No fur on miniatures please!

[shelldrake]

When I first read this on twitter this morning I thought it was the 1st of April, but it seems real.

PETA wants GW to stop producing minis with ‘fur’ on them: http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/peta-warhammer-fur-free/

The comments at the bottom of the article are gold.

 

Now to buy some French Canadian trappers and hunters for my F&IW game.

[Mike]

Yeah, I saw this too, still not quite sure what to make of it…

Just so we are all clear, no going off topic and delving into animal rights, and the in’s and out’s of PETA.
Or the Emperor will punish you.

 

[Guy Farrish]

Crikey that’s a bit difficult to comment on it then isn’t it!?

But…

I can see their point.

No – don’t go off on one – it’s a perception and expectation thing (I’m not arguing the rights and wrongs – just why it may not be as mad as it sounds).

From PETA’a point of view, if the Warhammer universe is set in the far future how come they are still engaging in something that seems so OLD fashioned? Surely they would have devised new status symbols by then?

This continuation of fur wearing reinforces a current perception of acceptability to convey status, power and success. (No value judgement here just a possible explanation). They want that to stop so obviously they would want the wearing of furs to be over by 40,000. No?

[Victoria Dickson]

I’m pretty sure it’s fake fur. Though if GW make them out of real fur it might explain their prices…

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[shelldrake]

In relation to the power of suggestion (i.e. by having minis with ‘fur’ on them make you want to wear fur yourself), I think “Derek and Clive” were right:

Clive:  …..do you remember Andy Pandy?”

Derek: Yeah.

Clive: He used to come on. As soon as that was on I used to get in a glove, used to jump in a glove and rush down the road. You know, the power it has over people.

 

[Rhoderic]

If I’m not mistaken, 40K has a major faction that basically lives by PETA ideals, the Tau. (You’ll have to omit the Kroot). The Tau represent an optimistic, largely enlightened vision of the future in proud and self-assured defiance of an otherwise grim world. I’d say that’s fair enough representation of PETA ideals, in competition with other outlooks.

Other factions (mainly humans, plus Snakebite Orks of course) wear fur either because of cultural traditions or because fur is a luxurious, high-status material possession to them. In either case, these people are rarely if ever represented as enlightened.

[Angel Barracks]

I think if they are suggesting that GW condone and advocate the killing of animals for their hides, then by the same logic, Star Wars advocates and condones the over throwing of governments with military force, Firefly condones an advocates criminal activities, and Pokémon condones and advocates the capturing of animals and training them to fight for amusement.

[shelldrake]

And why pick on GW? What about certain Napoleonic troops too – the use of Bearskins with certain troops, and the animal skins used by musicians.

 

[Norm S]

Well, it seems to have generated a lot of publicity  (including this thread) – so result! I guess.

[Victoria Dickson]

shelldrake wrote:

And why pick on GW? What about certain Napoleonic troops too – the use of Bearskins with certain troops, and the animal skins used by musicians.

Because GW figures are not based on any reality, so there is no reason other than ‘it looks cool’ for having them wear fur? Historical miniatures have a better defence for having fur included.

And it’s maybe the only miniatures company they’ve heard of. 🙂

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[Mike]

Victoria Dickson wrote:

Because GW figures are not based on any reality, so there is no reason other than ‘it looks cool’ for having them wear fur? Historical miniatures have a better defence for having fur included.

This, and is that Mila Jovovich?

[PatG]

All publicity is good publicity. … I guess….

[zippyfusenet]

“And it’s maybe the only miniatures company they’ve heard of. 🙂”

BINGO!

Hey, did Jack Chick ever publish a comic demonizing Warhamster?

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Darkest Star Games]

Might as well never have another period piece movie or TV show, nor anything with cave people, tribal Africans,  either, because people used to wear Beaver Fur hats, leather loin clothes, and the like.  Nothing but Modern Synthetic TV and Movies.  (Solient Green is people!!!)

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[Angel Barracks]

To be fair to them, they are not saying it did not happen, the wearing of fur; what they are saying is why create a universe where animals are killed for pleasure and their skin worn as trophies.

However, so much fiction is just that, fiction.

[Victoria Dickson]

Mike wrote:

is that Mila Jovovich?

No idea, I just liked the pic. 🙂

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[PaintingLittleSoldiers]

I hope the oil stains I painted on my vehicles is not palm oil.

[Rhoderic]

Victoria Dickson wrote:

Because GW figures are not based on any reality, so there is no reason other than ‘it looks cool’ for having them wear fur?

That’s true, but still, a sci-fi setting that completely excludes the wearing of dead animal parts would have to sterilise itself of some basic thematic concepts. The 40K universe, for instance, would basically have to amputate Snakebites and Kroot entirely, and make Space Wolves and Eldar Exodites into blander versions of themselves. Any thematic concept wherein a culture would have natural reason or inclination to wear dead animal would be a no-go zone.

Now, if a sci-fi setting does completely exclude the wearing of dead animal, then I may still very well be a fan of that setting if it’s cool for other reasons. Indeed, such a setting might be interestingly different, exploring other directions of sci-fi that shed the “cultural throwback” concept in favour of bolder, more explorative concepts of as-yet-unattained modes of human/sophont existence (Greg Egan would approve). For instance, I’d still like Beyond the Gates of Antares even if it didn’t have Bovan Tuk and the Mhagris in it. I have no need to “defy” animal rights ideals for the sake of it, even less so out of antipathy.

All that being said, I also happen to like sci-fi settings that do include cultural throwbacks. That’s where PETA and I part ways (casually from my point of view, I can’t speak as to theirs).

By the way, come to think of it, shouldn’t PETA be more concerned that GW sells sable brushes? I’m sure there are extremely few people in this hobby who don’t own sable brushes.

[PaintingLittleSoldiers]

The whole Space Wolf setting, planet, traditions are based on a primitive world where hunting\killing wolves was a passage of rights from what I recall. Luckily PETA are not on Fenris and I hope PETA know “The Emperor Protects”.

[zippyfusenet]

“By the way, come to think of it, shouldn’t PETA be more concerned that GW sells sable brushes? I’m sure there are extremely few people in this hobby who don’t own sable brushes.”

You fool! You’ve doomed us all!

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Deleted User]

Makes you wonder what PETA would make of this:

http://pickle.nine.com.au/2017/01/31/13/55/filthy-rich-saudi-prince-plays-plane-ticket-for-80-falcons

 

(I’d have made the feathery so & sos fly themselves)

 

 

donald

[Anonymous]

I echo my wife’s comment when I showed her this thread, “Really?”

[willz]

I just push my little toy soldiers across my table, roll my dice and paint my toys the way I like.

[Cerdic]

The trouble with fervent idealists is that they tend to lose a sense of perspective….

http://28mmreview.blogspot.co.uk

[Rhoderic]

Another counter-argument is that 40K isn’t really a sci-fi setting at all. It’s a space fantasy setting. With the possible exception of the Tau, the inhabitants of the 40K universe are no more “of the future” than are the characters of the fantasy story that was Rick Priestley’s foremost source of inspiration in creating that universe, namely Paradise Lost.

[Another Wargamer]

Leave my sable brushes alone please.

[Rhoderic]

Another Wargamer wrote:

Leave my sable brushes alone please.

Don’t misunderstand me, I couldn’t do this hobby without mine. Synthetic bristles are woefully inferior to the point where I just can’t paint with them, and there’s no third alternative that I know of. So sable it is.

I wonder if any miniature gaming hobbyist has ever successfully made a go of forswearing sable brushes.

[willz]

What about the Vikings. or the Celts didn’t they wear fur?

[Another Wargamer]

No offense taken about the sable brushes, Rhoderic.  I was just cringed when you brought up the subject.  I’m with you about their importance and cannot paint decently without them.

[Another Wargamer]

willz wrote:

What about the Vikings. or the Celts didn’t they wear fur?

We can have fun with this and start posting pictures of models wearing fur.

[Rhoderic]

willz wrote:

What about the Vikings. or the Celts didn’t they wear fur?

The PETA message as I’ve interpreted it is that fur doesn’t make sense in sci-fi high-tech societies, so historicals and archaic fantasy settings don’t really factor in. The point, I presume, is to promote hopeful visions of a future where humanity has progressed past the animal-harvesting stage of civilisation.

In that sense, I could see the “wrongness” of, for instance, Captain Picard strutting around in an authentic mink coat. But a 40K Space Wolf wearing a fur cloak, not so much.

[PatG]

willz wrote:

What about the Vikings. or the Celts didn’t they wear fur?

Or the modern Inuit and other northern First Nations.

[willz]

Oh no what have I started.

Just a moment I vaguely remember my grand daughter wanted a toy called a furbie a few years back.

[Rod Robertson]

To me it is interesting that PETA objects to the depiction of fur on miniature figurines but seems OK with the depiction of the death and destruction of sentient beings in ersatz war. I can’t speak with authority about alien races but aren’t people/humans animals too? I think they missed the point somewhat in their criticism. Well I’m off to eat some veal schnitzel and pate de fois gras while I give due consideration to their request.

Cheers and good non-hirsute gaming.

Rod the furry Robertson.

[shelldrake]

Yeah, those were along my lines of thought too – fur is bad, but the portrayal of mass death and destruction is ok. I am sure the furry animals on any planet would also be collateral damage on a far larger scale to some pelts worn by marines.

[Rhoderic]

Rod Robertson wrote:

To me it is interesting that PETA objects to the depiction of fur on miniature figurines but seems OK with the depiction of the death and destruction of sentient beings in ersatz war. I can’t speak with authority about alien races but aren’t people/humans animals too? I think they missed the point somewhat in their criticism.

shelldrake wrote:

Yeah, those were along my lines of thought too – fur is bad, but the portrayal of mass death and destruction is ok. I am sure the furry animals on any planet would also be collateral damage on a far larger scale to some pelts worn by marines.

On that subject, I think I can discern the point PETA is trying to make, although ultimately I don’t really agree with it.

The thing is this: On the one hand, yes, 40K is an excessively nihilistic setting wherein bloodshed and torture of humans and other sophonts is happening on a massive scale. Yet on the other hand, there are themes that the setting does not touch for the superabundantly obvious reason that they are simply too horrible, and too close-to-home, to have a place in any form of entertainment that isn’t either sadist pornography or “Beasts Of No Nation”-style heavy drama. So I think PETA is arguing that depicting the wearing of fur belongs in that category, because in real life animals are helpless, innocent beings that, when farmed for what essentially amounts to “fur harvesting”, are often kept under inhumane conditions. And that’s why, in PETA’s view, 40K shouldn’t “go there”, just like it wouldn’t touch some of the themes that movies like Beasts Of No Nation cover.

Now, as I said, even though I can reconstruct that argument in my head, I ultimately don’t agree with it. Typically when a 40K figure is wearing fur, it’s implied the animal was hunted “good-old-fashioned-like”, and often it will have been some fantastical beast that could kill a power-armoured Space Marine. Now if Horus Lupercal was to be modelled striding into battle adorned with kittens and puppies impaled on spikes, then yeah, I could see what the problem is, but that’s not where we are.

Then there’s the argument that making warriors look cool wearing fur in miniature is going to make people want to wear it in real life. There’s some point to that, I’ll admit. So it might be worth quickly reaffirming that anyone who would walk around wearing a fur cloak in real life isn’t going to look cool, they’re going to look like an absolute wanker. Not a big deal, though. Not one worth much of a ruckus.

I hope I’m not annoying anyone by keeping this topic active (which is probably the kind of thing PETA is ultimately aiming for with these media stunts) and shifting between points of view. Just call me a susceptible conversationalist. I consider it a harmless, inoffensive topic, mildly interesting to discuss with a cool head but of little weight either way.

[Patrice]

When I heard about this two days ago I also believed it was a joke…

Rhoderic wrote:

Then there’s the argument that making warriors look cool wearing fur in miniature is going to make people want to wear it in real life.

Yes that’s certainly the idea.

Comics character Lucky Luke replaced his cigarette by a blade of grass 30 years ago for a similar reason.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Guy Farrish]

The message from PETA is quite simple, logical and quite unremarkable, whether you agree with it or not.

Why normalise the wearing of animal fur in the minds of impressionable people when you don’t need to.

Vikings et al did wear fur but no one is suggesting you make unhistorical figures. They are saying don’t create a mythic universe where the ‘good guys’ wear the furs of dead animals.

They aren’t suggesting kids will see these figures and skin the neighbour’s cat. They are saying they will grow up thinking it is cool and acceptable to wear furs. They don’t want that to happen.

[Anonymous]

Rhoderic wrote:

So I think PETA is arguing that depicting the wearing of fur belongs in that category, because in real life animals are helpless, innocent beings that, when farmed for what essentially amounts to “fur harvesting”, are often kept under inhumane conditions.

Ever been around a mink?

Or a badger, beaver, fox, raccoon, or skunk in the wild?  Helpless and innocent they are not.

The inhumane conditions are something I cannot speak to in first hand experience.

 

[Another Wargamer]

There are so many thoughts I want to express on this topic, but I find myself grinding my teeth.  I’m a straight forward person and too blunt most of the time for many people’s taste — “efficient, but not tactful”.  Miniature wargaming  is a sanctuary that provides relaxation and quiet contemplation for me so I am trying to focus on just having fun pushing my models around and leave the serious real world issues behind.  That being said, I understand the above ideas expressed by various members of The Wargames Website and appreciate the friendly conversation tone about the subject matter.

Will I remember PETA’s point the next time I’m ready to purchase miniatures?  Probably not.

[Author]

Posts