Monday, March 4, 2019
GOOD NEWS
[My natural Tigger cannot be repressed for too long!] While going through my files, I found the original of my Honorable Discharge from the Army National Guard in 1963. It confirmed my memory that my service number was NG 21268121. Considering the nature of my tour of duty, it is probably not necessary that people I meet in the supermarket say to me "Thank you for your service." Still, I wore the uniform longer than most Republican members of the House. Through diligence and attention to duty, I eventually rose to the rank of E-4 [the old Corporal]. I was busted back to E-3 for ducking out of summer camp early in '62 to go on my honeymoon, but managed to regain my rank before being discharged a year later. As I note in my Autobiography, I learned a good deal about the art of teaching while in uniform.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
The U.S. Army is the nicest military institution in the world. Although I don't want to talk about my service record, they did give me an honorable discharge--probably because Mars was so nice to me.
A Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Air Force once said this to one of the classes I was attending in high school about the armed services:
"The Air Force is very, very nice to you. The Army and Navy are okay to you. But in the Marine Corps, you better do your job no matter what!"
Which brings up the question: How nice will the *new* Space Force be to its employees? Perhaps only time will tell...
Michael Llenos,
You say that the U.S.Army is the nicest military institution in the world. Maybe they were nice to you, but I doubt that the people of Viet Nam or of Iraq or Panama would categorize the U.S. Army as the nicest military institution in the world.
I seem to remember the opening to Full Metal Jacket was not contrived, but legitimately R. Lee Ermey's drill instructions. Hardly 'nice'.
Wallerstein, I guess since we in America constantly hold the moral bar so low, we could argue that it's nice relative to Blackwater!
S. Wallerstein,
Well I can't speak for them. But I meant from my own personal experience with the U.S. Army. And perhaps there were people from Viet Nam, Iraq, and Panama that became U.S. citizens because of help from the U.S. Army. E.g. U.S. Army helicopter pilots and other U.S. Army soldiers risked their lives transporting South Vietnamese civilians out of Hanoi as the NVA closed in to take the city. I think I saw it on television shows on the History Channel.
Michael Llenos,
I'm sure that there are very nice people in the U.S. Army. But do you have any idea of the number of civilian deaths caused by the U.S. invasions of Viet Nam, Iraq and Panama? Let's add Cambodia too.
Isn't that the message of Hannah Arendt's book on Eichmann, the banality of evil? That Eichmann was a nice person, that he wasn't motivated by hatred of the Jews, that he was
normal according to psychological tests, not a raving psychopath?
Since the Second World War, the U.S. has become the most imperialistic and aggressive power in the world, the "greatest purveyor of violence" according to Martin Luther King, who was hardly a Marxist-Leninist.
Than you for your service!
That's very interesting, you said you leaned much about the art of teaching. I was wondering if you could share one of the more important lessons your learnt? Also I can very much vouch for your teaching abilities as I watched your lectures on kant on YouTube and in short, feel very very grateful I did.
Thank you.
For Unknown @4:55 PM, see the Box version of RPW's Autobiography, v.1, ch.5: https://app.box.com/s/n72u3p7pyj/file/700569810
Looks to me like one discussion of pedagogy in the military commences on p.202.
What is a just war? How can any war be just when civilians die? Are no wars just? Should they all be judged in their separate segments on a case by case basis? I don't know. If you think the only just wars are Star Wars, Robotech, and the American Revolutionary War, then that's your freedom of opinion. It is my belief that a Green Beret (and the Hmong villagers he died to protect) would say that the Vietnam War was a just war. Great civil rights leaders like MLK jr. said the Vietnam War was an unjust war. My opinion is that just, or unjust, the American men and women who fought in Vietnam did not die in vain for America. Here is what the 16th century Cathecism of the Council of Trent says about the non-culpability of men and women who fought in their country's just wars:
"...the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war. There are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God himself: the sons of Levi, who had to put to death many thousands in one day, we're guilty of no sin: when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: 'you have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.'"
Of course, as non-believers, many people would disagree with this belief system. But what is a just war, or an unjust war, everyone, or most, can agree on then? Probably, hardly anyone will know for certain until the next life.
I have no doubt that a Green Beret in Viet Nam believed that he was acting justly. That seems to me to be a measure of his indoctrination and nothing else.
I also have no doubt that Osama Bin Ladin and the 9-11 hijackers believed that they were acting justly. Probably Adolf Eichmann did too. One of chief characteristics, according to Hannah Arendt, was that he didn't think, which does not mean that he didn't have the power of reason, but that he did not question the beliefs which were hegemonic in Nazi Germany.
Almost everyone rationalizes their actions by considering them to be just. Very few people doubt or question the justice of the causes that they were educated to believe in.
Here's what philosophers such as Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and A.J. Ayer as well as the writer James Baldwin, people who were known for questioning the beliefs that they were educated to believe in (which in my opinion is one of the chief virtues of philosophy, ) concluded about U.S. war crimes in Viet Nam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal
Hello professor! I am curious now, why do you say you "learned a good deal about the art of teaching while in uniform"? What do you mean?
p.s.: I am very grateful for your lessons on YouTube.
There happens to be a very large modern philosophical literature on the question of "just war," as well as, of course, the much older discussions (Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius). The book that pretty much kicked off the contemporary debates, Walzer's _Just and Unjust Wars_, is flawed but definitely worth reading. The number of books published on the topic since Walzer's was published in 1977 would fill a small library (easily several hundred titles in English, probably closer to a thousand, and more if you count other languages).
"My opinion is that just, or unjust, the American men and women who fought in Vietnam did not die in vain for America."
I mean that's definitely true but maybe not in the sense you mean it. Since it's clear the Vietnam was not for 'America' in any broad sense, but clearly a section of factional interests within America.
S.W.
You said: "I have no doubt that a Green Beret in Viet Nam believed that he was acting justly. That seems to me to be a measure of his indoctrination and nothing else."
I don't think it was all indoctrination. When a new Green Beret arrived in Vietnam for the first time, yes, all they knew about the Hmong they were sent to protect (and the NVA they had to fight) was what they learned in training--which had traces of indoctrination. But when they lived with them, fought with them, bled with them, and saw the cruelty done by the NVA (and their communist political officers), they realized that they were fighting an enemy that was inherently misguided and evil. The NVA wanted to unite their country, but their actions in doing so more than bordered on that of war criminals--which their communist leaders would try to justify. I read some books in my youth on how the NVA would mutilate civilian populations like the Hmong and Montagnards and South Vietnamese villagers that were given medical attention by the Green Berets. So when the Green Berets fought and died and became POWs, for the Hmong, I believe they felt the Vietnam War was justified for the American side.
Michael Llenos,
We seem to have read very different books in our youth and I imagine that we read very different books today. That keeps the book trade flourishing.
In any case, we have strayed from your original assertation that the U.S. Army is the nicest in the world. The Russell Tribunal (and thousands of other accounts) show that the U.S. military committed war crimes in Viet Nam. An army that commits war crimes cannot be described as the "nicest in the world". In that context, it doesn't matter whether the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese committed war crimes too since there are many armies that did not commit war crimes in the period in question nor have committed any in the last century. In fact, there are even a few European countries that have not been involved in any wars during the past century and several more, which, unlike the U.S. have never invaded anyone during the past century and which, unlike most Latin American countries, have not engaged in the violent repression of dissident groups.
S.W.
Albert Einstein, at the beginning of the 20th century, invented Relativity. Relativity, in a general sense, means that for every different perspective there is a different viewpoint, time, and reality. This Relativity replaced the absolute, positive viewpoint of Newtonian Physics created by Isaac Newton. Meaning black and white was replaced with gray. So when I say the U.S. Army is the greatest military institution in the world, I was speaking from my own (& many others) personal viewpoint. When you play the *numbers game* and say: if there are one hundred people on Earth, and 60 hate the U.S. Army, but 40 people think the U.S. Army is the greatest military institution on Earth, that the 60 invalidate the beliefs of the 40 (because there are twenty more who hate and do not share the same viewpoint as the 40) then you are being robotically-mathematical, robotically-calculating, and an oppressor of the viewpoint of the minority. In theory, if more people want the institution of slavery than the minority, does that make the viewpoint of the minority any less valid? The U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights activists of the '60s were in favor of the minority. Sometimes Utilitarianism (and the majority vote) does not hold the moral right over the people. Relativity states everyone has their own individual, universal viewpoint. I think the U.S. Army is the greatest military institution in the world. It's made many mistakes in the past. All military institutions have made mistakes. But I don't see how you can say my relative viewpoint is not valid from my own perspective.
Or instead of greatest military institution in the world, I meant nicest military institution in the world. Now that I think about it I believe both.
ML,
How many military institutions have you thoroughly surveyed?
I think maybe someone's a bit confused about Einstein and relativity. Try, e.g.,
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm
the concluding words of which are "The popularity of the theory of relativity among the general public, reinforced by the image of Einstein as the typical scientist, gave impetus to the idea that physics is relative, and thence that everything is relative. If Einstein had called his work the theory of invariance, we would perhaps have been spared this nonsense."
Or the Answers here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247434/einstein-showed-that-everything-is-relative
Still, if it makes anyone happy with specious arguments, go for it.
Chris,
None. But you get an idea of what certain military institutions are like from your own experiences. Just like when you attend college, you get an idea of what other colleges are like from the similarities and differences of the college you're attending while at college--by swapping stories with your friends. I got my infantry cord from Ft. Benning, Georgia. Their BASIC training is the worst Army BASIC treatment in the nation for its kind--they basically treat you like garbage. I had a friend that went to Air Force basic and we swapped stories. I also had a friend that graduated from West Point and I listened to some of his stories. Plus, if you do JROTC in high school you learn a lot about the various branches of the military. And although JROTC is not very realistic compared to real military training, when you go to Boot Camp, in whatever branch you go to, you should appreciate the fact that you know more about drill etc. than your fellow recruits. Then in High School you read a lot of military books and interact with a lot of members of the Armed Forces. You learn the world of the military brat even though you're not a military brat--by the way, I don't like to use the word *brat* to describe military dependents. I got my BASIC PADI scuba licence my High School junior year because two of my friends' dad, a Green Beret Lt. Colonel, who was in charge of the Special Operations in his region, hooked his sons and me up with the main military Scuba instructor in our area. We got our SCUBA licence in just two weekends. Needless to say, from your own experiences you learn about other experiences. Most people in the Army know that the physically easiest school is Airborne, then Air Assault school is harder, then Sapper School, Ranger School, and Special Forces school are way harder, & then finally Combat Diver School (or Army Seal School) is the hardest of all. You don't learn this from attending such schools yourself but from the people who went to such schools who tell their stories to you. BTW, when I say I believe that the U.S. Army is the nicest military institution in the world do I really have to defend myself? It's my own personal viewpoint.
Anonymous said:
"I think maybe someone's a bit confused about Einstein and relativity."
What I wrote comes from the impression I got from reading quite a bit of Walter Isaacson's biography on Einstein. Plus, Michio Kaku's biography: Einstein's Cosmos. Like Judge Judy said: 'I know nothing about math.' And I agree with her. I just understand the English translation part. But physics is part of the reality of the universe. So there is a dual universal nature to relativity.
I should have written instead that I don't like the U.S. Army on this website--then everyone would have loved me!!!
Michael Llenos,
If you'll check above the beginning of our conversation (March 4, 3PM), you'll see that I for one recognize that the U.S. Army may have been nice to you, but that for many people in the world they have been a nightmare.
I live in Chile and I can tell you that well over half of the Chilean population fears the United States as the most aggressive imperialist power in the planet, because of the role of the U.S. in fomenting and backing General Pinochet's 1973 military coup and his subsequent 17 year bloody dictatorship. Several of us in this thread are simply trying to get you to see the world from the point of view of a Vietnamese peasant whose villain was napalmed by the U.S. military or from that of someone from Panama whose family was killed by U.S. bombs during the "surgical strike" against General Noriega in 1989 or that of an Iraqi whose middle class way of life was destroyed by the U.S. military in a war carried out under the entirely false pretense that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I don't see how you cannot understand that U.S. military aggression has not been "nice" for its victims, although once again, the U.S. military may have treated you very nicely.
S.W.
I'm not saying that the U.S. Military is nice to everyone. But I'm trying to say the U.S. Army is the nicest military institution in the world from my own personal viewpoint & experience with it. I like it better than the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Space Force. And I like the U.S. Military better than other world militaries because I am a U.S. Citizen. This discussion is pointless. I'm not going to post about this anymore.
Woah!
"Chris,
None."
Case closed.
"But you get an idea of what certain military institutions are like from your own experiences."
So you're resting your belief on private subjectivity? Okay, that won't hold up to scrutiny.
"Just like when you attend college, you get an idea of what other colleges are like from the similarities and differences of the college you're attending while at college--by swapping stories with your friends."
I actually don't get a general sense of what other colleges are like just from talking to people, since individual anecdotes don't consummate my judgments.
"I'm trying to say the U.S. Army is the nicest military institution in the world from my own personal viewpoint & experience with it".
Right but since you have no experience with other institutions you should just say "I don't know", not "the US Army *IS*". If Wallerstein asked me what I thought of Chile's dancing scene, all I could reasonably say is "no idea". Not "Inferior to the US!"
" I like the U.S. Military better than other world militaries because I am a U.S. Citizen."
So dogmatically patriotic. That's not healthy... Do you like all US presidents, senators, and house members equally, just because you're a US Citizen. Do you think everything about the US is the best, literally everything, just because you're a US citizen? If not, why not extend the same scruples to the military?
Maybe you need to walk back the claim that the US Military *IS* the nicest army in the world, and perhaps say you *suspect* it is given shoddy reasoning and anecdotes.
C. said...[So you're resting your belief on private subjectivity? Okay, that won't hold up to scrutiny. ...I actually don't get a general sense of what other colleges are like just from talking to people, since individual anecdotes don't consummate my judgments.]
Chris,
Anybody can play the contradiction word game with anyone. When you said before that anecdotes mean nothing, then why the heck do anecdotes exist then? We both know something about the general High School experience of others since we have both been to High School. Maybe not the particulars but in a general sense we do. That's why some people like to watch movies like Grease, so they can reflect and remember from their own particular experiences in a general way. BTW, you do know something about other branches of the military by serving in one of them. According to your logic, I would have to be in everybody's body, in every rank & occupation, in all the military branches of the world throughout all history, before I could make any sensical judgment about any of them.
I'm pretty sure you've read Plato. Does not Socrates use analogies, parallels, and illustrative examples to bridge the gap between one type of subject (or category) and another? He does and everyone must. No one can know everyone and know everything and be everywhere except God.
But why should I continue to post? I already feel trite, made up, unfair contradictions existing in the future that are being summoned up as soon as you can read this text.
So like I told S.W. future postings are pointless. And so if you make another post and I don't reply to your post, I guess I'll just be one more post the poorer.
If you've been to high school, you are in general a good judge of your own high school experience as a student, even though some people are more perceptive and self-aware than others. You may not be a good judge of the experience of other students in high school, for example of female students or of African-American students or of students labeled "slow learners" and as a high school student, you may not be a good position to judge the experience of the high school janitor, of your teachers, of the people who work in the high school cafeteria, unless you are exceptionally empathetic.
So too if you've been in the U.S. military, you are almost surely a better judge of your experience in the U.S. military than I am. However, your experience as a member of the U.S. military does not capacitate you to judge whether a Vietnamese peasant experienced the U.S. military as being nice or not.
So you need to consult other sources besides your own military experience and that of others members of the U.S. military to see whether the U.S. military was nice to the Vietnamese, who to this day are still experiencing the toxic effects of the defoliant
chemicals the nice folks in the U.S. military dumped on their land.
I doubt that you will accept my suggestions, but for the record, I'd suggest that you consult Chomsky about Vietnam and about the role of the U.S. military in general. He has published scores of books on the subject and in YouTube you will find hundreds of videos of talks and interviews with him about U.S. military aggressions. Chomsky is clear, direct and probably has the sharpest mind of anyone whom I've ever seen (I've seen Chomsky in videos, but I've never seen, say, Wittgenstein).
ML,
I'm not playing a contradiction word game, my posts are entirely sincere. There is no trolling going on here, I am not a sophist or Meletus (so yes I've read Plato :) )
"If anecdotes mean nothing then why do they exist" - implies that all things that exist must be meaningful, or at least, substantative. Mormon's exist, and so do scientologists, hence their beliefs exist too, but I'm pretty confident that despite some psychoanalytic quirks the general metaphysics of their beliefs actually mean nothing substantive. Similarly with anecdotes. Some I find to be perfectly reasonable, like my wife telling me about what her and the dog did at the park, or how her boss treats her at work. But if she extrapolated from a particular dog-park incident to the general nature of dogs or parks I would instantly be suspicious at best. In that case I would do broader research into dogs, parks, etc., just as I would ENCOURAGE you to do regarding military institutions.
That anecdotes sometimes have a place does not mean they always have a place. That some things that exist are possibly universally meaningful doesn't mean all things that exist are universally meaningful. None of this is contradiction or sophistry. It's...honestly...intro logic.
Wallerstein is right, I'm an okay judge of the two high schools I went to, up unto a point (although even then as I age I have flash backs to high school that I reinterpret in fundamentally new ways as I develop cognitively, theoretically, etc). Records by various administrative bodies though, and the experiences of minority and female students are things I cannot speak to so keenly, and would thus defer to them. Moreover, I would not genrealize from my high school experience to the high schools of Vietnam, Chile, Switzerland, Finland, Guam, etc etc etc. To be blunt I have no fucking clue if Wallerstein, or yourself, or John Doe in Turkey, had a better high school experience. Just as it would be reckless to say because, oh I don't know, my boss at X corporation in America is nice to me therefore America has THE GREATEST CORPORATIONS IN THE WORLD!
Post a Comment