If anybody believes the OP ever seriously considered Reed, I would like to interest you in a bridge I am selling.
But I did learn something new: Ghostt, I confess that I wrongly assumed you were male.
Let’s see if if I have this straight, Ghostt doesn’t “respect soldiers or think there’s any honor in being a paid killer” and rotckid thinks that “most soldiers don’t take honor in themselves either, rather the thing they represent - if they do at all. Many don’t take honor in anything, they just do what they believe they should.” What?! What world do you children live in? So, no one took pride in stopping Hitler and the world should have just sat by and let him do whatever he wanted to do. It was perfectly okay for Iraq to invade Kuwait. We should ignore the kidnappings, rapes, etc., by Boko Haram. And, we should let ISIS/ISL kill all the Christians they want. Because, you know, being a soldier is dishonorable and therefore no one should be one and armies should not exist.
I don’t respect soldiers either.
Simply because I and many others are very anti-militant does not mean we support militant, imperialistic fascist regimes, a prominent internet example of course being Hitler which you have brought up. Irregardless, there should not be “pride” in murdering thousands of Germans as we fought back the Nazi advance. There is also no pride in the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo (which happened prior to the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed more people at that instant than the two nuclear bombs combined, but we never hear about it), Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and various other cities. Humans who had nothing to do with the war, did not choose to have their nation fight in the war, were killed as a result of their emperors and dictators deciding to wage war on us.
On point.
You are constructing a straw-man–that since because we do not believe soldiers are honorable, we inherently support inhumanitarian dictators and terrorist groups. ISIS, and Al Qaeda are extremist products to the high level of intervention the western world has had in the Middle East for the last two centuries. They are a response to the high level of US, British, French, and other countries’ imperialism in the region. They are fighting fire with fire. When I say this, I do not support these terrorist groups by any means. I am simply saying that the reason they exist is because they are a radical, violent response to the economic and territorial occupation by the western world. Conservative America would say it is because Islam makes them as evil and militant as they are. I say, and it is demonstrated by their self-proclaimed fear of “western culture”, the economic subjugation to the US (esp. like Saudi Arabia) has created these anti-reactionary movements that seek to cleanse all traces of the foreigners invading the land.
The issue I see with many soldiers is that they don’t do what they do for personal honor, but rather for “their country”–national chauvinism is a tool utilized by states that sucks in thousands of young men to “willingly” die for their nation-state.
I don’t want to move to Cuba. I wouldn’t care to fight for Cuba’s military either, or any country’s military for that matter. I’m not fighting for anything that isn’t for me and my people, but rather for the overall economic well-being of the oppressors. I also do not see how Reed is not a real school. It is in fact, very real.
My views are often criticized because this nationalist ideal is so ingrained in the nation-state culture that permeates the world, that it is completely fine and normal for people to die for their country. I have been an outspoken critique on the American Sniper movie, and many times I have had people said to me “Men like Chris Kyle go fight for you so you can say things like that”. Which is a bit odd, because as a citizen of the United States of America, my “democratic rights” have been in no way threatened, since there has not been a serious territorial threat to the USA since the War of 1812.
Can’t help but wonder how that theory treats the Civil War. If you recall, one side was “USA” and one side was “CSA”.
I apologize–you’re right. Referenced the wrong bourgeois war. It would be the Civil War. Although no country had formally recognized the CSA, they were still indeed a threat to USA sovereignty.
Ctesiphon: I think you have it backwards. “The issue I see with many soldiers is that they don’t do what they do for personal honor, but rather for ‘their country’ …” I would rather have them do it for their country or for others or for freedom or for justice – than for any sense of “personal honor.”
I do not think I was setting up a straw man; I was taking what I viewed as a stupid comment to its illogical extreme.
Um, territorial threats are not the only ones to be concerned about. I’m not defending that movie or the stupid [meaning #2] invasion of Iraq, but there actually was that 9/11 thing – and, do you really think you would have any democratic rights today if the Soviet Union in the 60s thought it could have walked in and taken over? You may not want to acknowledge it, but you DO have those rights because there were people prepared to defend them.
You say that being anti-militant “does not mean we support militant, imperialistic fascist regimes,” but what is your solution? What does the world do about Boko Haram? What does the world do about genocide in Iraq? Blaming these groups on western imperialism is not an answer – even I were to accept your premise.
I’ll stop here. I think we’ve hijacked this post enough. I hope any veterans at Reed do not have to deal with you or Ghostt.
Howard Zinn characterized the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II as America’s three “Holy Wars.” This characterization should be both meaningful and challenging to anyone trying to form a consistent theory of militarism in the U.S.
Separately, but related, prospective college students should consider their beliefs to be in the process of formation. If you feel you already have the intellectual foundation to have crystalized your beliefs, then you are already supremely educated and do not need college, or you are closed-minded, and would not benefit from it.
I don’t particularly care for either–but in the former scenario, it is an unfulfilled promise. It’s not necessarily whether or not they are actually fighting for abstract concepts like “freedom” or “justice”, but that they feel like they are, and nation-states do a great job at making soldiers feel like they are indeed fighting for a greater cause like those aforementioned.
Right.
I attempted in my previous post to make it clear that I am not justifying the actions of these groups since they’re a result of western imperialism. We will need to clean up the mess we made, of course, but western involvement in volatile regions like Syria, Iraq, Israel, etc. comes with many other negative factors that aren’t necessarily “cleaning up the mess”.
Well, of course, I would argue whether or not I even have “democratic” rights, or if I ever will under a bourgeois democracy (since I’m not even 18 yet, but please do not use that fact against me). But to stay on topic, I can’t really answer your hypothetical historical questions. I doubt I would have supported a Soviet invasion of the USA. I am not supportive of military intervention of any kind except to remove those perpetrating mass murders. However, the eventual goal is that we can evolve the global society into one devoid of imperialism and economic subjugation which begins with the continuation of the dialectic from capitalism to socialism, so that extremist groups aren’t conjured as a result of economic imperialism (thus prompting further military presence by USA et al), and thus all of the other conspiratorial intertanglings that appear when a western country gets involved in the Middle East, or frankly any other part of the world. A world where holding a massive military is simply unnecessary because there is nothing to prompt their usage since real reasons to summon them would be few and far between. Even then, it would not at all need to be as elaborate and robust as the U.S. military.
Ok
As time goes on, you’ll probably think more about who “we” are and what cleaning up the mess may entail.
Young people are idealistic, and that’s probably a good thing. They may help us reconsider some of our preconceptions. But we (as a society, anyway) have to get practical at some point. At least for the foreseeable future, we have to have soldiers, and I personally think it’s better if neither we nor they conceptualize them as hired killers.
10/10
In any case, I do not see how systematic murder is “practical”. I call them hired killers because that is simply what they are. We can argue whether or not the cause they are killing for is noble or necessary, but the term is practically accurate and works well with my, uh, inflammatory far leftist ramblings.
It is a problem that we consider systematic, commonplace warfare and murder as “normal” and that it will forever be “necessary and practical” to create and maintain a military such as those fielded by the USA. It is even more a problem that a large amount of people view these people as heroes for killing people (regardless whether or not the cause can be argued as “noble” or “necessary”). While some may do so, I am not arguing that every nation-state should promptly abolish their military, but that it is part of a larger capitalist system that demands routine warfare especially in regions that the oppressing nations have historically abused. Men are sent to kill and be killed in these wars under false pretenses of honor, fame, fighting for a good cause, etc. The draft is no longer needed because there are enough volunteers who are willing to sacrifice themselves “for their country”, itself an abstract concept, a palace built of clouds that boys chase in their boats, only to fall beneath a waterfall.
But see, this is idealistic talk. If you recognize, as I think you do, that at present soldiers are necessary, what do you suggest is the best way to motivate people to serve in this capacity. If you are suggesting that a draft would be better than a volunteer army, would YOU be willing to serve if you got drafted? It seems to me that it’s much better to provide some kind of idealistic motivation–even if it sometimes fails in practice–than to accept the idea that we are simply hiring a bunch of mercenaries. If we do that, we risk having those people simply continue to be mercenaries.
“part of a kind larger capitalist system that demands routine warfare”
If you are equating war with capitalism, then you need to study history.
^ Eliminate “kind” from the quoted segment above.
The term “hired killers” is perjorative; you obviously mean it as such; I find it extremely offensive; and I would request that you not use it on this forum.
Hi. Great discussion. I agree w/Ghostt on the military. Nice to be in a forum with an articulate free thinker who knows how to label a cult.
I’ve been interested in Reed for a few years, for my daughter who has now applied and is awaiting a decision. She’s read hundreds of books, a book lover since she knew how to read. She’s a VERY good writer, and proof-reads for me at work. She’s the editor of the school paper and her journalism teacher wrote a letter of rec. Her writing SAT is mid 700s as I recall.
Over the last few weeks I’ve been reading things written by Reed graduates. They’re all extremely well-written and articulate. In this sense, she’s a good fit.
She has “good” SAT scores (just below avg for Reed), took all the tough AP classes she could, and has GPA just below 3.5. Her mother is born/raised in Asia, and my daughter speaks her mom’s language to a limited degree. At the age of 15 she went alone half-way around the world to a foreign high school, moved in with a family and made all kinds of friends there for a semester abroad. I don’t know any kids who have done that from USA, but I’m sure there are some.
Well the fact is she was intent on going to the local “big city” university and she just knew she’d get in, but was rejected for some reason. Now she’s really hoping to get into Reed but unfortunately never took the option to get interviewed. One day last summer the two of us drove to Portland in our camper van, spent the day at Powell’s then finished up at the Reed bookstore and we slept in the parking lot. Nobody said anything to us about that of course. Great memory.
OK Reed, with or without her, your college and graduates have really impressed her dad.
Fromise, not sure why you posted on the thread asking if conservative students will feel comfortable on campus. Someone who describes the U.S. military forces as a cult, doesn’t strike me as conservative.
In fact that sounds pretty radical to the point of anarchy.
However, I wouldn’t worry about test scores if she likes to read and write, that is if she is as enthusiastic about Reed as you are. Her GPA might be a concern, but if they still request research papers, they should be able to gauge her skills.
They are need aware, which might make a difference.
There are many high school students in US who study abroad or do an exchange. It was even common when I was in high school in the 1970’s and I dare say before that. Some kids are 15, some younger and some older.
I would say also, that there are many schools with articulate and thoughtful students, I don’t think Reed has cornered the market.
Hello EK and thanks for your comments. Regarding Ghostt I re-read the sentences he wrote leading up to the word cult, and I agree with everything so I mentioned it. A true “Tea Party Conservative” would agree because before the Tea Party was co-opted into what it is today, that was a movement to end military adventurism and bring troops home, pursuing limited govt libertarian policies. I consider myself fairly conservative in that respect (as in cut govt spending to balance the budget, respect property rights, free market, etc).
Regarding overseas study: as a kid, my relatively poor family had a modest home full of kids cats and dogs, and we hosted a foreign student who lived with us for 2 years and went to the local high school. He’s still in touch 30 years later! What an experience for us as hosts and for him as a student. More often, foreign kids come here but I don’t know of any American kids who leave to spend 10th grade overseas like my daughter did. We helped get it set up but only because she was so thrilled to embark on the journey.
We have two other (younger) kids and they’re not the Reed type. One is quiet and very “mainstream”, the other is super athletic and wants to become an architect. But our daughter, the creative and curious bookworm who loves academics and finds joy in Mother Nature, I hope she gets into Reed College and I know it would be the perfect place for her to grow. If it’s not meant to be, she’s been accepted into two universities that offer programs she likes also. We shall see! I love Reed College regardless. Thanks Reed for being Reed.
I would not suggest that the draft be re-instituted. Why, me? I would likely not want to serve in the draft, thank you for asking me. I do not think I am understanding correctly the point in the latter half of your post. Am I correct in equating your concept of “idealistic motivation” to propaganda?
An issue I have with the military in the United States is that the U.S. people generally have no say in how the military is utilized globally. It is Congress who has the power to declare war (and extend a military arm), and with their decision the massive U.S. military is mobilized to fulfill whatever capitalist desires they may have. Thus, those who sign up to join the military, subject themselves to the whims of the legislative branch. Since a member here does not support the use of “hired killer”, I will thus refer to them as “mercenaries”, which will serve as an excellent euphemism. I would be willing to be drafted into a military where the people are the ones who decide where the military will go and outline exactly our purpose in being there. Then I know I am truly fighting for the interests of the majority. The people would not force us into a senseless war that causes economic burden on the home front, so if we are the deciders of our own military’s actions, then we will be more cautious and less wanton with our military throughout the world.
I am not equating war with capitalism. I said capitalism demands routine warfare. I did not say that routine warfare demands capitalism. There can be wars without capitalism, no doubt, as was before the advent of capitalism.
Especially in the 21st century we see a phenomenon of militarized accumulation–wars instigated by the ruling class to create cycles of destruction and redevelopment, creating large profits for the military-industrial economy. In the last century, the Middle East has been the prime grounds for the “developed” world to prompt such wars. Not to mention the amounts of money defense contractors make when America and other nations enter a war and demand even more state-of-the-art technology.
Your analysis, @Ctesiphon, does not fall entirely flat, as it does acknowledge points of potential contradiction as it progresses. However, are you certain that you have really studied history and economics? There’s a huge difference between particular capitalists benefitting from war and the assertion that you have maintained, that capitalism itself needs war. Correlation does not prove causation, of course; but you should know that the rate of international militarized violence has decreased, in an approximately proportional inverse relationship, with the rise of democratic capitalism.
obviously not or something idk lol am i supposed to say no?
Capitalism does not necessarily require war as war, as in, capitalism does not inherently require war in and of itself. However, war is a means to increase the political or economic prowess of a capitalist class in the stronger country, and it is the general goal of the bourgeoisie to accumulate capital by any means. Thus, war can be an option, especially midst crises when the rate of accumulation is lower. It helps by sending men to war, relieving a portion of the reserve labor in the homeland, and by causing destruction elsewhere we can begin a process of reconstruction in the ravaged country after the war, while the economy booms again back on the home front, augmented by the development of an military-industrial complex. By coinciding economic crises with wars, capitalists can maximize overall accumulation of capital. Therefore, capitalism demands warfare because if we assume that the bourgeoisie, as a whole, will act in any way that increases their capital, and war is a more efficient method of doing so during economic crises.
But, I would say you are correct in that most capitalists do not benefit from war. It is mostly the interest of states and those who fund the military-economic goals of states who benefit directly from the onset of war. However, when, militaristic accumulation and economic crises coincide, it ends up being a net gain for the capitalists as a whole.