[lit-ideas] Re: In the Name of Efficiency . . .
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:42:50 -0700
David,
Another good note, and very insightful. At the end of boot camp, our Drill
Instructor gave us a warning, something along the lines of, "you have
received and will receive the finest training in the world. You have become
part of an elite fighting force. There is nothing finer than being a
Marine. However, don't make the mistake of thinking that you can go into
the first bar you encounter and challenge the biggest swabby there to a
fight and expect to win. You won't. It is only functioning in your unit in
accordance with your training in the activities that you were trained to
perform that you will be exemplary."
I have misgivings about the movement against bullying as described in your
article: http://www.pipss.org/document46.html But I've heard that the same
thing is true of the Marine Corps. Drill Instructors are no longer allowed
to hit recruits. We were all hit in boot camp in my day. It wasn't a big
deal. It was to help us focus and pay attention. I don't recall any Marine
opposing that or complaining about cruelty. I wonder where the complaints
came from. Perhaps if some Drill Instructor went berserk and put a boot
into the hospital that would be a problem, but I wasn't aware of anything
like that. I remember a Dill Instructor at Paris Island walking a bunch of
recruits into the swamp and drowning them, but if I recall correctly that
was an accident. I'm afraid with all this interest in softened treatment
we'll have a softened end result.
Your article about looking for a gene that might permit the British Army to
determine who will qualify to make it through SAS training,
http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/sasgene.htm , is interesting. My training
experience wasn't quite as traumatic as it was for most of the boots because
I had read (yes, I was inclined to do that sort of thing even back then)
about the Marine Corps in advance and knew what to expect. I was on the
gymnastic team in High School and trained hard at that, but knowing that I
was going into the Marine Corps I also did a lot of running and swimming. I
didn't want to risk failing; so as a result of all I did before I went in,
my actual training wasn't very hard for me. I had read that it would be
foolish to try and impress the drill instructor by showing you could do more
push-ups or chin-ups than anyone else so I never tried that. Nothing,
however, prepared me for the psychological part of the training, but I paid
attention and accepted the fact that I was lower than a bug and couldn't
strike a mosquito that might be feeding off my arm because it was a higher
form of life. I accept all of that better than most probably, but Boot Camp
seemed endless. And I think it was only 16 weeks back in those days. I got
one or two weeks of leave and then had to report to Camp Pendleton for
Combat Training. It was quite an adjustment to try and behave differently
than a boot at Pendleton. Early on I recall a young lieutenant talking to
me while I sat at attention. He told me to loosen up and reminded me that I
was no longer in Boot Camp, but I couldn't bring myself to do that. I
forget how many weeks it took me to loosen up.
Your knowledge of the British military seems remarkable. How did you come
by it?
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Ritchie
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 6:38 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: In the Name of Efficiency [was: Punitive
Expeditions, Helm's World, Psychotic Expeditions, Pasifistic Expeditons,
Experience War, Who are you calling crazy?, Honor: A History, etc.]
On May 9, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Judith Evans wrote:
I don't know how far the "boot camp" notion extends to all
military practice but do know that (e.g.) the Royal Scots Dragoon
Guards have a tremendous "family" and "brother" feel, that all
the officers who'd left in the year prior to Desert Storm 'phoned
up to ask if they were needed *even though they did not want to
go and fight in that war*. But I would not describe their
attitude as
LH> They are taught that civilians barely have sense enough to
get
LH>out of each other's way. We are taught not worry about the
LH>dumb things they say and do
but then -- as I suggest in my reply to you -- perhaps they don't
quite have "boot camp". Training does vary between regiments and
types of soldier. Regiments differ.
I agree that there are differences, but British training does aim at
breaking down civilian identity, see for example:
http://www.pipss.org/document46.html
"Essentially, basic training takes the civilian identity of each individual,
breaks it down under constant pressure and rebuilds it as a soldier. It is a
time of unique psychological vulnerability, especially for adolescent men
and women whose personalities are still forming. NCO instructors have a
crucial role in this process, reinforcing behaviour that confirms
individuals' new identities as soldiers and condemning that which does not."
Perhaps the point you are making is that it is important that our countries
train military folk who are not hostile towards civilians? But surely you
would agree that some stereotyping and hostility are psychologically likely
outcomes of this training; young people have passed through a liminal
experience, now think themselves improved, look back on their old selves as
lesser beings? Eventually, they mature.
One of my memories may be worth recounting. At the end of a highland games
there was a tug of war between the Abbotsford police team--the champions,
from Canada-- and a team of U.S. Marines. Abbotsford won easily, a matter of
technique. Then came THE moment. Abbortsford's women's team challenged the
Marines. They also won. Again a matter of technique. The Marines went into a
frenzy of punitive push ups. And then they got up and shook hands and acted
like good sports. This must have been hard. The point is that the way
Marines are sometimes characterized--sometimes leading with the outside,
rather than the inside, of the head--is quite unjust. They assessed the
situation, did their best, behaved with great civility.
On the outside and the inside of the head, you might find the end of this
interesting:
http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/sasgene.htm
David Ritchie,
Portland, Oregon
Other related posts:
