American Militarism

[Adept]

why can he not decide that 'better' means 'non-violent'?

Sometimes he does. Natural selection ensures that such episodes are isolated and short lived.

While the examples of other militarisic societies you cite are good, I would still posit that our culture is militaristic. In my opinion, there are variations of militaristic societies that do not have to have their people constantly marching around saluting each other. Ours is one of these.

Rather than a militaristic culture, I would say the USA has a militaristic government. While the government is supposed to be a representation of the populace, we know that isn't strictly the case. A different government could significantly change the importance of the military without first significantly changing the culture and society of everyday America.

Rome was not a militaristic culture. Sparta was. The USA is much closer to Rome (sloppy society, tight and powerful military) than it is to Sparta.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh..."capitalism," may be the word y'all want, here.

If Paul Virilio is right at all, the, "militarism," is only a surface effect. What you're really seeing is the brand of Taylorism he calls, "dromocracy."

 

[michaeledward]

Does man have the will to decide if he is going to execute a violent act?

If man can decide and attempt to be 'better than the other guy' at executing a violent act, why can he not decide that 'better' means 'non-violent'?

Sometimes he does. Natural selection ensures that such episodes are isolated and short lived.

Using the phrase 'Natural selection' in this manner, does not fit any definition I know for the term. How can a decision, affect the genetic processes? Try though I may, I can not decide to change my genetic structure to have blond hair and be 6'3" tall.

If the process of Natural Selection, using the correct definition of the term, ensures that the person who believes 'better means non-violent' does not produce sufficient offspring to maintain the population, then you must be arguing that Man does not have the ability to make decisions, genetics controls the idea.

Or, you must be arguing the statement 'better means non-violent', is a falsehood. If 'better means non-violent' is an objective statement, then all men who have the ability to make decisions, would be able to recognize that conclusion.

If however, 'better means non-violent' must be a subjective statement, men make the decision to be violent and elimnate those who do not think as they do; (better is violent). This second idea seem to lead to a fearful existance; 'get the other guy before he gets you'.

Either way, it seems a sorry world you live in.

Michael

~ A planet of playthings, we dance on the strings, Of powers we cannot perceive. ~

 

[Makalakumu]

Beyond the simple fact that spend 50 cents of every tax dollar taken in order to kill people better, our society is filled with activities that either condition soldiers or help us glorify them.

Our children can get some toy guns and play war just like GI Joe, for instance. They can also get their paws on multitudes of video games that depict graphic military violence...and it's sooooo cool! Oi, the list goes on and on.

What can we do to change? Should we?

 

[loki09789]

While the examples of other militarisic societies you cite are good, I would still posit that our culture is militaristic. In my opinion, there are variations of militaristic societies that do not have to have their people constantly marching around saluting each other. Ours is one of these. Here is a few reasons why I think this.

1. We spend 50 cents of every tax dollar on the military.
2. The military is glorified by most in our culture.
3. We worship violence in ths culture with our stories, our movies, and our games.
4. Although not as overt as some cultures as you have pointed out, our society is replete with militaristic rituals. In our schools, during sporting events, and in many other locations, the influence of the military can be seen.

The simple fact of the matter is that all of the above require or are some form of conditioning in militaristic behavior. You may not see what you saw surrounded by soldiers when you served and that is fine. Some serve and most support - our society is structured to facillitate this...

"Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state"

I don't see congress, The executive branch or the judicial branch loaded with stars and bars in decision making position other than those that directly deal with the military.

A militaristic culture was Facist Italy, Nazi Germany.....

I see just as many civil change heros being promoted within our culture, Union/Socialist organizations that fought for the safe and fair work conditions of Industrial age laborers, Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks.....In a true militaristic SOCIETY they would be decried and not be celebrated...or given a NATIONAL holiday to someone like MLK Jr.

I do see McR's point about capitalism. I do see the idea that the government is increasing military spending, but the society we live in is far from 'militaristic.' Why? Because right here on this thread there have been MANY comments against the POTUS, the war, Soldiers that have committed atrocities and such...and no one has been picked up by the Secret Service to the best of my knowledge. Also, we don't see waves of youth running to recruiter's offices....but we do seem to see waves of college age students mobbing recruiters and running them off of campus'....

No compulsory military service requirement - heck we don't even have a draft currently (though it may be coming -but that in itself does not make for a militaristic society), People have the option to not sing the national anthem or say the pledge if they choose (in a militaristic society it would be required)....and other signs that we are actually NOT very militaristic as a SOCIETY.

 

[loki09789]

1. Beyond the simple fact that spend 50 cents of every tax dollar taken in order to kill people better, our society is filled with activities that either condition soldiers or help us glorify them.

2. Our children can get some toy guns and play war just like GI Joe, for instance. They can also get their paws on multitudes of video games that depict graphic military violence...and it's sooooo cool! Oi, the list goes on and on.

3. What can we do to change? Should we?

1. Yes, activities like Martial arts.....but I didn't know that you are governmentally subsidized.

2. Does anyone require children to play with these toys? Do children get "WAR STORY TIME" in Elementary school? If anything, there have been many discussions here about how children are NOT being exposed to good decision making in terms of violence and ARE being taught that no matter what VIOLENCE IS BAD and therefore are being conditioned to be sheep.

3. What to change?
Well, make martial arts schools illegal because they promote violence and glorify warrior traditions.

Make private ownership of firearms illegal (because you know that guns link to violence) along with firearms safety courses and hunting licensure (because it glorifies killing and you know that killing a deer is nothing more than a gateway activity to conditioning killers for the military).

Support 'cooperation activities' that eliminate the stigma of failure and classism that exists in competative sports activities...


Should we?

I think we need to do a better job of teaching critical thinking/good choice making skills. I think we need to teach kids that 'failure' isn't the end of the world but quitting is. Should we do the above IMO? NO.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that you are being a little myopic in your definition of a militaristic society. You offering up one example and not examining other societies for their blatant militarism. A good example of this is a comparison of Sparta and Rome. You would posit under your criterea that only Sparta was militaristic. Rome is obviously a militaristic society though. Lets look at a few comparisons...

1. Massive spending on the military.
2. Early history one of conquest, domination, and genocide.
3. Massive effort to maintain territories and enforce interests.
4. Societal structure that promotes and glorifies military service.
5. Conscription is used when neccessary.

Another of the things that I think you are stumbling over is the fact that we are not a Police State. In the past, some military societies were also police states, but these do not have to go hand in hand. In Pax Romana citizens and Senators regularly debated the merits of military activities and actively criticized them. This happens in our society. The response to the criticism involved a questioning of patriotism and/or allegiance. This, too, happens in our society.

I think that you are ignoring a great many things that surround us in our society and you are not recognizing the difference between a overt militarism and subvert militarism.

 

[loki09789]

I think that you are being a little myopic in your definition of a militaristic society. You offering up one example and not examining other societies for their blatant militarism. A good example of this is a comparison of Sparta and Rome. You would posit under your criterea that only Sparta was militaristic. Rome is obviously a militaristic society though. Lets look at a few comparisons...

1. Massive spending on the military.
2. Early history one of conquest, domination, and genocide.
3. Massive effort to maintain territories and enforce interests.
4. Societal structure that promotes and glorifies military service.
5. Conscription is used when neccessary.

Another of the things that I think you are stumbling over is the fact that we are not a Police State. In the past, some military societies were also police states, but these do not have to go hand in hand. In Pax Romana citizens and Senators regularly debated the merits of military activities and actively criticized them. This happens in our society. The response to the criticism involved a questioning of patriotism and/or allegiance. This, too, happens in our society.

I think that you are ignoring a great many things that surround us in our society and you are not recognizing the difference between a overt militarism and subvert militarism.

How about an example of a 'non militaristic state' by your criteria then.

 

[Tgace]

Well heck, name a significant society that doesn't fit that definition!

 

[loki09789]

Well heck, name a significant society that doesn't fit that definition!

Exactly where my thoughts are going too. By that criteria, just about every nation today fits the definition of a 'militaristic culture.'

One thing that comes to mind that separates us from Roman culture and other cultures per se is the 'glorification of war' issue.

THere was an Obilisk in Rome that was a monument to the conquer of Europe I believe that had pictorals of Roman soldiers killing non combatants (women, children, elderly...). They were 'glorifying war' and all its brutallities for sure with that message.

Today, in America, we don't 'glorify war' as much as 'glorify the warrior virtures' of courage, honor, integrity, self sacrifice....and such. I have yet to hear someone say "I am so proud of my son for machine gunning that little village" but I will hear from time to time "I am so proud of my son for doing his duty, I don't like him being there, but I am proud..."

That is ultimately the difference as far as I am concerned.

Again, I think the problem is the distinction between the 'cultural' aspect of this discussion vs. the governmental aspect.

As a culture, I think we are at the point where we 'glorify' sports and entertainment figures more than we do war and soldiers.

How many 'glorious victory/defeated enemy' stories do we get from the media about Afg or Iraq vs the number of 'sports figures/celebrities taking a tinkle' stories. I mean really, Britney Spears gets married on a drunken whim in Vegas and it makes the evening news (not just the gossip columns now but the NEWS) but we don't get ANY stories about GI Joe or Jane saving his/her teammates/a local civilian.....

 

[Tgace]

Today, in America, we don't 'glorify war' as much as 'glorify the warrior virtures' of courage, honor, integrity, self sacrifice....

Unless you're a dope smoking, long hair, college kid apparently. Or somebody who teaches them......:shrug:

 

[loki09789]

Unless you're a dope smoking, long hair, college kid apparently. Or somebody who teaches them......:shrug:

Now, now. How dare you say that about....oh yeah, they did run a MILITARY recruiter off campus instead of cheering him and taking the oath right there and then didn't they?

 

[Tgace]

I find it interesting that the start of this thread stated our military was "no longer a tool for self-defense". I dont believe military science ever thought it was. I believe it was Clausewitz who stated that military force is "Politics by other means" or thereabouts. And that was a long time ago.

Ah here it is..."War is a continuation of political activity by other means".

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just to speak up for what we CommieSymps actually teach students?

1. We try to teach looking at reality the way it is. For example, we try to teach people that when they look at pictures, they ought to avoid painting long hair on people who don't have it. We also try to teach that, "protest," and, "mobbing," are very different, because we try to teach that civility is important even when you disagree bitterly.

2. We try to teach students to separate their prejudices and associations from reality. For example, we try to teach that if you look at a crowd and nobody's actually standing there with a hookah, it might be best (for our own concepts, as well as our view of reality) not to describe them as, "dope-smoking."

3. We try to teach students to look at history honestly, to get as close as possible to what really happened. For example, we avoid teaching that, "the Puritans were sweet, peaceful people who came to America because they believed in religious freedom, people who eagerly cooperated with the peaceful Indians," when the reality is that the Puritans were religious zealots who got kicked out of England for their threats of violence, who promptly established a fine little religious dictatorship right here in America, and who mostly went right after the "Indians."

4. We also try to teach students--it's old-fashioned, 1950s American ideals driving us--that this country is supposed to be different from Rome, from any other of the Old Country countries. We're supposed to be better--largely because in this country, we don't believe that might makes right, and we don't build empires. And oh yes--civilians have authority over the military, NOT the other way round, whatever Ollie North might fantasize.

5. See, if we don't teach some of this stuff, the wacky, old-fashioned, traditional American ideals get lost. That's what They taught us, anyway.

 

[Tgace]

Peace Man....
you need to go on an "inner journey" to find that sense of humor.

 

[PeachMonkey]

you need to go on an "inner journey" to find that sense of humor.

Perhaps some of us would find those kind of jokes funnier if those sorts of invectives haven't been used by those who beat, tear gas, shoot, and arrest protestors since the Vietnam War, and even before.

 

[Tgace]

Now thats funny!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Makalakumu]

How about an example of a 'non militaristic state' by your criteria?

This was a very thought provoking question...thanks. :asian:

I put together a mental list of all the hippy dippy peace loving cultures I could think of and I suddenly realized that ALL of them were wiped out by more militaristic cultures.

What does this mean?

It means that some militarism is a neccessity for survival. Self defense, as any good martial artist would put it. So, I guess the question becomes this...how much is too much?

I would still posit that we take it too far. When we, as the richest nation of the world outspend all other industrialized powers that has got to mean something. In our country we have a subversive militarism that most people don't really notice. We are conditioned from childhood to serve or support...and in a democracy it only takes 51% for the latter. (Well, 49% or 50% if your good at cheating...)

upnorthkyosa

 

[Adept]

Using the phrase 'Natural selection' in this manner, does not fit any definition I know for the term.

Well sheesh, I bet you don't laugh at the Darwin awards, either?

Try though I may, I can not decide to change my genetic structure to have blond hair and be 6'3" tall.

Obviously you aren't trying hard enough. I used to be a short hump-backed mongolian child with a lisp. Now I'm a tall aryan figure covered in rippling muscles!

If the process of Natural Selection, using the correct definition of the term, ensures that the person who believes 'better means non-violent' does not produce sufficient offspring to maintain the population, then you must be arguing that Man does not have the ability to make decisions, genetics controls the idea.

Really, I'd rather not get into a nature vs nurture debate here. The way I look at it, a society that thinks like that will not be as succesful as one that does not. The people who beat their swords into plough-shares will be subjugated by those who keep their swords, and so on.

If however, 'better means non-violent' must be a subjective statement, men make the decision to be violent and elimnate those who do not think as they do; (better is violent). This second idea seem to lead to a fearful existance; 'get the other guy before he gets you'.

Either way, it seems a sorry world you live in.

You know what happens to paranoid people?

Very little.

 

[Makalakumu]

Exactly where my thoughts are going too. By that criteria, just about every nation today fits the definition of a 'militaristic culture.'

No, they do not. One nation tried and it was bankrupt in forty years. The simple fact of the matter is that NO NATION ON EARTH spending as much of their national treasure for "self defense". Question, do you bring an ICBM to a fist fight?

One thing that comes to mind that separates us from Roman culture and other cultures per se is the 'glorification of war' issue.

THere was an Obilisk in Rome that was a monument to the conquer of Europe I believe that had pictorals of Roman soldiers killing non combatants (women, children, elderly...). They were 'glorifying war' and all its brutallities for sure with that message.

Have you ever seen a John Wayne movie? We don't need big standing stones. In fact, those suckers are entirely inefficient. Instead, we have a standing screen and a film industry that reflects a culture of militarism. Case in point...I brought twelve of my college peers to see the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and as I was recoiling in horror from the scene on the beach, EVERY SINGLE PERSON in their theater was on the edge of their seats chomping popcorn and cheerings...wtf?

Today, in America, we don't 'glorify war' as much as 'glorify the warrior virtures' of courage, honor, integrity, self sacrifice....and such.

And that is exactly how our society does it. We create a warrior mythos that has absolutely nothing to do with reality...and people buy into it. Never mind actually listening to your elders. Never mind actually paying attention to those who lived through it. Hell, my grandfather, whenever he saw something violent on TV would shut it off and let us know in no uncertain terms that this was nothing to enjoy. It didn't matter if there were three or thirty people in the room.

He is probably the bravest person I know.

I have no silly illusions about what service and war is really like. My grandfather took care of that when I was 15 years old and I told him I wanted to join the service. Without a word, he trundled me into his battered truck and took me on a field trip to the VA hospital. I got to see first hand how our country treats those who are blown up in its name. It ain't pretty...and it ain't worth it. One man I met had both arms and both legs blown off, he clung to those virtues listed above because that was all he had left. He also "clung" to a bottle of scotch and my grandfather "kindly" shared a shot with the man.

I have yet to hear someone say "I am so proud of my son for machine gunning that little village" but I will hear from time to time "I am so proud of my son for doing his duty, I don't like him being there, but I am proud..." That is ultimately the difference as far as I am concerned.

No, that is just more support for my position. People will overlook the Mai Lei's or the Abu Ghraibs because there sons are only "doing their duty". That is still tacit support of atrocity, is it not?

How many 'glorious victory/defeated enemy' stories do we get from the media about Afg or Iraq vs the number of 'sports figures/celebrities taking a tinkle' stories. I mean really, Britney Spears gets married on a drunken whim in Vegas and it makes the evening news (not just the gossip columns now but the NEWS) but we don't get ANY stories about GI Joe or Jane saving his/her teammates/a local civilian.....

Sure we do. How much do you actually watch the evening news (propaganda)? How about the other "in depth" political conversations that are occuring in the media? This "bad news only" is just a right wing myth. The media has got to play in everyones ball park in order to be profitable. They are not going to leave out 49 or 50% of the view in the entire US! Now that is capitalism...