Lego Humvee with instructions

While you’ve been occupied with the discussion on crediting building techniques, Tyler (Legohaulic) has once again been making instructions for a model that I’m sure many would want to build, and they’re FREE. What a riot.

Andrew: Though I don’t object to Nannan blogging this, I have to admit that I’m very uncomfortable with the first photo in the pair above. We’ve had some productive discussions about modern military LEGO in the past, but perhaps it’s time to revisit that discussion in a future editorial.

76 comments on “Lego Humvee with instructions

  1. marnicq_

    @ Andrew: Most of the examplary pictures you’ve shown to show us that there are more political lego creations being blogged on TBB are i.m.o. not so very political actually.

    I’ll give you an example:
    http://www.brothers-brick.com/2008/01/13/mohandas-k-gandhi/
    In this one a politician has been portrayed, yet no political view is stated; it’s a fairly neutral position taken in by the creator.
    http://www.brothers-brick.com/2006/04/16/i-do/
    This one just portrays a ‘fact’, in many countries like over here in Belgium you’re allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

    Yet you’ve also given some pictures with a political statement, but rather not offensive:
    http://www.brothers-brick.com/2005/09/18/on-vacation-a-political-cartoon/
    This one is just a ‘Lego-ised’ picture of a picture that has some critics on the government that was running the US by then. I don’t think anyone is actually offended by this one?
    http://www.brothers-brick.com/2009/05/06/holocaust-and-torture-depicted-in-lego/
    These pictures bring out an anti-war/anti-violence statement, something we should all be believing in … There is no one getting offended here, at least not for as far I can see. Yet it might not be very nice to view for the kids who also watch this blog.

    I just hope that you bloggers of TBB take in account that things that offend people in a rather political way shouldn’t belong in this blog. For, as I said before, this is a blog read world wide and all kinds of people are reading it.

  2. Thanel

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of terrorism, and hope that the US manages some level of success in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I’m tired of equating anybody who fights the US with terrorists. If the specific people who are fighting the US use methods that are intended to cause mass civilian casualties in order to foster terror, that’s terrorism.

    Laying an IED, sniping, firing an RPG, setting up and ambush, having running street battles and whatnot aimed at uniformed US/NATO soldiers, though something I’m not a fan of because I have friends who are or have been in the US military, are not necessarily terrorism. We have words for those kinds of people or that kind of behavior. Let’s use the most accurate words. Guerrilla. Insurgent. Rebel. Taliban. It’s sheer verbal and intellectual laziness to lump everyone we don’t like as terrorists.

    Plus, terrorists don’t look like that guy under the humvee. They look like everyone else until they go boom.

  3. Catsy

    Whether or not it’s a terrorist is beside the point. The point is that the image depicts an unarmed person being intentionally crushed beneath the wheel of a military vehicle. I don’t care if it’s Charles Manson or Dick Cheney, civilized human beings don’t do that.

    It’s not about who they are and what they do, it’s about who we are and what we do.

    I think what makes this more volatile than brutality in, say, post-apoc or Star Wars or WWII scenes is the immediate, present-day relevance. Historical scenes are in the past, and the others are fiction with no connection to any present-day circumstances in the real world. There are still soldiers deep in the suck right now and horrible things like this actually do occur–and whether you like it or not, the issue of war crimes in the ongoing conflicts is a very real one.

    Regardless of how one feels about terrorism, asymmetrical warfare or the current conflicts, no one should act surprised that this image provokes a strong reaction. Pretending otherwise is either disingenuous or a failure of imagination.

  4. Magnus

    Re: Catsy and Thanels recent posts – WORD.

    I’m not personally comfortable with building my own MOCs representing the current wars in the ME, but also I think anyone who thinks some level of action in their MOCs if fun should be a little wary of casting the first stone.

    The Humvee is nicely done, and considering how often we get asked to provide instructions, it’s nice whenever someone actually does it.

    The depiction of the Humvee on top of the terrorist/insurgent/freedom figher is IMHO somewhat tasteless and insensitive, but it isn’t something I lose a great deal of sleep about. The builder of the MOC has been quite ready to discuss it calmly and intelligently. This is one of those things we can choose to be offended by or not – and either POV is fine, so long as you respect those who feel differently.

  5. Catsy

    ^ I should probably make it clear that I don’t think the builder meant anything bad by it, and I’m not piling on him here.

  6. BrickArms

    I, for one, am proud of the humvee driver for ridding the city of the zombie menace.

    Oh, you mean I’m the *only* one that considered the “victim” could have been a zombie? ;)

  7. wunztwice

    ^
    Ha, good on ya Will!

    Besides, I suppose anyone out there could always *build* a monument to this fig, if they felt so inclined…

    (Remember, building?)

  8. Andrew

    @marnicq_: Your response simply confirms that you agree with the political perspectives and world view implied in my previous examples. Rest assured there were many conservative Americans who felt very, very differently. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying, “I have no problems with politically charged LEGO that’s liberal/progressive, but I’m deeply offended and disagree with the very existence of LEGO creations that aren’t.” As much as I seem to agree with your politics, I cannot agree with the restrictions you seem to be placing on those who happen to disagree with you.

    @BrickArms: LOL!

    (I’m staying out of the main debate because Catsy & Thanel are doing a fine job.)

  9. jvm64

    back to basics.. This is a legoblog after all…

    just build two of them. Sorry to admit but… it’s great fun! Every one should try it. Keeps people of the street or whatever environment fighting…

    Thanks, Legohaulic for the instructions!

  10. Daedalus

    I’m puzzled how there’s so much debate over whether or not the fig in question is a terrorist, when it’s –right there– in the Flickr description:
    “suspension so that troops don’t get whiplash when running over pesky terrorists. :)”

    Any claim of racism or anti-Islamism is ridiculous. The caption doesn’t read “pesky Muslim” or “pesky Middle Eastern Civilian” or worse.
    —> “pesky terrorist.” <—
    If people are upset because this MOC depicts a terrorist being run over, okay. I don't think it's worth getting upset over, but okay. Diverse viewpoints are a good thing. I'm flat out embarrassed that people are bringing racism into this discussion at all.
    Maybe we should all agree to only include blank, gray, accessory-less minifigs in all future MOCs so that no one mistakes our intentions.

    BTW, awesome design and great instructions. Controversy aside, I'm glad they're getting attention.

  11. Daedalus

    PS. I’m all for a second scene depicting the now pesky zombie getting shotgunned and/or chainsawed. Good call, Brickarms.

  12. joemerchant

    Yet no one mentioned the fact that GM just announced they are closing down the hummer / humvee line because the deal to sell that line to another corporation has fallen through.

  13. The Ranger of Awesomeness

    The whole thing=TL;DR.

    @BrickArms – Hahaha! Too true. That explains the second photo, they must’ve been unloading cricket bats from the trunk. ;)

    What cracks me up is how many people seem to be taking this the wrong way. This is what my thoughts are: Any resemblance to the Abu Ghraib photos was intended as an off-color, satirical joke. The figure in question was used as a prop, to demonstrate the suspension. The ‘terrorist’ was placed there to mock the “Stomp-em-down!” philosophy that has been associated with certain US operations in the middle east, and not as a message of “Hey, isn’t it awesome that he’s laughing at the guy who got run over?” More like “Run ‘em down!”

    I just find it hilarious that people are reading so far into this. As has been said, if someone posted a photo of the same scene, but with GI Joes (or space police and aliens, or knights and trolls, etc) there would be no such discussion. The issue here is that current politics are involved, but I don’t see why people need to get so worked up about it.

    Maybe it’s just that my generation has been desensitized to ABS violence, but I don’t flinch at the sight of a minifig getting run over by a Lego car. ;)

  14. Andrew

    @The Ranger of Awesomeness: It seems mutually exclusive to say both “tl;dr” and to generalize the responses of “many people”. Either you read the thread and you’re responding, in which case “tl;dr” was a lie, or you truly didn’t read the thread and therefore have no right to make such generalizations. Which is it?

  15. The Ranger of Awesomeness

    Andrew, you’re right. That wasn’t really the most well thought out phraseology to use; I read a good chunk of the comments as they stood at about 11 this morning. And I skimmed most of the other ones about half an hour ago. So tl;dr was only partially true. But mostly a device to say “All o’ y’all are thinkin’ ’bout this too much” without all the apostrophes. ;)

  16. GrosHumainSale

    I think Catsy and Bunbrick really illustrated this well : It’s not about the human being run over, its about the soldier being happy with the result. Its about the fact that this photo show a human being happy with the suffering and death of another one. You wouldn’t digest a U.S. troop under the humvee… its the same thing for others points of view.

  17. Magnus

    Yeah, it isn’t the fact that a minifig is being run over, it’s the significance of who this particular fig represents, and the idea that this makes it all the more humorous. Obviously if the Hummer was driving over a Stormtrooper or over Joe Vig there woudn’t be the same reaction – but that would be a different picture with a different message.

    I can understand that some people who don’t care about this stuff think a big deal is being made of nothing, but this is clearly something that lots of other people do care about. If you don’t care about it, it shouldn’t bother you that does matter to other people. I mean, I don’t care about sports, but I don’t go around telling everyone who does that they are wasting their time getting worked up about some activity where people throw and kick a bag of air around a field. “Live and let live” works both ways.

  18. Andrew

    @Ranger: I figured it was a device, but I take issue with the intent of that device. You were being dismissive of others’ opinions, and that’s a lack of respect I’d prefer you not make a habit.

  19. The Ranger of Awesomeness

    @Andrew: For clarity’s sake, it wasn’t -at all- my intent to be dismissive of anyone’s opinions, or be disrespectful, but I can see how it came across that way. Basically, my point was, I don’t think it was meant as more than an off-color joke. And to me the whole thing wasn’t that thought-provoking, but maybe I’m used to a different portrayal of Lego (or realistic for that matter) violence. Thanks for making me aware of my tone.

    I apologize to anyone who mistook my post for anything other than an opinion, and as a discounting of other opinions. Carry on. :)

    Also – I like the new addition to the header. ;)

  20. Cole Blaq

    Who is a terrorist? The person being labelled or the person who labels.
    Those who control the media and the images are the people at the buttons.

  21. Thanel

    I think the “you’re thinking too much” argument is exactly why I’m uncomfortable with this sort of portrayal. Too many people have an initial prejudiced thought and don’t think beyond it to analyze whether it matches reality or if it’s a harmful bias that can play out negatively in real life. I found *myself* making assumptions without needing to read Tyler’s explanation that it was a pesky terrorist, that troubled me and made me think of all the people I know wont’ put a second thought into it and this will just reinforce their dehumanizing attitude toward other people.

    This humvee really is fantastic and it’s awesome that Tyler made instructions for everyone. I’ve also been really impressed with the way he’s handled the furor over it. With class, rather than getting all resentful toward people like me who get our PC knickers in a twist.

Comments are closed.