anti-[everything]

It's long been acknowledged that history is an unfortunately malleable narrative frequently reshaped to serve the needs of the present. This flexibility is often captured in studies of what anthropologists call social memory and the processes by which some viewpoints of the past, present and future are suppressed in favor others. The process by which dominant narratives are created may include the disjointed, rearranged renditions or entirely fictive pasts.

Here's an example: VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: G.I. Joe was just a toy, wasn't he?.

In this article Suprynowicz argues that the forthcoming GI Joe movie, based on Hasbro's line of toys, is somehow an insult or subverting "America" by changing elements of the story line. He identifies multiple problems.

1. GI Joe will an acronym for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international team based in Brussels

2. GI Joe battles Cobra, a terrorist group headed by an arms-dealer

Well, thank goodness the villain -- no need to offend anyone by making our villains Arabs, Muslims, or foreign dictators of any stripe these days...

3. GI Joe was based on real-life Marine and war hero Mitchell Paige.

Well, who cares. G.I. Joe is just a toy, right? He was never real. Right?

...¹

When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren't. That's his mug, on the little Marine they call "G.I. Joe." At least, it has been up till now.

Mitchell Paige's only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.

But don't worry. Far more important for our new movies not to offend anyone in Cairo or Karachi or Paris or Palembang.

After all, it's only a toy. It doesn't mean anything.

If you read the comments at the article, you'll see a number of people outraged by this fabricated travesty despite proof that Suprynowicz has most of his facts wrong. I was one of them. I'm most of the Cobra Commander comments.

The Facts
1. GI Joe is US based, though only in the US market. He's referred to as Action Man in other markets.

2. In 1982, Hasbro introduced the GI Joe: A Real American Hero line after six idle years. Cobra has always been this GI Joe's prime enemy and it this line that moviemakers are obviously targeting. Destro, the Scottish arms dealer, was a major villain but did not head Cobra. There is little real about the story line here. GI Joe is a fairly fantastic story line. Remember Zartan? Serpentor?

I'm not sure why Suprynowicz is so upset GI Joe's enemies aren't Muslim, Arab or some other sort of foreigner. Maybe he's a racist?

3. None of the Mitchell Paige section of Suprynowicz's argument is true at least in regards to GI Joe. Mitchell Paige was absolutely not the basis of the toy. He was honored with a 12" action figure in 1998 as part of Hasbro's Classics line, well after GI Joe was introduced as a product (1960s) and after Cobra was established as GI Joe's prime enemy (1980s). (See also Mitch Paige's website or Habro's product history)

Ironically, it is Mitch himself who has become one of those necessary heroes. When Hasbro Toy Company released its Classic Collection GI Joe figures, one was created to remember the young hero of Guadalcanal himself. The Mitchell Paige GI Joe figure was released in 1998. (emphasis added; Source)

As a number of commenters have stated at the original article, Suprynowicz is either confused, lazy or dishonest. I agree. It took me less than 10 minutes to get the facts on GI Joe. At the time of this posting, there has been no retraction or comment from the author. I suspect there will be none since the error-ridden column serves his ideological purpose.

Why does all this matter?
Suprynowicz argues that the movie industry and toy makers have an obligation to ensure that GI Joe lives up to his mythic origins in World War 2, a myth anchored in Mitchell Paige's heroics. However, Suprynowicz has inverted history by placing Mitch Paige at the origins of GI Joe history where doesn't belong. In reality, GI Joe is a product. It was originally designed not to honor war heros or America but to turn a profit. It was, and is, a profit-driven venture.

Created in 1963, G.I. JOE was inspired in part by a TV show called "The Lieutenant." A licensing agent named Stan Weston brought the concept to Don Levine at Hasbro, with the idea of creating a poseable soldier for boys. Levine and his team of designers ran with the idea, and the rest is history.

In February 1964, at the American International Toy Fair in New York, America was introduced to G.I. JOE: "AMERICA'S MOVABLE FIGHTING MAN." The name G.I. JOE was taken from the movie "The Story Of G.I. JOE" which featured an American army unit in World War II.

G.I. JOE was an incredibly ambitious product release, with 75 different products to support the four basic branches of military - Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Pilot. Each action figure was 11 ½ inches tall, had 21 moving parts and came in fatigue uniform with boots, work cap, and a dog tag. Sales the first three years were enormous, and Hasbro aggressively rolled out new products that evolved the line, like the Five Star Jeep, Mercury Space Capsule, Deep Sea Diver, footlocker, Green Beret, and Soldiers of the World. Buoyed by their success, Hasbro even tried a few new products, like the G.I. NURSE. She failed spectacularly, and today remains one of the most sought-after G.I. JOE toys. (Source)

Apparently is wasn't even really one guy.

After all, it's only a toy. It doesn't mean anything.

Yes Vin, it is just a toy. A quick check through the GI Joe product's history will indicate that the back story has changed repeatedly. These changes have always been to drive sales and increase profits of the toy manufacturer, not to carry on some patriotic tradition. It is perhaps ironic that a self-described Libertarian would cry about a capitalist venture attempting to turn a profit on the international market. Under capitalism, profits are the first value are they not?

Lacking Mitchell Paige as it's mythic, moral anchor, we can clearly see that GI Joe is just another product. Even the slogan "A Real American Hero" goes with a product line that has been officially retired. It outlived is usefulness as a marketing slogan in 1994. Why should the change toward an international force be so shocking? It's part of the toy line's heritage after all.

Thus, Vin Suprynowicz's arguments falls flat and becomes another urban legend to outrage those too confused, lazy, or dishonest to check their history.

On a final note, it's depressing that US citizens, as demonstrated in the comments section, cannot comprehend when their values are being manipulated for profit. GI Joe's status as a "Real American Hero" was cultivated to create sales, not celebrate patriotism or the heroic acts of an individual. Despite repeated attempts to tell people otherwise, folks keep posting their outrage over the movie referring to a toy that never really existed and an ideal it never really embodied.

Here's one commenter responding to the statement "GI Joe is just a toy"

schizoidman wrote on October 29, 2007 02:12 AM: CobraCommander said,

"You're the one crying because GI Joe is being used as it was created, as a product. I and many others have no problem with it. Wipe your tears. You're crying for a toy, not some grand American symbol or socio-political statement."

And the flag is just cloth. And the blood is just liquid. And the Constitution is just paper and ink.

Sad. But through the articles and comments we can see a clear process by which a new truth is made that serves an ideological need. We can see how people readily grab onto this new history by defending it, improperly "remembering it" and emoting about it. All of this has occurred despite a parallel argument that points out the fallacy of this collection memory.²

Oh, and even if they get the GI Joe/Cobra story line correct, the movie will probably suck as bad as the Transformers did.³

Technorati Tags: GI Joe, GI Joe movie, losers, patriotism, Vin Suprynowicz