Wisdom from the Ivory Tower at Mary Washington, lamenting how our soldiers are treated and trained for war. At first, the article is a concern about how society trains people to accept war, but it evolves into something much different:
Just suppose you are a young person seeking employment. Can you think of any type of job, outside the military, where new employees are cursed at or physically attacked, have their heads shaved, screamed at up close by a trainer whose saliva runs down their faces, required to stand in hot clothes while carrying heavy equipment in 100-degree heat for hours, called all sorts of demeaning names such as maggots or rats, required to lie to certain questions or suffer immediate punishment, or made to jump into water over their heads even if they cannot swim, etc.?
I can think of many day-to-day jobs that – while they may not be so strenuous – would benefit from such training.
Of course, the author conveniently forgets that no matter how “civilized” or humane we may deem ourselves, it only opens ourselves to the savagery of others. War is not pre-school; it is a place where far worse things than being cursed at, having one’s head shaved, or jumping into deep water. It’s training for the real world.
Naturally, I find something else far more objectionable than his comments on the training methods of the (volunteer) American military:
For those who truly want a better world in the future, it will be necessary for them to open their minds and seriously question the structure and philosophy (which considers obedience, humility, and self-sacrifice to be virtues) of society’s main institutions–for if they remain as they are, America’s fragile and ever-decreasing freedom will continue to fade and disappear, leaving behind only a faint and tragic memory.
Obedience? Humility? Self-sacrifice? These are undesireable traits?!
Tangentially, I can hear the Marxist retort now. . . “you’re just caught up in the trappings of a society who programmed you to think this way. . .”
To which an intelligent person might as how the Marxist broke out from their societal underpinnings to come to this gnostic understanding of how the world should be.
Regardless, at center court here is the idea that the traits of obedience, humility, and self-sacrifice are somehow undesireable. Presumably then, are their opposites then desireable? Disobedience? Pride? Self-aggrandizement?
While the author cites the Montessori method of education as an ideal (which emphasizes a strong, personal encouragement to allow the child to develop and learn independently), does he misunderstand this to be the breeding ground for a child that will grow to reject virtues that emphasize others over self? Is self-serving license to become the embodiment of liberty?
To the contrary, obedience, humility, and self-sacrifice are peculiarly American traits because they are simply the best tools to preserve liberty.
A disobedient, prideful, and self-aggandizing soul doesn’t prize liberty for anyone but themselves. An obedient, humble, and self-sacrificing soul might be considered amongst the most free, because at root there is a recognition of something greater than themselves.
We get into other matters at this point. The relativist will heartily disagree, while one who believes in objective truths will readily accept the concept. One might argue that this “greater than themselves” object could be misinterpreted into the state, big business, slave masters, etc., but that would be both disingenuous and inaccurate.
Ideas aren’t greater than people, and people aren’t greater than people. Is it God? I’d argue so, but I wouldn’t mean that in a religious sense, but perhaps a theistic consideration that what we do and how we do it ultimately matters.