the viewer it is all in fun, or through some technilogical shiny that reminds the viewer that it is not in our time, or by overloading the senses with the following scene.
In a Science Fiction war movie, the main time that the loss of life is actually addressed is when it moves the story line along.
The article you linked here Capt Richard I P. is a great article. It does just have one tiny little flaw. That is if you read the Crawl at the begining of Star Wars Episode IV it says "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far Far Away." If those events are intended to have occured in the distant past, it could be used to explain the 1899 tactics with advanced weaponry. Battlestar Galactica (the original 1978 series) is similar in that its time frame is the past. When they reach Earth (Short lived Galactica 1980), it is, well 1980 so they were fighting their way across the galaxy in advanced starships in the past. Everyone else, they don't get a pass. They are set in the distant future and should know better.
Ultimately, I totally agree with you and the article that a being unaffected by taking a life whether it be in war, self defense, or just as an observer (think cantina scene in Star Wars) is not a realistic. Again thanks for sharing the article. Sorry for the ranting reply, my inner Science Fiction Nerd attacked.
One they tell the story (with extreme liberties taken) of actual battles that occured in history. We were soldiers, Braveheart, Band of Brothers, Pacific, The Great Raid, The Longest Day, Tora Tora Tora, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc...
Two they deal with the human condition during war Band of Brothers and Pacific again fit in with this category along with things like Rambo, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, Flying Leathernecks, In Harm's Way, The Tuskegee Airmen, etc...
Finally you have the romantic films set against the backdrop of war. Pearl Harbor, The English Patient, etc...
All of them have some element of humanity in them, but they are not intended to provide the escape.
Science Fiction movies are meant to escape from reality. If they are set in a war time, they are science fiction first, war movie second. They will have elements from war movies, but go out of their way to maintain the illusion. Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Starship Troopers, War of the Worlds, and other Science Fiction War Movies go to efforts to rebuild the fantasy following the devestation. They may do this in some campy way to remind the viewer it is all in fun, or through some technilogical shiny that reminds the viewer that it is not in our time, or by overloading the senses with the following scene.
In a Science Fiction war movie, the main time that the loss of life is actually addressed is when it moves the story line along.
The article you linked here Capt Richard I P. is a great article. It does just have one tiny little flaw. That is if you read the Crawl at the begining of Star Wars Episode IV it says "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far Far Away." If those events are intended to have occured in the distant past, it could be used to explain the 1899 tactics with advanced weaponry. Battlestar Galactica (the original 1978 series) is similar in that its time frame is the past. When they reach Earth (Short lived Galactica 1980), it is, well 1980 so they were fighting their way across the galaxy in advanced starships in the past. Everyone else, they don't get a pass. They are set in the distant future and should know better.
Ultimately, I totally agree with you and the article that a being unaffected by taking a life whether it be in war, self defense, or just as an observer (think cantina scene in Star Wars) is not a realistic. Again thanks for sharing the article. Sorry for the ranting reply, my inner Science Fiction Nerd attacked.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO3 Steven Sherrill Focusing mostly on Science Fiction here (not 'war movies' which are their own category to be dealt with separately) I get that it's escapism, but the majority of its audience doesn't need to escape anything. Most people think there's some grain of truth in those films when there is virtually none. As to the tactics, "long ago, far away" I say 'cop out' to progress to star flight a humanoid (or obviously human) species would by necessity evolve through machineguns and artillery, thus rendering their tight infantry formations suicidal and abandoned. The same would happen with missile tech for aircraft, then presumably again in space by virtue of tight formations being better targets for any weapon.
I'm glad we agree with the sloppy rendering of the morality of life and death in most SciFi I think that's where the greatest cost lies, that's where those escapist masses start equating the thousands of Imperial Troopers killed in the Death Star with the thousands of foreigners killed in bombings and drone strikes. That's where they fail to realize the care, discipline, pain and effort, agony and suffering that these actions cause to us. And that's what drives a further wedge between us and them.
I'm glad we agree with the sloppy rendering of the morality of life and death in most SciFi I think that's where the greatest cost lies, that's where those escapist masses start equating the thousands of Imperial Troopers killed in the Death Star with the thousands of foreigners killed in bombings and drone strikes. That's where they fail to realize the care, discipline, pain and effort, agony and suffering that these actions cause to us. And that's what drives a further wedge between us and them.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Aaron Brite
Infound the story and comments interesting and thought provoking but I must single out Starship Troopers for further comment. First my comment relat e to the original Robert A. Heinlein novel not the "movie adaptation" which bears litte resemblence aside from the title.the novel sought to explore the themes of citizenship and the moral cost of war. The powered armor merely a vehicle for for keeping many readers wnfaged and moving the action along. I beleive many of your points regarding antiquated tactics and tech was purposeful to ground the real themes in familiarity. The real innovation was in the politics and morality the characters dealt with.
The book focuses on rhe eeactions of Johnny as he wnters military service and the events that shape his moral compass from leaving his upper middle class home through to commanding his own platoon. In that arc he goea from resenting the calliuse and sensless lose of life to participating in it and the "noble jecessity" (my view anyway) of the sacrifices he and his men are called to make. This mass waste is echoed in the delivery methode of the mibile infantry from orbit : and machine gun for armored men. That foreshadows the "low cost mass of life" inherent in war. He and the men submitt to it for they undersrand the basis for it, the price of a species survival.
thenother major theme explor3s the concept of citizenship and how one eaens it. Contrasted briefly in the early chapters is rhe "old" citizenship by birth versus by service in the novel's world. Most rights are not based on citizenship (as can see today in many western nations with.large imigrant populations) but the right to vote and serve in office is reserved to those who have earned citizenship usually through service to the nation. The force of the novel being the need for service as the foundation of citizenship and the full privilege of it.
will not accurate to today's real world, it served to convey the authors intent to readers soon after world war two to whom it would have been a familiar vehicle for radical thought.
Of course the movie skipped all of this in favor of Doogie Hauser as the intel officer.
The book focuses on rhe eeactions of Johnny as he wnters military service and the events that shape his moral compass from leaving his upper middle class home through to commanding his own platoon. In that arc he goea from resenting the calliuse and sensless lose of life to participating in it and the "noble jecessity" (my view anyway) of the sacrifices he and his men are called to make. This mass waste is echoed in the delivery methode of the mibile infantry from orbit : and machine gun for armored men. That foreshadows the "low cost mass of life" inherent in war. He and the men submitt to it for they undersrand the basis for it, the price of a species survival.
thenother major theme explor3s the concept of citizenship and how one eaens it. Contrasted briefly in the early chapters is rhe "old" citizenship by birth versus by service in the novel's world. Most rights are not based on citizenship (as can see today in many western nations with.large imigrant populations) but the right to vote and serve in office is reserved to those who have earned citizenship usually through service to the nation. The force of the novel being the need for service as the foundation of citizenship and the full privilege of it.
will not accurate to today's real world, it served to convey the authors intent to readers soon after world war two to whom it would have been a familiar vehicle for radical thought.
Of course the movie skipped all of this in favor of Doogie Hauser as the intel officer.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
It is art, Art has offended many many people through the course of time. We all have the right to be offended but not the right to take away the right of the artist (atleast in America). I think it is kind of a cool take on the subject and could relate the loss and sadness we feel regarding those we have lost over the course of time. I think anything that can relate our feelings to a larger group and they gain a bit of understanding is great. It atleast gets the attention of those who have not thought to consider what it really means others and those who have served.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
At first glance I couldn't help but think how this picture is an insult to the thousands of lives lost in the Vietnam War. After taking a minute to step back, look at it again and separating my immediate emotional response from this, I see it differently.
This is merely an imitation of art imitating life. Though the original is in memorial of our fallen during Vietnam, all countries (or galactic empires in this case) morn their heroes and honor them (usually utilizing statues such as the wall). Since everything in this picture is geared towards the empire, aside from the imitation itself, I see a general missing his troops (even if they are the bad side of the force).
This is merely an imitation of art imitating life. Though the original is in memorial of our fallen during Vietnam, all countries (or galactic empires in this case) morn their heroes and honor them (usually utilizing statues such as the wall). Since everything in this picture is geared towards the empire, aside from the imitation itself, I see a general missing his troops (even if they are the bad side of the force).
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I'm a huge Star Wars nerd. But I would never post this anywhere. It takes away from it's intended use of respect forthe fallen. If this was originally posted by the Star Wars community, I would find it very clever.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google