Is Hero Worship of the American Military Hurting the Country

I think this could be a good starting point--and certainly believe the word hero is currently overused across the board-- but isn't exactly the conversation we (we being the country) need to have.

It isn't new to 2017 but more true than ever that it's only certain members of the military and vets who are worshipped. The current conversation about the flag/national anthem ignores the huge numbers of those serving who are POC. I think I saw 40% somewhere, but wouldn't quote me on it without a fact check. It ignores the vets currently in Puerto Rico who are without food, fresh water, health care, and electricity. It ignores the women who serve who watched a man who said "what do you expect" during a conversation about rape in the military who was then elected President. It ignores the troops who are trans who are now in limbo bc of tweets.

So my .02; yes we should talk about this non-reality based hero worship of the military, but not without addressing the fact that the worship is only reserved for a percentage of those taking the same risks, living, wounded, and dying through the same hardships, and the vastly different receptions awaiting those who served when they come back home.

I think it is hurting, in the "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" way, whereby vets are dragged in as shields.

We've been watching Ken Burns' THE VIETNAM WAR, on the heels of (re-)watching THE CIVIL WAR. I think the problem goes deeper than hero-worship.

First of all: There's a tacit acknowledgement that every human society requires a fighting force at the ready. This is probably a practical truth of humanity: if you've got territory, you can bet at some point someone else is going to wander in and want to take it from you. As nice as it would be to think you could say "Hey, no, we were here first, could you find yourselves another chunk of land?" we all know that's not going to happen - or at least, it's not going to happen often enough. So we build the military into our societies, and use words like "deterrent" to convince ourselves we're not really asking for a percentage of our population to die for the rest of us.

Secondly: Humans seem to have a deep need for ritual. I was struck, watching the Vietnam documentary, by the kid they profiled who was so deeply moved by Kennedy's call to perform public service that he essentially blackmailed his parents into letting him join the military before he was 18. He had this deep need for manhood, for significance, for his life to mean something profound, and a long history of military stories (his mom talked about reading Henry V to him when he was little) prepared him to see military service as a way to become part of a noble brotherhood. There were people like this profiled in the Civil War doc as well - young men who articulated a deep need for connection, for adulthood, for meaning. And there's the military, ready and willing to take them, and our society, with its need for a military, perfectly happy to afford them that heroic social status so we don't have to stand up and do the dying ourselves.

I don't mean to trivialize any of it. I'm not military myself, nor are my parents; but they're both army brats, and three generations before them were career military (probably more). I live in a community with a lot of military families, and many of my friends - not just men - have served or are currently serving.

But yeah, fundamentally I think insisting that soldier = hero no matter what (until someone screws up, and then somehow they're the lowest creature imaginable) is dehumanizing and ultimately trivializing of what we ask our military to do. There have been wars that had to be fought (I think of WWII) and wars we should have known better than to start or join. But when we turn our soldiers into Others of any stripe, we're trying, I think, to shuck off our own social responsibility for the military decisions made by the government we elected. My daughter's got a friend whose dad is currently deployed; I'm not there with him, and I didn't give him the assignment, but I voted in elections that produced the politicians who chose to send him there.

We're all, as a country, responsible for that soldier's assignment. We're responsible for what we ask him to do, and its effect on him, and on the country he's deployed to. It's true that I, as a single individual, can't do a damn thing about one soldier or one military action or one war. But I do think talking about soldiers as selfless heroes rather than just a bunch of ordinary people allows us (in aggregate) to think less critically about our country's military strategy.

As David Wong pointed out: "There are two ways to dehumanize someone, dismiss them or idolize them."

I think that, a lot of the time, it goes beyond simple hero worship into straight up fetishization. And, that fetishization of the military seems strongly tied to overt, unquestioning nationalism. Both of which seem to be, from what I can tell, strongly tied to a very harmful black-and-white, this-or-that, with-us-or-against-us type of tribalistic thinking that foments some of the growing political and cultural polarization we're seeing today.

Hell, Chris Hayes got strongly rebuked by the internet outrage machine a few years ago for even trying to have a rational discussion about the way the word "hero" is liberally thrown around when it comes to the military, and felt forced to apologize for daring to question the way a word is used. I kind of wish he hadn't apologized, as standing strong on his opinion might've prompted a more honest public discussion about how hysterical/apoplectic some people can get over these types of "Woo, 'Murica!" topics:

“Why do I feel so uncomfortable about the word ‘hero’?” Hayes had said on Sunday's edition of Up With Chris Hayes. “I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect the memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism -- hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that."

Click to expand...

Opty said:

I think that, a lot of the time, it goes beyond simple hero worship into straight up fetishization. And, that fetishization of the military seems strongly tied to overt, unquestioning nationalism. Both of which seem to be, from what I can tell, strongly tied to a very harmful black-and-white, this-or-that, with-us-or-against-us type of tribalistic thinking that foments some of the growing political and cultural polarization we're seeing today.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Given the recent national budget numbers allotted to the military, the hammer salesmen have successfully convinced an entire country to view the rest of the world as nothing but nails.

So, yes, I'd agree that this is Not a Good Thing, for now or for the future.

Twick said:

I think it is hurting, in the "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" way, whereby vets are dragged in as shields.

Click to expand...

This is my take on it too.

People are very selective about the free speech they support, and when someone demonstrates on behalf of a cause they don't believe in, many will drag in any justification they can to oppose the way the message is being stated, rather than expose their own lack of concern for or opposition to the BLM movement (or whatever). In this case it's easy to whine, "But it's the Star Spangled Banner that's playing during their protest, and that represents our flag, and the troops fought for the flag*, so they're disrespecting our troops."

*If anyone can explain to me how troops are actually fighting for the flag, rather than the principles it is supposed to symbolize (such as free speech) I'd be grateful.

Roxxsmom said:

*If anyone can explain to me how troops are actually fighting for the flag, rather than the principles it is supposed to symbolize (such as free speech) I'd be grateful.

Click to expand...

Having been there and done that, I can assure you that most troops fight for the right to remain alive, shooting at people who are shooting at them for shooting at the people who are shooting at them. That's pretty much how it always works.

caw

Anyone who seriously believes their country is perfect is a fool. I love Australia, don't get me wrong, but it has some seriously problematic aspects. Those include genocide of its indigenous population, decades of legislated racism, all the way to current treatment of refugees. Just this year, a Muslim woman was essentially hounded out of her job on the national broadcaster because she dared bring up treatment of refugees on ANZAC Day (I guess that's our veteran's day). She literally made one Facebook post about it, then deleted it 10 minutes later. Who was she hounded out by? The Free Speech Warriors. Go figure.

Having said all that, on balance, Australia is an awesome place to be. It's a wonderful, safe, reasonably sensible and fair.

But I have been told to leave, because I dare acknowledge that the place isn't 100% perfect. I tend to see a lot of the same with American right-wingers. This sort of single-minded denial of the country not being perfect. Ironically, it's these people who seem to have the biggest problem with the country.

It's like that David Cross joke (I'm paraphrasing)
Trump voter: "America is gone to sh*t! The place is falling to pieces and the liberal elites are corrupt!"
Normal person: "Yeah, America certainly does have problems. It's complex."
Trump voter: "THIS GUY HATES AMERICA!!!!"

blacbird said:

Having been there and done that, I can assure you that most troops fight for the right to remain alive, shooting at people who are shooting at them for shooting at the people who are shooting at them. That's pretty much how it always works.

caw

Click to expand...

That makes a lot more sense than what many people are saying.

RightHoJeeves said:

Just this year, a Muslim woman was essentially hounded out of her job on the national broadcaster because she dared bring up treatment of refugees on ANZAC Day (I guess that's our veteran's day). She literally made one Facebook post about it, then deleted it 10 minutes later. Who was she hounded out by? The Free Speech Warriors. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Lest we forget (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine).

Click to expand...

Not, I would have thought, a wildly inflammatory post. Mind you - she is a Muslim. And also a woman. So, there's that.

mccardey said:

Not, I would have thought, a wildly inflammatory post. Mind you - she is a Muslim. And also a woman. So, there's that.

Click to expand...

Something kind of ironic about the Free Speech Warriors using their prime time network TV shows to complain that they're being silenced.

RightHoJeeves said:

But I have been told to leave, because I dare acknowledge that the place isn't 100% perfect. I tend to see a lot of the same with American right-wingers. This sort of single-minded denial of the country not being perfect. Ironically, it's these people who seem to have the biggest problem with the country.

Click to expand...

This is so very true. It's only un-American (or un-Australian) to complain about things they happen to agree with. They can bitch all the time about the things our countries have done that we happen to agree with.

And they don't even have the guts to say what they really think, that they think Black people are to blame for police brutality, or they think Black people are making it all up, or that the treatment is somehow justified, or that the refugees can just stay where they are, thank you, because they deserve no better than being locked up indefinitely (or they can go home and face death). Instead they divert the conversation over to issues like respecting the flag, or respecting veterans, or to Black-on-Black violence, or (not sure what justification people are coming up with for detaining those refugees indefinitely in prison camps, but I assume racism and xenophobia are involved).

Roxxsmom said:

This is so very true. It's only un-American (or un-Australian) to complain about things they happen to agree with. They can bitch all the time about the things our countries have done that we happen to agree with.

Click to expand...

Yup. Sure, the government might be wading into a pointless war, but the more important thing to get irate about is that transgender people want to use public bathrooms.

I am constantly amazed at how people summon the energy to be outraged by things that have literally no effect on them.

We have politicians whose support seemed to be based on the fact that Cadbury renamed Easter Eggs to "Holiday Eggs". People were outraged, I say! Outraged!

Of course it doesn't seem to matter that Cadbury never did that, nor ever suggested they would. But hey, when your life is empty and angry and you live in a prosperous and fair country, you can't be too picky with what you direct your rage at.

RightHoJeeves said:

But hey, when your life is empty and angry and you live in a prosperous and fair country, you can't be too picky with what you direct your rage at.

Click to expand...

And if there's no other reason for caring about people whose lives are empty and angry, then this is a good one.


(Book rec: Naomi Klein's spectacular No Is Not Enough )

mccardey said:

(Book rec: Naomi Klein's spectacular No Is Not Enough )

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll buy it this weekend and have a read.

lizmonster said:

We've been watching Ken Burns' THE VIETNAM WAR, on the heels of (re-)watching THE CIVIL WAR. I think the problem goes deeper than hero-worship.

First of all: There's a tacit acknowledgement that every human society requires a fighting force at the ready. This is probably a practical truth of humanity: if you've got territory, you can bet at some point someone else is going to wander in and want to take it from you. As nice as it would be to think you could say "Hey, no, we were here first, could you find yourselves another chunk of land?" we all know that's not going to happen - or at least, it's not going to happen often enough. So we build the military into our societies, and use words like "deterrent" to convince ourselves we're not really asking for a percentage of our population to die for the rest of us.

Click to expand...

But your country doesn't use its military to defend the homeland. It hasn't done that for over a hundred years. So this is an oversimplification. Your army is largely used outside your own country for some politicial or economical interest. Many armies are.

I grew up in postwar West Germany. An occupied territory, you could say. Yet I didn't ever notice the occupation in my childhood. There were no American and British soldiers telling me what to do. I felt relatively free. So even after your country gets taken over by some other power, it doesn't necessarily affect your everyday life.

In short, most of us are never our own boss. What do I care if my boss is German, American, or Russian. All an army does is keep the current boss in power. It doesn't actually protect YOU. Also, most of us don't actually own territory. It is owned by relatively few people. Again, an army protects their interests, not mine. What do I care who holds that territory? It was never mine to begin with.

Edit: Ask some native Americans if the US Army protects them. *cough*

kneedeepinthedoomed said:

But your country doesn't use its military to defend the homeland. It hasn't done that for over a hundred years. So this is an oversimplification. Your army is largely used outside your own country for some politicial or economical interest. Many armies are.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, it's an oversimplification. An internet forum is not a place to write a well-researched book on the subject.

I'm indeed well aware of the imperialism issue, both within our borders and outside of them. We're an odd case, here in the US, and I really believe a lot of that is the luck of the geographical draw (handwaving how we managed to acquire this coast-to-coast chunk of land). We've got oceans on two sides, and nations bordering us are on the whole friendly. It's much, much easier for us to be isolationist, and to "other" people in countries we can't see. Which makes it easier for us, psychologically, to use the military for, shall we say, arguable goals.

kneedeepinthedoomed said:

Edit: Ask some native Americans if the US Army protects them. *cough*

Click to expand...

And they're right, of course. Any army is designed to protect the current power structure, which in the US today is a white European-dominated oligarchy that's starting to look a lot like a patriarchal theocracy.

But to get back to the original point: these days the domestic impact of the army is more about the people who get sent away than anything they're doing within our borders. We abstract away the individuality of the people involved, because culturally we cling to the idea that a perpetually armed defense force is necessary. Humans being human, it probably is necessary (and I'm speaking worldwide, not for the US in particular). Which means that when the army isn't needed for defense, there's an impetus to make it feel useful and appreciated one way or another.

kneedeepinthedoomed said:

Edit: Ask some native Americans if the US Army protects them. *cough*

Click to expand...

Well, you might ask some how well surrendering their firearms worked out, but they actually serve in really high rates, per capita. Military service is highly respected.

Thanks to the author for his service, but could not disagree more. People who enlist, even if they wind up "in the rear with the gear"/in a non-combat MOS are exposing themselves to much higher risk than civilian populations. That's one (not the only) reason not every single person enlists. People may have various objections to serving, but kudos to those who do make the sacrifices necessary to serve, in whatever capacity. Not to mention, the reason front line operations could run smoothly is if everyone (clerks, etc) does their job.

I don' think the semantics of "hero" vs....? matters much. This gentleman may not be old enough to remember the "welcome" Vietnam vets received when they came home--all the baby killer, murderer crap. Many (including my husband) were spit on/had people trying to pull off their medals, etc. We definitely don't need to return to that.

Instead of the stupid "adore 'em/deplore 'em" debate, it'd be super if we would do things to encourage the reintegration/hiring of veterans, quit allowing the VA to fuck around with absolutely unacceptable error rates, inefficient electronic records systems, lengthy wait periods and so on (one acquaintance had to wait an additional THREE MONTHS for an appointment because someone mixed up "right" and "left" for which shoulder was to be treated), actually FIRING incompetent idiots (hello, Bernie Sanders, looking at you --- > https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...senate-work-at-the-heart-of-va-s-latest-woes/

or this (more on not being able to fire. Imagine being the family of a vet who was in jected with saltwater rather than a painkiller as a nurse was stealing the pain killer??)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/va-bosses-want-to-cut-red-tape-that-blocks-firings/

I don't think the victims of this shit feel like they're being treated as "heros."

Vets deserve quality treatment. Yes, civilians should have to pay for/accommodate care for those who volunteered to serve. That's part of the cost of defense. Having worked in what I considered to be a great VA, damn right we considered patients (WWII right on through OIF) "heroes."