[lit-ideas] On being a Marine and an American
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:01:43 -0700
I have had lurkers write me recently wondering why I am wasting my time
trying to educate people who are incapable of learning or reasoning. I
wouldn't go so far as to say what they do, but that is their perception. I
do indeed think you are severely deceived by Leftist propaganda. It is no
secret that I believe that. I can also show and have shown how Leftist
beliefs deviate from American Liberalism. In fact I am an American Liberal
in the tradition of American Liberalism. I believe in Freedom, Free Speech,
God, Mother, and Country. I believe it is our patriotic duty to answer the
call to arms should our duly elected president call us to that. I believe
in America. I think it is the best nation that has ever existed. Liberals
from say Truman's time and earlier would say what I said, but not those who
call themselves Liberals today who have in fact been hijacked by the Left
and aren't Liberal at all.
I have heard some claim that Leftist anti-Americanism is an exercise in free
speech. Free Speech is an American attribute. Therefore they are
supporting America, through their Anti-Americanism, by exercising their Free
Speech. This isn't logical, but one must study logic (which most people
haven't) in order to know that.
As to your claim to know more, or as much about being a Marine from talking
to your son-in-law, as I do from being one, don't forget you disagreed with
me. You said Marines aren't like what I described them to be because your
son-in-law wasn't. Your claim was tantamount to saying you knew more than I
did. To begin with unless your son-in-law is enormously gifted in the art
of communication and has taken the trouble to enlighten you about all his
experiences in the Marine Corps including philosophizing over what it means
to be a Marine; which I doubt (I doubt it because communication is difficult
and most people aren't very good at it) you are very likely over-estimating
your understanding of what it means to your son-in-law to be a Marine.
Also, I think you said your son-in-law was in the Air Wing. The grunts
don't consider Air Wing Marines real Marines. Of course it isn't true, but
that is what many of them say. It is an illustration that the experiences
of grunts are vastly different from the experiences of Air-Wing Marines.
The retired Marines I encountered while working at McDonnell Douglas all had
experience in the Air Wing. My training was grunt training and while my
experience in Korea was in an Intelligence Unit and technically under the
Air Wing it wasn't working directly with planes. And then after I got back
I was a Rifle Instructor which was under the Infantry; so these Air Wing
Marines from MacDonnell Douglas thought that in many respects that I seemed
more Marine-gung-ho than they did.
It works like this; the initial training for all Marines is the same. They
are all trained to be infantry-men, i.e., grunts. Every Marine has the
basic MOS of "Infantry." But after specialized schooling some go into the
Air Wing. These Marines are not subject to the same sort of rigorous
regular training grunts have to endure. Also, officers are in another
category, a bit removed from what it means to be "typical." The Sergeants
run the Marine Corps at the working and fighting level and best exemplify
what it means to be a Marine, but everyone who has been through Marine Corps
Boot Camp is a Marine in the truest sense of the word.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 5:48 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 5/10/06, David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Judith Evans wrote:
> >
>
> I don't read the claims quite the way others do. Lawrence says, in
> effect, that military people develop sub-cultures that exclude
> outsiders and make the insiders feel different from those outsiders.
> I'm sure that John McCreery and those of you who know, for example,
> Marshall's study of the Pacific theater, will agree with this claim.
> That is indeed how military people behave. That is the essential point
> of boot camp, to develop small group cohesion, a sense that only your
> buddies are truly trustworthy.
>
Of course, I agree. The social anthropologist in me (the guy who
earned the Ph.D.) says, "Elementary."
Let me say, too, that I have no problem at all with the claim that
none of us ever understands completely the life experience of any
other one of us. As the anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn remarked a half
century ago, we are all in some respects like all other human beings,
in other respects like some human beings, and in others uniquely
ourselves. I simply take it for granted that not having lived a
particular life, I will never completely comprehend it; all
understanding is partial. Given the vagaries of memory and motive, to
claim even that I understand myself would be a radical overstatement.
That said, I reject out of hand Lawrence's claim that you have to be a
Marine (or have been a member of some other elite military unit) to
understand Marines. The logic of the argument is precisely the same as
that which says I can never understand what it is to be a woman, a
black, a Jew, a Muslim, a homeless ragpicker in India, or Chinese
noodle chef who moonlights as a medium for The Dark Lord of the North,
Wielder of the Seven-Starred Demon-Destroying Sword.
My understanding may be partial but, nonetheless, sufficient for the
sake of our current discussions. And precisely because it is partial,
it may always be improved; thus the value of conversation with people
who know things I don't.
The conversations do, however, cease to be of value when, as Judy
points out, we find ourselves reduced to saying the same things over
and over with neither side budging. That is true even when the
conversational tactic that some of us prefer is piling up repeated
citations of books and articles that all, at the end of the day,
support the same conclusions. Thanks to the Internet and Google, this
is a game both sides can play until both are exhausted.
I think I understand pretty well how deeply Lawrence is invested in
his self-image as a Marine and a man who carries a gun when he goes
out to walk his dogs. In tone and manner he is very much like my
father and brother, pig-headed in a way that makes real conversation
almost impossible. He is also, in his public pronouncements
concerning the Muslim world, very much like Caesar, as portrayed in
the novel by Allan Massie that I am reading just now, who sees fear as
the only effective way to maintain his superiority and does not
blanche if maintaining that fear requires the occasional atrocity.
Civilized men he can cow with forgiveness (they will always remain in
terror of what he might do instead). The barbarian, who is, like
himself, too stubborn to be cowed, requires harsher treatment. So, let
the slaughter begin.
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
US CITIZEN ABROAD?
THROW THE RASCALS OUT!
Register to Vote in '06 Elections
www.VoteFromAbroad.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
