Soldiers on Facebook and the worship of Death
Facebook, of course, has its plusses and minuses. One of the much talked about plusses is the ability it gives its users to reconnect with people from their pasts. As is well known to FB users, this can also be a minus when the reconnection proves awkward.
Today I received a “friend request” from a high school friend. I went to a small Catholic high school in West Virginia and because we had a small class, we were pretty tight. Before approving his request I clicked to his (limited) profile and noted that since high school he had joined the Marines. His profile picture showed himself and a military friend showing off their (gigantic) guns. Thinking to myself, “Let’s see how this goes,” I approved the request.
As I usually do, I clicked back to his profile to see the rest of it, and saw that he had posted, approvingly, the following video. (Warning: Although it depicts cartoonish violence, the content is undeniably racist. The backing track also includes extreme language.)
Facebook, MySpace, blogs, etc. — for better or worse — provide a glimpse into how real people think. There are a growing number of stories which relay the extremities of these glimpses, many of them involving the online behavior of soldiers.
What soldiers think is funny and what they are willing to share online with their “friends” is quite revealing. These are not soldiers-as-abstractions. This is what my Marine “friend” David thinks is funny. This is how David thinks. To my recollection, he did not think this way in high school. He was a just a burnt out hippie who skipped school a lot.
To clarify, then, this is how David now thinks. Something in the meantime made him think this way. Is it unreasonable to presume that military training had something to do with it? As I argue in a paper currently under review for publication, military discipleship is a cycle of dehumanizing conversion that seems condemned to end always in death. Death becomes the very center of the person shaped by today’s u.s. military. It shapes his praxis, training him to kill without thought and without remorse. It shapes his ultimate concern, leading him (and u.s. society at large) to believe that his own willingness to die is what gives us freedom, what gives us “the good life,” what makes “our” country “great.” And it even shapes his sense of humor.
We tend to call the center of a person’s life — whatever that may be — the “god” that that person worships. We are beginning to see, in large and in small ways, that soldiering for the u.s. empire leads quite literally to the worship of Death.
Comments are closed.
I’m inclined not to begrudge soldiers their gallows humor, as objectionable as it might be.
I am pretty sure that I will be more offended by the conservative comments that respond to this post.
Thank you for posting this, Michael. It’s important for people to realize that they really don’t know much about the spiritual hell of the enlisted combat soldier. Too often, people’s perceptions of the military come from either officers or combat-support personnel.
It is quite a thing, to learn how to shoot someone in the face and the heart, and then to do it again, and again, until there is no one left to kill.
This isn’t humor, this is coping.
I am pretty sure that I will be equally offended by the liberal comments as well.
I can certainly attest to the scars that all veterans carry, especially those who have seen combat. However, it is painting with very broad strokes to lump all veterans together from the actions and beliefs of the few. All of us belong to certain groups that have had bad press from bad actions, but it should not be said to apply to the entire group, unless that group’s mission itself is wrong.
The attitudes of young, brash men from West Virginia are not exemplary of all members of the service. We are a bit too diverse for that. Does the service pander to the baser elements of human nature, or do some feel that they can act in accordance with their lower instincts when they put on the uniform? Some would argue that the service calls men and women to rise above their nature and lead a better life by restraining human nature as needed.
“The attitudes of young, brash men from West Virginia are not exemplary of all members of the service. We are a bit too diverse for that.”
A few bad apples do not spoil the batch? Ok, but conversely a few good apples do not redeem the batch.
Given the reflexive respect that many Americans give to the military, it strikes me as important to constantly remind people that there are indeed bad apples.
I used to work with someone who had been a boy in France during the German occupation in World War II. He described what it was like being in underground shelters when the bombs dropped. He said the women held up better than the men, the men cried, and (he asked me) do you know what the children did? He said they played war. He said French schoolboys had a type of ruler they carried, and they used them as make-believe guns and pretended to shoot at each other.
There is something in us that draws us to war. St. Ignatius, who knew firsthand the horrors of war, prayed, “Teach us, Good Lord, To Serve Thee as Thou deservest . . . To fight and not to heed the wounds.” Confirmation makes us “Soldiers of Jesus Christ.” Catholics join the Knights of Columbus or the Legion of Mary. We fight a war on poverty. The PBS NewsHour, one of the most unbiased news shows on television, keeps a running “Honor Roll” of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a book by Chris Hedges titled War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, which I hope to get around to reading some day. Here’s the publisher’s description:
There is something very powerful about war and war imagery. Pacifism doesn’t stand a chance.
Several years ago, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution did a series on the army training experience of a local boy from a conservative religious background. He was accustomed to read the Bible daily, and it wasn’t long before he noticed the disconnect between the fifth commandment and the “Kill, Kill, Kill” combat training he was receiving. His solution, though it did not come easily: stop reading the Bible.
I’m pretty sure that people cannot be made to think anything. A person has to freely consent to a belief. Something in the military may have facilitated a belief, sure, but he still had to agree to it. He still had to internalize it and make it his own. People are not mindless.
Zach – nothing you’ve said is wrong, but you don’t seem to be someone who is intimately familiar with the training our military gives its soldiers.
The attitudes of young, brash men from West Virginia are not exemplary of all members of the service. We are a bit too diverse for that.
As phosphorious has rightly pointed out, this is silly bad apple-ism. But not only that, it contains a prejudicial bias against Appalachian people, as if to say “Oh, Iafrate, you know those redneck soldiers are the real problem, not the rest of us.” We heard the same “Appalachia excuse” in the case of Lynndie England who was photographed torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Zach – I certainly did not to imply that u.s. soldiers do not participate in their own dehumanization. They certainly do.
I don’t think anyone, even bloodthirsty soldiers, would disagree with your rather obvious analysis, Michael, but what is your solution? Do we train warriors to humanize the enemy and not be killers? Or, do we just fold the military all together? Certainly, everyone, would love to see the the day when there is an end to war, but I think merely analyzing the negative effects of military training on individuals and society does little to take seriously the reality that there is war, a real need for trained professional killers and that there are people who do not share the same ideas of human dignity we do and want to do us harm.
Michael,
I do not mean to taunt, but maybe you should reevaluate your beliefs about your roots.
I certainly said nothing generally about WV, and certainly do not refer to people as rednecks. I simply stated the typical “One bad apple” rule. Since one bad apple does not condemn the entire military, one good apple does not absolve the rest either. The one person that you cite to make a general statement about the military as a whole, was in fact from WV.
I agree with phosphorious’ argument that just because most people have a reflexive respect for the military does not make every soldier or veteran honorable, but the same token, we are not all bloodthirsty rednecks.
I realize that Appalachia has a long history of misinformed people trying to draw conclusions about the entire region, but it is not fair to then use your one friend as an example that applies to all servicemen. No more, no less, he is just one friend, and not even someone that you claim to have known well at all – “He was a just a burnt out hippie who skipped school a lot.” is not a ringing endorsement of any type of close relationship.
You will have an uphill struggle to convince me that part of the reason for all of the intense media coverage of Lynndie and her partners was not an opportunity for the NY Times and other liberal media outlets to shoot the military with both barrels. The liberal media was looking to call the military uneducated hicks who are in need of greater scrutiny and pointing to Lynndie as the poster child of US policy, not as part of a gang of miscreants breaking the rules.
I welcome media coverage of everything that we do. Embedded reporters are overall a good thing and will bring a more accurate picture of what is required to keep peace loving people safe in their homes at night.
Chad – When you ask what “we” should do, who do you mean? The church or america? As church, we should refuse to join the military. I don’t think “america” will do anything about the problem. This kind of military is increasingly necessary to preserve an evil system. And your statement that americans have a strong sense of human dignity seems naive. Presumably you do not have abortion in mind. Or does “human dignity” only apply to the preborn?
The one person that you cite to make a general statement about the military as a whole, was in fact from WV.
The fact that he is from WV is irrelevant, unless you were meaning to suggest that he is an exception precisely because he is from WV.
I have cited countless examples in my posts on the u.s. military, not just one. Feel free to click through my past posts.
You will have an uphill struggle to convince me that part of the reason for all of the intense media coverage of Lynndie and her partners was not an opportunity for the NY Times and other liberal media outlets to shoot the military with both barrels.
If it’s an “uphill battle” it’s only because of your own blindness. You are in fact dead wrong about Lynndie. It was the Pentagon who dismissed her behavior and that of her unit because they were “rednecks,” precisely in order to absolve the military as a whole from accusations about prisoner mistreatment. Hopefully you see the problem with that argument by now. Prisoner mistreatment (including murder) has been a systemic problem.
I am not sure what is racist in this pretty disgusting cartoon. Is it that the greens want to kill the blues? Or that the blues want to kill the greens? Is it that the greens are wearing turbans and the blues are wearing helmets? Is it that the blues are better in this battle than the greens? Help.
Mr. Austin Ruse – Since you are a “professional pro-life leader,” you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
But David, Christian pacifism (as I understand it) is quite militant. I learned something interesting recently, about the word used by Jesus in his famous command: “do not resist evil”. The greek word the Gospel uses for ‘resist’ has a distinctly military connotation, and is better translated as ‘resist violently”.
But the story gets more interesting, because St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians talks about ‘resisting’ the devil, and he uses powerful military imagery – the sword, a breastplate, and so forth. And he uses that same greek word. But then Saint Paul turns the word on its head, by showing us that our militant battle is fought with the sword and armor of faith! Powerful stuff, far more powerful, I believe, than fighting with carnal weapons.
Michael,
Wow. Mine was a sincere question and I am sorry to have drawn such sarcasm. Yikes. I actually cannot figure it out and would be sincerely grateful to know what is racist about the cartoon. I am really sorry if i offended you. I wish that email could show sincere contrition for any offense given.
Nate,
As I have said before, a very good case can be made that Jesus, Paul, and the early Church believed in nonviolence. But if that’s true, the Church largely abandoned such teachings very early on.
You seem like a genuinely kind person.
Mr. Ruse – You did not offend me but rather made me feel sorry for you. Your question was clearly not sincere. If you have since decided that you probably should have been more sincere, and that you really would like to know what is racist about the video, use whatever professional pro-lifing knowledge you have acquired about the dignity of unborn persons and begin to apply those insights to persons who have been born.
David Nickol – Presuming it is true that “the Church” “largely abandoned” the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and the early Church on nonviolence (this is debatable), do you think this was a good idea? Isn’t it strange that when it comes to, say, women’s access to holy orders much of the hierarchy insists that we cannot dismiss Jesus’ supposed “intentions” regarding something he actually never spoke about, but when it comes to violence, something Jesus did plainly and directly speak about, so many Christians (including much of the hierarchy) have abandoned said teachings?
Michael-I was simply wondering how you think the United States or any other nation can defend itself without having trained killers?
It is clear that the moderator regrets the claim the cartoon is undeniably racist because he cannot explain his assertion. Does anyone else think the cartoon is undeniably racist? If so, can you give me a hand and explain to me? Many thanks.
Chad – Nonviolence.
Austin – I regret nothing and will write it again: the video is racist. But hell, you are the professional pro-lifer so maybe you know better than me?
Does anyone else think the cartoon is undeniably racist?
It depends on your definition of race. The battle is obviously against Muslims (wearing turbans). The name of the video, and of the machine gun, is “Martyr Machine.” The appearance of the sign saying NYPD FDNY is a clear reference to 9/11. In an ordinary battle, one does not expect a soldier to urinate on the head of a dying or dead enemy, as the blue soldier (American?) does on the head of a turban-wearing (Muslim) green soldier. One also does not expect to see a soldier throw the severed head of a enemy up in the air to be shot at. The turbans are clearly a special target, as one is unravelled and the another set on fire. If I were a Muslim-American, or any Muslim at all who was not an enemy of the United States (and most aren’t), I would be sickened by watching the gleeful slaughter of fellow Muslims. Muslims not being a race, I suppose it’s not technically racist. But broadly speaking, it is.
Austin – Since you are a professional pro-lifer can you tell us whether the video is pro-life or not?
David,
I think you are right right up to the end. It’s either racist or its not. Islam is not a race. So…
As a professional prolifer i can say, Michael, that war is sometimes just. The desecration of the bodies, however, is an affront to teh dignity of the dead which is disturbing, yes. Though this is a professional judgment, I offer this gratis as a way of making peace with you who seem really angry at me.
As a professional prolifer i can say, Michael, that war is sometimes just.
Wow. A stunning pro-life statement.
The desecration of the bodies, however, is an affront to teh dignity of the dead which is disturbing, yes.
Hmm. So the preborn have dignity. The dead have dignity. That’s a start I guess.
No, I am not angry with you. I just kind of feel sorry for you.
Michael I
Interestingly enough, this professional pro-lifer won’t give all the dead their dignity; if they are killed in a massacre by someone like Jack the Ripper, he said it is ok for them to be used for medical experimentation, which is why it was good for Bush to award those who killed embryos with federal funding. Only as long as they were awarded after they did the killing.
If you feel sorry for me, then why aren’t you kinder to me? Why do you mock me? Why are you so sarcastic? If i felt sorry for someone, i think I would try to be kind to them.
So, there is no such thing as a just war? I didn’t know that. Will have to study up on that. Is there a church document i can look at?
Guys…gotta go..i am in Chicago tonight to accept the Henry Hyde Award for my professional prolife work! Best to all…will check in later…
I get it… The “professional pro-life movement” is just one big ball of incest, isn’t it?
To take up Chad’s question, I don’t think America, as it currently exists, can defend itself without a military. To discover a nonviolent form of national defense would take a sweeping cultural, political, and economic transformation.
The strange thing, however, is that our current military is not required to defend the homeland, but rather to ensure American power throughout the world. A strictly defensive force would be an entirely different kind of military.
Austin, as far as documents regarding to the Church’s most current teaching regarding war, I suggest the World Day of Peace Messages. I’ve put together a summary of their themes here, if you’re interested: http://www.catholicpeacemaking.com
Basically, the just-war is a misnomer of sorts. As a philisophical construct, the just-war is ideally possibility. Yet in the nitty-gritty of a fallen world, the just-war is simply impossible to put into practice. Ironically, the just-war is a response to a fallen world, yet it is precisely that fallen world that makes a just-war impossible.
Michael I respect people who are pacifist/nonviolent resisters if they are consistent, i.e. they don’t pay their taxes and do not participate in the global economy – which pretty much limits them to growing and eating their own food, subjecting themselves to the harsh whims of Mother Nature. Just the simple act of driving my car to pick up groceries at the store is, in part, dependent upon the fact that our military can and does protect our interests globally.
I’m working towards this way of life so that one day I can take your position. In the mean time, in this fallen world, I do support our military because I cannot take your stand without significant hypocrisy. Please pray for me.
Chad – Let me put aside for a moment the fact that it feels like your comment is sort of a back handed way of calling me a hypocrite and say this: While I think it is noble to want to be as “consistent” as possible and to see the connections that the military system has with just about every facet of our everyday lives, I think it could be a bit obsessive to dwell on each and every action you make. You and I were born into a world system that we did not create. Driving to the store involves material relationships in an exploitative global economy, for sure, but it is silly to think we can withdraw from the global economy completely. Ironically, at present, those of us born into this system don’t have much choice about whether or not to participate, despite global capitalism’s worship of “choice.” I think we can withdraw to some degree, but not completely. Even that desire seems to me misguided, stemming perhaps from an individualistic drive for moral purity and independence from others. Where we do have a clear choice whether or not to participate — as in the case of the military — we can withdraw and resist. That means we don’t have to join the military nor do we have to “support” it as you say you need to. Where we have less “choices” — such as in our economic relationships — we can subvert the best we can until the whole damn thing collapses. And it will.
I find it interesting (yet predictable) that when Nate, a veteran, comments approvingly on posts such as this, his viewpoint is usually ignored. I guess the views of only some vets matters?
Chad– there is nowhere in the world we could move that does not fall under some history of violence, oppression, or unjust global economy. There are those, like the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, who are attempting to reclaim their land from such history, but have not done so without some level of violence.
I think that those of us who are thoughtful enough to reject violence and not celebrate the militaristic aims of our governments, realize that we are still benefitting from that which we ultimately reject. For me, it is painful and worth much prayer and repentance. However, while living within this system, I consider good news to remind my friends, family, enemies, and passers by that war, jingoism, and billions of dollars spent on killing brown people are all a part of the lunacy of our society and the death of all things holy. The foolishness of the cross, that the Son of God came to die in order to rid the world of evil, is for me, a fitting counter to all that madness and sorrow.
Where we have less “choices” — such as in our economic relationships — we can subvert the best we can until the whole damn thing collapses. And it will.
Michael is right; nature and nature’s God demand it. Man as a social construct is a beast, hell-bent on self-destruction.