Oh the horror!

Frank 013 · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:07 am Post subject: Re: Horror?

[Mad: All sources have a point-of-view; all sources have an agenda.]

This is very true, but very few sources have the whole story, that is why I go with the official reports. Official reports tend to be mostly honest accounts of personal on the ground. I prefer these reports because most of the people are held to standards of honesty in report writing and not all of them agree with the current administration, also they do usually have the whole story.

The link you provided was a good one but it confirms what I have been saying all along.

1) This is criminal abuse not sanctioned torture.
2) Much of what is happening is classified and no one can show what the truth is.

As far as punishment goes, how do we punish those who we have purposely desensitized for war? These soldiers have been nearly brainwashed to think of the Muslim Arabs as enemy, nothing more. What would be a just sentence?

I cannot condemn men and women who have been trained to kill an enemy without hesitation and than placed in a position of control over those same people.

This was simply a terrible decision.

Later

MadArchitect

Frank 013: I am willing to bet that those same solders were told that the prisoners under their care were denied protection under the Geneva Convention.

That seems to bring the blame back around to the superior officers. At the least, it makes it a two-part problem: on the one hand, something has made these soldiers capableof and willing to commit such abuses, and on the other, someone has lifted the organizational restraints that would prevent the abuses under a "normal" military chain of command.

Probably not, this is an attempt at helping the problem; I doubt that there is any real way to erase the guilt of killing another human. This is more about keeping the soldiers alive during combat than anything else.

This raises all sorts of interest issues in my mind, but I'm going to put them on the back burner for the moment.

In the meantime, Frank, have you read "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning", by Chris Hedges? He's writing from the point of view of a war correspondent writing for various American publications, but I would think that his point of view would correspond in part to that of an American-trained soldier. Part of his discussion is about how the willingness, and even eagerness, to participate in a war is feuled by the embrace of death. He talks of it as a resignation that one will die in a combat zone, sometimes become even an eagerness to put one's self in harm's way.

Just historical records, the Romans for instance used gladiatorial fighting and the coliseum to help desensitize their populace. Only a warrior nation would even accept such blood sports in their society. These people were very familiar with death; they also had the most successful fighting force the world had seen before and for many centuries after.

To my knowledge, though, the gladitorial sports were entertainment for the general populace, not for the distinct class of warriors. They were used as a type of psychological balance that stifled the people's desire for popular revolt by giving them a cathartic outlet for the violence that they might have otherwise poured into an actually military attempt against the prevailing order.

As far as I know there are very few if any recorded cases of post traumatic stress from before WWII. It seems that if the person believes what they are doing is right and necessary the damage is lessened.

Well, it may be that our apparatus for diagnosing PTS was inadequate. Hemingway, for instance, portrayed several instances of men broken by war, and the outpouring of poetry written by WWII combatants gives similar depictions. What we lack are taxonomic and medical descriptions, but that's likely because literature was well ahead of the sciences in recognizing the existence of such complexes.

Sure, there is a fringe element of every society that idolizes both crime in general and killing in particular. This does not reflect on the entire populace, in addition, when people become desperate or emotional they can justify many criminal activities including murder. This is also not a reflection of the society as a whole but of individual strengths.

All of that can be taken into account without much affecting the point that our nation has more murders per capita per year than most other nations on the planet.

The heroic nature of combat is the fundamental difference between the cultures we are discussing, a warrior culture accepts that killing is necessary and even heroic, being good at it is a positive trait, the more people justly killed, the greater the hero.

Greek culture was also convinced of the reality of the cultural line that divided the Hellene from the barbarian. That's a line that we no longer fully believe in, and disciplines like anthropology, sociology, psychology and so on continually re-affirm the assertion of cultural relativism.

Heroism is a concept that has changed a great deal in intervening periods, as well. The "heroes" of Homeric literature are the descendents of gods -- they're heroes not for the dignity of their actions but for their lineage. They could have been heroes without ever having set foot on a battlefield. Indeed, Ajax remains a hero even after his tragic and repulsive massacre. Valour in battle may have exalted the warrior, but it exalted him as a warrior -- his status as "hero" was a matter of birth-right, not of merit.

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: Ancient and Contemporary Horror

[Mad: To my knowledge, though, the gladiatorial sports were entertainment for the general populace, not for the distinct class of warriors.]

This is true but where do you think the future soldiers were drawn from? And it was no mistake that soldiers were seated near the front. Along with the other uses you mentioned the arena also served to harden the general populace to fighting and death, it also introduced the barbarians to the Romans up close, and served to solidify their place as superior. This was all adding to the wonders of prejudice, allowing for easy and just killing of the enemy, and support for the war effort at home.

[Mad: All of that can be taken into account without much affecting the point that our nation has more murders per capita per year than most other nations on the planet.]

Yes, modern civilized nations, but I think you will find that wherever the mortality rate is very high, where people live in primitive conditions, where hunting for food is common, the murder rate will be much higher.

[Mad: Greek culture was also convinced of the reality of the cultural line that divided the Hellene from the barbarian.]

Right, this is what I was talking about, because the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Egyptians (take your pick) had been brought up to believe that their society was unsurpassed, all others were barbarians (a.k.a. towel heads)

[Mad: Heroism is a concept that has changed a great deal in intervening periods.]

Yes it has, and this was my point, I was not referring to Greek Hero’s alone, add Roman, Norman, whatever.

[Mad: his status as "hero" was a matter of birth-right, not of merit.]

In most cases you are correct, there are only a very few exceptions. It does not change the fact that these champions of men were idolized, for their bravery, battle prowess, and deeds. They also served as examples (both good and bad) for proper behavior and a code of honor.

In short a warrior spirit was encouraged.

Later

Dissident Heart

Frank: I do understand the importance of this book but we shouldn’t try to add meaning that is not there. the Odyssey is an adventure story that was popular among the citizens of homers time and continued to be so through history.

We really don't know how citizens read this story, and we should certainly avoid reducing it to simply "adventure". And we have no way to reach inside of Homer's head to discover his intentions for telling the story. Considering its lasting impact and formative influence, it's depth and richness surpasses the popular culture of his (or any) day- thus, it's perennial importance. I caution you to not avoid meaning that is clearly there.

Frank: Odysseus's story ends when he is home and safe, this is when PTSD becomes a problem; the story does make some good parallels when tweaked but this was not its original intent.

Actually, the Odyssey is a story of returning home after battle- which was the Illiad. Shay wrote a book ACHILLES IN VIETNAM : Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character that explores Homer's brilliance in capturing the terror, bravery, destructiveness of warfare on the character of soliders.

Homer gets Odysseus home, (after 10 years) but along the way he is ravaged with terrors and abuses (as well as being a terrifying abuser) that mirrors many of the journeys home that contemporary soldiers endure. In effect, the war is never really over, even if Homer gets the hero home in the end. Shay makes a very compelling case as he walks you through the Odyssey with accompanying stories and cases of soldiers, medics, doctors, psychologists, family members, employers, scholars, etc.. I don't think it is tweaked to create a non-existing intention in Homer; it is a clear exposition of how humans have known for millenia that war is hell.

Dissident Heart

Mad: To my knowledge, though, the gladiatorial sports were entertainment for the general populace, not for the distinct class of warriors.

A primary purpose for the gladiatorial sports was keeping this entire class of brutal (and brutalized) soldiers occupied and primed for their next imperial conquest. It kept them in constant fighting mode: free of the civilizing forces of home and filled with a thirst for blood. This kept them tied to their brotherhood of soldiers and vigilant under the leadership that directed them into battle. It also weeded out weaker soldiers, tested new technologies, and brought prisoners of war into the brotherhood.

Another primary purpose was to keep the population stimulated with visions of war as normal and essential components to Rome's strength and grandeur. It helped to reinforce myths of heroic warriors who embodied the noble cause of Rome. These myths of grandeur, nobility and strength were propaganda of the worst sort used to keep the masses traumatized and fearful, dependent upon a warrior class to protect them from barbarians always on the attack.

The gladiator games were part and parcel of a larger class warfare needed to fuel an empire. All notions of warrior spirit need to be seen in that light.

MadArchitect

Frank 013: This is true but where do you think the future soldiers were drawn from?

Partly from a population of conquered peoples turned to slavery, partly from mercenary forces. To my knowledge, there were never enough gladiators to serve as a significant portion of the military class. Even provided that a significant number of them survived the gladiatorial games, the injuries sustained there likely wouldn't make them of much use.

Yes, modern civilized nations, but I think you will find that wherever the mortality rate is very high, where people live in primitive conditions, where hunting for food is common, the murder rate will be much higher.

Point me to some research and I'll consider it.

Frank 013

[Mad: Partly from a population of conquered peoples turned to slavery, partly from mercenary forces. To my knowledge, there were never enough gladiators to serve as a significant portion of the military class.]

The auxiliaries, are the portion of the military you are referring to here, they were indeed conscripted from outside sources but made up very little of the total military forces of Rome. (Until the late empire)

The soldiers I am referring to from the arena were not the gladiators but the young men in the stands. These men watched the barbarians and slaves in the arena, the glory of combat would be played up, and the call to duty was a noble and encouraged ideal that many of them chose.

Throughout the republic and early empire one of the first prerequisites of joining the legions was Roman citizenship, and Roman citizens were conditioned to believe that they were superior to their barbarian neighbors, that the barbarians were a constant threat, and that the only way to keep the barbarians from destroying Rome was to kill or civilize them.

In hind site we know this to be somewhat true; by adopting this ideal the roman way of life survived over 1,000 years. Unfortunately it was 1,000 years of war and civil war that needed to feed theses prejudices to survive.

[Mad: Point me to some research and I'll consider it.]

Top ten worst countries for murder in the late 90’s

(1) Columbia 84.4
(2) El Salvador 50.2
(3) Puerto Rico 41.8
(4) Brazil 32.5
(5) Albania 28.2
(6) Venezuela 25.0
(7) Russian Federation 18.0
(

Ecuador 15.9
(9) Mexico 15.3
(10) Panama 14.4

Top 10 safest countries for murder in the late 90’s

(1) Slovenia 0.7
(2) Austria 0.9
(3) Sweden 1.8
(4) Switzerland 2.3
(5) Israel 2.3
(6) Hong Kong 2.4
(7) Norway 2.5
(

Ireland 2.8
(9) Finland 3.7
(10) Singapore 4.3

The US was at 6.8 for every 100,000 people around the same time frame.

International murder rates for cities are difficult to obtain outside the developed world. According to some reports Bagota (Columbia), Karachi (Pakistan), Lagos (Nigeria), Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) have some of the highest murder rates in the world, but there are no reliable statistics and Interpol refuses to make its statistics public.

It appears to me that the countries that have a rougher living have a higher murder rate, at least in broad terms.

Later


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT