Just a Janitor

[Bronx Warlord]

I doubt our man Bronx here would have teh same respect for me if i became a police officer

You assume much yet know little about me, just like your attiude about Soldiers in general.

if so then why should we not look at risks undertaken by others? Also what about all the support staff in the military who do not take risks? Surely, then they are not at all deserving of praise? And surely not the generals sitting in the hardened bunkers?

Ah but all of them are serveing to make it possible, and unlike you, they are serveing there nation!

See the point is risk taken by a soldier during war may be great, but i can argue that it is only fleeting. Cumulated over years a businessman also takes a lot of risks (possibly more than a soldier - cumulative mind you) and he runs a business and provides for a familiy and possibly many families. So why is that risk less deserving of praise?

...

 

[IglooDame]

Good answer IglooDude, but I think it all too logical. Humans are much more emotional than that. Also, we do not glorify most things that people do particularly well. See the Janitor story above for an example. No one cared that he was a good Janitor - only that he had been overcome with blood fury in the heat of battle and with no regard for personal safety single-handedly attacked
fortified enemy positions. Because he succeded he was lauded, if he had been killed without affect it would have been a waste of a soldier.

Your comment about logic not being a factor is somewhat ironic, given that you jumped to the conclusion that his heroism was motivated through being "overcome with blood fury in the heat of battle". Here's the Medal of Honor citation:

After reaching the crest of the hill, the platoon was pinned down by intense enemy machinegun and small-arms fire. Locating 1 of these guns, which was dug in on a terrace on his immediate front, Pvt. Crawford, without orders and on his own initiative, moved over the hill under enemy fire to a point within a few yards of the gun emplacement and single-handedly destroyed the machinegun and killed 3 of the crew with a hand grenade, thus enabling his platoon to continue its advance. When the platoon, after reaching the crest, was once more delayed by enemy fire, Pvt. Crawford again, in the face of intense fire, advanced directly to the front midway between 2 hostile machinegun nests located on a higher terrace and emplaced in a small ravine. Moving first to the left, with a hand grenade he destroyed 1 gun emplacement and killed the crew; he then worked his way, under continuous fire, to the other and with 1 grenade and the use of his rifle, killed 1 enemy and forced the remainder to flee.

That doesn't sound like blood fury to me, nor did the abbreviated version in the first post.

I think it is closely related to why we pay athletes so much, and almost worship them. It is the pure physical nature of the act, and the relationship to violence, we respond in a visceral way to this sort of physical display.

If we do not glorify them, we must vilify them, and thus vilify ourselves.

Perhaps the people that respect or laud heroism all have their own reasons for doing so. Most probably fall somewhere in the spectrum between your explanation and mine.

 

[IglooDame]

So even if I take your personal pov (which I am sure is not the usual pov - I doubt our man Bronx here would have teh same respect for me if i became a police officer) that a police officer and soldier should have equal praise (almost) then it seems to me that you are equating the amount of risk undertaken to serve to the amount of praise deserved.

if so then why should we not look at risks undertaken by others? Also what about all the support staff in the military who do not take risks? Surely, then they are not at all deserving of praise? And surely not the generals sitting in the hardened bunkers?

I don't think it is the usual pov either, but I offered it for your examination because I can defend it whereas I can't put any enthusiasm into Gothmog's explanation, I find his too depressing. Anyway, the answer is that the so-called REMFs are deserving of praise for two other reasons: one, they (usually) can be ordered into combat with little warning - the fact that they signed up in the first place without knowing whether they'd end up in combat is worthy of praise. Two, they in most cases are not serving in a place where they go home at night, are making considerably less than their equivalents in the private sector, and have little option of changing that until they come due for reenlistment. They are not risking life and limb, but they are giving their time and comfort up for their country.

See the point is risk taken by a soldier during war may be great, but i can argue that it is only fleeting. Cumulated over years a businessman also takes a lot of risks (possibly more than a soldier - cumulative mind you) and he runs a business and provides for a familiy and possibly many families. So why is that risk less deserving of praise?

Motive enters into it. The businessman is doing it either for money or for his family. The first is mostly to ensure his own success, and we expect him to work in support of his family. In any case, I think a risk of being killed, however fleeting, is more substantial than a day-to-day risk of losing money, or could you clarify what risk the businessman is taking if I'm misreading it?

 

[Gothmog]

Well, we have a difference of opinion. It certainly sounds like blood fury to me. What would you be feeling as you moved towards a dug in machinegun encampment? Most of the accounts I have read of soldiers under this sort of duress make mention of seeing through 'a red gauze'. That is what I meant by blood fury. I did not mean to imply that his motives were anything other than trying to protect other people in his unit. That is very human.

I'm certainly not immune, I watch sports and respect heroism in the face of danger. I just don't think that humans are so analytical in the face of blood and mortal danger. It seemed that the core of your argument was the 'remarkable accomplishment in fulfillment of that request is presumably laudable', but as I pointed out this doesn't seem to be the case for most requests that society would put on its members.

Edit: just saw your last post IglooDude, sorry to be depressing but I find violence and war depressing. Human but depressing.

 

[dgfred]

@ Bronx- I was shocked at the bravery of Gordon & Shughart, to volunteer
to go into that storm of death not once, but thrice. What bravery!!! .

 

[betazed]

...but I offered it for your examination because I can defend it...

A wise decision. I have come to expect no less from you.

I can't put any enthusiasm into Gothmog's explanation, I find his too depressing.

yes, it is depressing. but that does not lessen its probability that it is true.

Anyway, the answer is that the so-called REMFs are deserving of praise for two other reasons: one, they (usually) can be ordered into combat with little warning - the fact that they signed up in the first place without knowing whether they'd end up in combat is worthy of praise. Two, they in most cases are not serving in a place where they go home at night, are making considerably less than their equivalents in the private sector, and have little option of changing that until they come due for reenlistment. They are not risking life and limb, but they are giving their time and comfort up for their country.

perhaps. But then again I can argue, respectively, (a) they probably calculated that the chances of their actually ending up in combact is probably very low and if they knew it was high most wouldn't (as we are actully seeing in the reenlistment figures) (b) heck, going home at night is hardly a criteria for noble service when I was a travelling consultant I was flying every week and used to come home once every month. I spent the last 10 months of 14 months outside my home (8 months of that at a stretch). Is my service as noble and worthy of praise? (c) As for pay a soldier is paid too isn't he? What if I argue that most of them join because either it is a route to get subsidized education etc. or because they cannot get good private sector jobs.

Point is what i said above may or may not be true. I doubt either of us can prove it either way. But till we can we should at least wonder why we still give the soldier all the benefit of the doubt? But most of us instinctively do. Why?

Motive enters into it. The businessman is doing it either for money or for his family. The first is mostly to ensure his own success, and we expect him to work in support of his family.

As for motive the average soldiers motive need not be very noble. I doubt anybody joins up to face the enemy in a scenario like one Gordon above and face certain death. I really doubt how many Kamikaze fighter pilots America can provide? But even those Kamikaze pilots were not there in it for free. They had to know that their families would be taken care of and the proper medals and honors were given to them before they went to their deaths.

A businessman takes his reward in cash. A soldier too takes it in cash and some of it as basking in the praise heaped on him. Why is taking all of it in cash less worthy of praise? Neither is completely altruistic!

In any case, I think a risk of being killed, however fleeting, is more substantial than a day-to-day risk of losing money, or could you clarify what risk the businessman is taking if I'm misreading it?

Why do you think the fleeting risk is more substantial? a businessman can lose his livelihood and it would affect him, his family his children. It is not just losing money. Also, even if it is just losing money do we provide him the same praise at least in proportion to his risk however small than a soldier? No. We do not provide him any praise at all. So the amount of risk taken by a businessman is not the issue.

oh, and I almost forgot:
@bronxwarlord: If all you have is ad hominem invective that you want to pass as arguments then perhaps the discussion has got too subtle for you to follow. Better to step aside. You know how that saying goes "it is better to keep your mouth shut .... yada yada yada ... "

 

[Akka]

Why do we glorify acts of soldiers in war?

I think it stems to two main reasons :

1) Fascination for power/strenght : like it or not, most humans does admire and respect power. Probably our animal part that know that power means higher rate of survival, and as such, somehow a goal to reach.

2) Courage : whatever we may think of the cause, it requires courage (or madness) to put your life in line.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

The War Prayer, by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came-next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams-visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender!-then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation -- "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever--merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory -

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal,"Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said

"I come from the Throne-bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import-that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of-except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this-keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer-the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it-that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory-must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause)

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.


--------------------------------------------------



I feel that this story is a good reminder of the reality of war. Personally I would rather we venerate those who make society worth defending rather than only those who actively defend it. But nationalism seems to be pervasive.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I would rather we venerate those who make society worth defending rather than only those who actively defend it.

Well when teachers, cops, firemen, EMS workers, social workers, teachers and the like get the same attention that musicans, athletes and businessmen get we will be there.


Until then, your nations men and women are in the field doing what they do, often for people that do not appricate it. Honor them, least the day comes that you need them and they do not answer the call... or even worse, you end up with various types on this board selling out your security to the UN or another worthless group of parasites.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

@ Bronx- I was shocked at the bravery of Gordon & Shughart, to volunteer to go into that storm of death not once, but thrice. What bravery!!!

Yeah, it's amazing. When I hear people badmouth the military I take a good look at them. They are most often fat, selfish and only concerned about themselves and there various comforts. I then look at Gordon and Shughart, and understand that these men put everything on the line to save another soldier, nothing more or less.

 

[IglooDame]

Yeah, it's amazing. When I hear people badmouth the military I take a good look at them. They are most often fat, selfish and only concerned about themselves and there various comforts. I then look at Gordon and Shughart, and understand that these men put everything on the line to save another soldier, nothing more or less.

You realize that you're no better than they are with your gross generalizations, right?

 

[M37]

You mean the military has janitors? Wow I always thought thats what recuits did for kp.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

You realize that you're no better than they are with your gross generalizations, right?

Depends if you consider a generalization something I have seen with my own eyes more times than not.

 

[IglooDame]

You mean the military has janitors? Wow I always thought thats what recuits did for kp.

In general, you're right, but the military academies hire civilians for a lot of "university-campus" type functions, janitorial services being one of them (although the dorm rooms are not covered by the janitors and get the usual white-glove-inspection treatment).

They employed civilian campus security at the Naval Academy until 1990 or so while I was there but then switched to US Marines, as the terrorism threat emerged (and also because there wasn't a single rent-a-cop that could catch a running midshipman so we tended to pick on them in mean but harmless ways).

 

[IglooDame]

perhaps. But then again I can argue, respectively, (a) they probably calculated that the chances of their actually ending up in combact is probably very low and if they knew it was high most wouldn't (as we are actully seeing in the reenlistment figures) (b) heck, going home at night is hardly a criteria for noble service when I was a travelling consultant I was flying every week and used to come home once every month. I spent the last 10 months of 14 months outside my home (8 months of that at a stretch). Is my service as noble and worthy of praise? (c) As for pay a soldier is paid too isn't he? What if I argue that most of them join because either it is a route to get subsidized education etc. or because they cannot get good private sector jobs.

Point is what i said above may or may not be true. I doubt either of us can prove it either way. But till we can we should at least wonder why we still give the soldier all the benefit of the doubt? But most of us instinctively do. Why?

I think because the general impression is that civilians who have jobs entailing lots of travel get paid better for it (obvious group exceptions like long-haul truckers come to mind readily, though), and people that sign up for the military are doing so at least partly out of a desire to serve their country.

As for motive the average soldiers motive need not be very noble. I doubt anybody joins up to face the enemy in a scenario like one Gordon above and face certain death. I really doubt how many Kamikaze fighter pilots America can provide? But even those Kamikaze pilots were not there in it for free. They had to know that their families would be taken care of and the proper medals and honors were given to them before they went to their deaths.

A businessman takes his reward in cash. A soldier too takes it in cash and some of it as basking in the praise heaped on him. Why is taking all of it in cash less worthy of praise? Neither is completely altruistic!

As to the medals and praise, I think you're setting us up for a chicken-and-the-egg problem. As to rewards in cash for the job, would you agree to a pay raise of $225/month in return for having your job start involving people taking potshots at you?

Why do you think the fleeting risk is more substantial? a businessman can lose his livelihood and it would affect him, his family his children. It is not just losing money. Also, even if it is just losing money do we provide him the same praise at least in proportion to his risk however small than a soldier? No. We do not provide him any praise at all. So the amount of risk taken by a businessman is not the issue.

Risk vs reward IS taken into account, though. While the businessman may lose his livelihood, I'd expect that for him to take whatever business risks we're talking about, the potential reward would be equally significant. In the soldier's case, the potential reward is little more than a medal and perhaps a trip out of the battlefield to a military hospital.

I'm waiting for you to argue that it has been shown repeatedly that battlefield soldiers tend to hang around and fight instead of giving into what would be an understandable urge to flee not because they're proud patriotic people, but because their buddies are still there, and that a lot of heroism is more about saving/protecting/sacrificing for the squad/platoon than it is about dying for one's country. I don't yet have an answer to that one...

 

[IglooDame]

Depends if you consider a generalization something I have seen with my own eyes more times than not.

Well, let's see:

fat - by military weight standards, something like half the country could be considered fat. So yes, they probably are.

selfish - you determine this with your own eyes how?

only concerned about themselves and there various comforts - although this is pretty much the same as selfish, the fact that they are apparently showing an interest in the military's actions would tend to discount the fact that they're only concerned about themselves.

 

[JonathanValjean]

Thanks for sharing that story with us, Bronx Warlord. Also, you have my gratitute for your service to our country.

 

[betazed]

I think because the general impression is that civilians who have jobs entailing lots of travel get paid better for it (obvious group exceptions like long-haul truckers come to mind readily, though), and people that sign up for the military are doing so at least partly out of a desire to serve their country.

I think this notion "people that sign up for the military are doing so at least partly out of a desire to serve their country" may turn out to be a fallacy. It hasn't been tested really. Like Santa Claus and pink elephants it may very well be a chimera. For if it were true there would never have been the concept of draft. The concept of draft has been there since as far back in history as we can remember. The "you get to serve your country" is just a hyperbole that is used to psychologically soothen the soldier who is otherwise probably not inclined to do it anway. Is the businessman not serving the country. Heck, he is paying for the soldiers salary.

In any case we have gone over the service angle earlier. Lots of people serve the country. So the desire + ability to serve is neither a necessary or required condition for the honour that we bestow them.

As to the medals and praise, I think you're setting us up for a chicken-and-the-egg problem. As to rewards in cash for the job, would you agree to a pay raise of $225/month in return for having your job start involving people taking potshots at you?

Sure i wouldn't. because i can get more than that writing code. What I would like to see is how many of those people at whom pot-shots are being taken would not want to switch places with me? I know this is a acutely cynical pov but I can come to no other conclusion after observing human nature. { Although I must say that I have seen a few examples who would not want to switch places with me. The specific two I am talking about are adventure junkies who like guns and shooting and nothing else. Period. Personally, I am not too thrilled in thinking that people of their intellectual calibre are watching my back and protecting my country. I would rather it was someone who was a chicken like me watching my back. But that is just me. }

Risk vs reward IS taken into account, though.

Is it? Now that we agree that the businessman takes some risk, do we attribute to him any heroism? No. So risk is not a sufficient factor.

and that a lot of heroism is more about saving/protecting/sacrificing for the squad/platoon than it is about dying for one's country.

It is not even that. It is mostly peer-pressure. "If I run away they will think I am a coward and i cannot afford that." Sometimes, people fight because it is the best course of action to stay alive. King Henry V, told his soldiers at the Battle of Agincourt that if they wanted to live they should fight with all they had because if they lost they will die whereas the King himself would live on since the French would take him hostage and barter him for money. The soldiers fought and they won against impossible odds. Was it bravery? no. That was the only way to save their skin. Was it a apotheosis of military skill by the English soldiers. Hardly. Current computer simulations show that they won not because of the Enligh crossbows but because of the mud and the terrain which forced the French Knights to trample each other. The character of Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan at that beach in Normandy showed extreme bravery and courage because that was his best chance to stay alive.

Does this mean that there is no true altrusim in battle? Sure there is. But I think it is few and far between. Just like there is altruism in real life by non-soldiers. It is the exception and not the rule; one we immediately provide as a benefit of doubt to the average soldier.

So what is the average soldier doing? Pushed in extreme circumstances, powered by fight-or-flight mode programming reflexes he is reacting in the only way he can.

So why the fuss?

I think we should start thinking along the lines of identifying what are the necessary and sufficient factors required for attributing heroism to any act. We can identify the following

• Risk to life and limb.
• Violence towards another man preferably using some sort of arms.
• has to be a very physical act. Just an intellectual victory (like disarming the opponent somehow) does not count.
• Done for little monetary or directly attributable benefit.

I do not think the list is complete though.