Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jason Leopold has an article at the Public Record about a Jewish soldier being harassed and beaten to the point of being hospitalized by fellow soldiers at Ft. Benning in Georgia.
A U.S. Army soldier was brutally beaten by other soldiers in his platoon earlier this month following two incidents in which a drill sergeants allegedly used anti-Semitic slurs to address the soldier.Pvt. Michael Handman, 20, who has just completed his fifth week of basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, was recently released from a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, facial wounds, and severe oral injuries following the attack, according to the boy's father, Jonathan Handman.
The details are stunning:
Jonathan Handman said his son was lured into a laundry room at the Fort Benning Army base by other soldiers, knocked unconscious and beaten while he lay on the ground.Michael Handman enlisted in the Army earlier this year. He wears a yarmulke with his uniform, which apparently led his drill sergeants to refer to him as a "fucking Jew" and a "kike" and a demand that he remove the yarmulke during dinner, according to his father. The soldier recently wrote a letter to his mother Randi recounting the anti-Semitism he has endured by his drill sergeants and members of his platoon since arriving for basic training at Fort Benning.
"I have just never been so discriminated against/humiliated about my religion," Michael Handman wrote his mother. "I just feel like I'm always looking over my shoulder. Like my battle buddy heard some of the guys in my platoon talking about how they wanted to beat the shit out of me tonight when I'm sleeping. It just sucks. And the only justification they have is [because] I'm Jewish. Maybe your dad was right...The Army is not the place for a Jew."
A Fort Benning public affairs representative would not comment on the incidents saying the attack and the anti-Semitism are under investigation. Michael Handman's father said in an interview he fears for his son's safety and is worried that his son may continue to endure additional beat downs and taunts about his faith by drill sergeants.
"I'm scared he will become a victim of friendly fire." Jonathan Handman said. "The Army is not doing enough to protect him. They have mentally broken him to the point that he is willing to ruin his life by getting a dishonorable discharge."
After he was released from the hospital, Pvt. Handman was sent back to the same platoon to face the soldiers who attacked him. He was then moved to a different company within the same platoon. But Jonathan Handman said his son told him the anti-Semitism has continued, according to a conversation he had with his son.
The Pentagon has confirmed much of this:
A week ago Jonathan Handman took action and began a fierce letter writing campaign in an effort to get his son some help. He reached out to his state's U.S. senator, Saxby Chambliss, the Republican of Georgia. Chambliss immediately contacted the Pentagon to investigate and, surprisingly, the Department of Defense sent Chambliss a detailed letter last week confirming that Pvt. Handman was the victim of anti-Semitism."Based on [Private] Handman's statement and the seriousness of the allegations, the command immediately initiated a commander's inquiry," stated a Sept. 26 letter sent to Chambliss by Samuel Selby Rollinson, the Department of the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff. "Based on the inquiry, the Army found that two [non-commissioned officers] inadvertently violated the Army Regulation concerning the free exercise of religion by requiring the Soldier to remove his yarmulke and by using inappropriate terms when referencing the Jewish faith.
"While the actions of the NCO's were not meant to be malicious, and were done out of ignorance for regulations and cultural awareness, this does not excuse their conduct. The command intends to reprimand both NCO's for their conduct; require them to present formal blocks of instruction on what religious are authorized for wear; and finally, the battalion chaplain will instruct all cadre members on the Army policy concerning religious accommodation."
The investigation by the Pentagon was limited to the anti-Semitism and did not include an inquiry into the beating.
There's much more in the article, please read the whole thing.
Politics
Comments
I think this bit may be backwards. The platoon is the smaller unit, a company being made up of 3-5 platoons. He would most likely have been moved to a different platoon within the same company.
A nitpick I know.
Posted by: Dave S. | October 10, 2008 10:00 AM
"...and finally, the battalion chaplain will instruct all cadre members on the Army policy concerning religious accommodation."
Is there some question whether "relgious accomodation" does or does not include beating the shit out of someone? Is the use of ethnic slurs by drill sergeants really a result of lack of "cultural awareness?"
-TTm
Posted by: Ticktockman | October 10, 2008 10:01 AM
Those Drill Sergeants should be relieved for cause and sent back into a line unit, away from trainees. (Lest anyone think this is too light a punishment, note that "relieved for cause" in your record ensures you will never be selected for a high-profile assignment again, and is also a virtual guarantee of no further promotions - ever.)
The troops performing the beating, of course, should be court-martialed for assault and battery, and the verdict read out to their platoon-mates.
Posted by: BobApril | October 10, 2008 10:20 AM
So...The NCOs "inadvertently" called him a "fucking jew" and a "kike"? Riiiight. Oh, and the remarks weren't meant to be malicious? What a piss-poor attempt at a whitewash.
Posted by: Savagemutt | October 10, 2008 10:21 AM
"...inadvertently violated the Army Regulation concerning the free exercise of religion by requiring the Soldier to remove his yarmulke and by using inappropriate terms when referencing the Jewish faith."
Inadvertently???? WTF? Let's see...if you read closely and parse the sentence, they are really saying the violation of regulation was inadvertent--that is, the demand to remove the yarmulke and malign his religion were not inadvertent, but the good noncommissioned officers didn't know they were violating regulation. OK, never mind, as long as they didn't know they were violating regulations...and not malicious?? Only in a military investigation would we see this kind of hogwash. Paging Ms Rodda and Mr. Weinstein....
Posted by: Lawdog | October 10, 2008 10:28 AM
Arrest all these fuckers.
Posted by: Ron Brown | October 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Aren't training personnel supposed to know the regulations? If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to civilian life, one would think the principle would go double in the military, i.e. ignorance of the regulation would be a breach of regulations.
Posted by: Pieter B | October 10, 2008 11:01 AM
How long till someone says that these morons were just defending our nation's Judeo-Christian values?
Sick, just sick.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | October 10, 2008 11:07 AM
I can honestly see the part about telling him to remove his yarmulke during meals to be 'inadvertant'. When I was in boot camp (20 years ago now) we had to remove our headgear any time we entered a building or ate a meal. I am sure there is an exception for religous headgear, but I am not sure how often it is challenged.
The rest of it just made my stomach turn. These are soldiers who are sworn to protect our constitution from all enemies, foriegn and domestic.
Posted by: Mr P | October 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Whoops, sorry for the typo above.
Posted by: Mr P | October 10, 2008 11:45 AM
No excuse for this one, none at all. Everyone concerned needs to visit Leavenworth and then dishonorable discharge.
As Pieter B says, in the military not knowing the rules is an offence in and of itself.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | October 10, 2008 11:58 AM
Pieter - yes, the Drill Sergeants should have known the regulations. However, in many cases it can be difficult to make the leap from a training scenario to real life. Training is boring and tends to use extreme scenarios for illustration - real life has a lot more grey area to deal with. Mr. P's point about removing headgear in the mess hall is a good example - two conflicting regulations.
None of this, of course, is any excuse. They WERE trained, and calling someone a kike, especially in front of other trainees (!!!), is NOT a grey area. For that matter, I'm going to extend my suggestion of "relieve for cause" to the commander and first sergeant of the training company - when a trainee comes in with a yarmulke, those leaders should have IMMEDIATELY done some quick refresher training on religious accommodations and tolerance for their subordinate Drill Sergeants. Doing so would probably have saved the careers of those (admittedly sub-standard) NCOs, the careers and futures of those junior soldiers who now should (hopefully will) have a Federal felony conviction on their records, and most importantly, the health and attitude of one innocent victim.
Posted by: BobApril | October 10, 2008 12:08 PM
I'm surprised as hell he was allowed to wear a yarmulke with his ACUs, and I have no idea why he would think that he would be allowed to wear it in the chow hall (this is not the first Jewish private to get processed through the ITC at Fort Benning and neither of those privalges were granted to the Jewish guys in my platoon when I went through the place). That all being said, I completely echo everything BobApril wrote above.
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 12:11 PM
Mr P:
No, not really. In fact, they are domestic enemies of our Constitution.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 10, 2008 12:24 PM
"I'm surprised as hell he was allowed to wear a yarmulke with his ACUs, and I have no idea why he would think that he would be allowed to wear it in the chow hall"
Perhaps the Army's determination that its own regulations (as quoted above by its Deputy Chief of Staff) allow him to wear it in the chow hall?
"(this is not the first Jewish private to get processed through the ITC at Fort Benning and neither of those privalges were granted to the Jewish guys in my platoon"
Evidence that anti-Semitism at Ft. Benning is nothing new. Religious practice is not a "priviledge," it's one of the rights the Army fights to defend.
Posted by: Phoca | October 10, 2008 2:00 PM
PR42,
That is exactly the reason I put that line in there, they are violating the very oath they took.
Posted by: Mr P | October 10, 2008 2:25 PM
"Religious practice is not a "priviledge," it's one of the rights the Army fights to defend."
Realistically, you surrender your rights when you join the military. The Constitution has no bearing in the armed services.
Anyone that tries to stand out in the military will always get their ass kicked. Drill instructors don't want to see Jews, Muslims, Mormons or Christians. They want to see soldiers that want to be soldiers above and beyond anything else.
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 3:01 PM
"Realistically, you surrender your rights when you join the military. The Constitution has no bearing in the armed services."
Realistically, it's hard not to laugh at the notion that wearing a yarmulke in the chow hall is somehow detrimental to unit morale and not the thinnest, most pathetic veneer for racism.
Posted by: Phoca | October 10, 2008 3:14 PM
"wearing a yarmulke in the chow hall is somehow detrimental to unit morale"
As a private, any sign of attempted individuality would be seen by his superiors as rebellion or insubordination. It's the DI's job to stamp that crap out and make the unit a cohesive whole.
Perhaps this guy should have joined the Peace Corps instead.
"the thinnest, most pathetic veneer for racism"
I'm not sure that the military looks for DIs that are sensitive, tolerant souls.
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 3:19 PM
Phoca, the reason I was surprised is that, contrary to public belief, various Army regulations are not universal, and it's pretty well known that Infantry Training (I'm presuming that he was at the ITC) is an environment where you basically have what rights they tell you that you have and no others (especially in basic training). It's not the same as being back on the block. I witnessed abuses that I can envision few other places in America would tolerate. But they were tolerated there because the prevaling philosophy is "people do not crawl under machinegun fire after they have been treated with kid gloves."
Before anyone freaks, I am not in anyway condoning what those guys did. I was simply surprised because we didn't really have rights when I was there and everyone got abused. Period. I don't think it's an anti-Semitism issue as much as it is a general abuse issue. We had a guy in my platoon who got caught masturbating. He ended up with a broken jaw. We had a guy who was a Seventh Day Adventist. He told me he had to sign a waiver to get into the Infantry that stipulated he was non-practicing. He took no end of shit from the instructors. Stuff along the lines of: "What's the matter, you fucking little peace-nick? Push-ups hurt? Too fucking bad. We're gonna cause you plenty of pain, man, because we need to make sure your fucking pathetic little pacifist ass is actually capable of killing motherfuckers when it comes to it." I don't see how that's much different from what these guys apparently did (the instructors--what the students did was just astonishing. I don't remember ever seeing anything worse from fellow trainees than the occasional blanket party).
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 3:24 PM
"I am not in anyway condoning what those guys did."
Nor am I. But complaining that DIs are mean, small-minded, violent sociopaths AFTER you've joined the Army strikes me as rather whiny.
Was he expecting the Israeli army or something?
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 3:30 PM
Well, now we know just how much the "Judeo" part of "Judeo-Christian" is worth. When we want to look all inclusive and tolerant (and want your votes), we're all for it. Actually enduring people who dress a little different? Not so much.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 10, 2008 3:30 PM
But complaining that DIs are mean, small-minded, violent sociopaths AFTER you've joined the Army strikes me as rather whiny.
I tend to agree. And even more certainly with respect to the Infantry. Go be a cook. It's not like what they go through is anything like Combat Arms training.
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 3:37 PM
"Actually enduring people who dress a little different? Not so much."
In the real world, people of good will respect each others' differences. The military is a world unto itself. At the enlisted level you're just a grunt, plain and simple, Jewish, Christian, whatever.
That this kid expected something different makes me question his judgment.
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 3:37 PM
Go be a cook
"I didn't drop out of the goddamn eigth grade for this shit, man! I only wanted to learn to cook, I only wanted to fuckin' cook, man!"
-Jay "Chef" Hicks
Apocalypse Now
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 3:43 PM
+5 with the AN reference.
Actually enduring people who dress a little different? Not so much.
Infantry training is specifically designed NOT to foster tolerance. It's designed to try and take a bunch of MTV generation 18-year-old kids and get them to a point where they're capable of not hesitating to put two rounds center mass in a 15-year-old kid who appears in a doorway and points an AK-47 at them. That they also tend to end up assholes is a rather sad byproduct of the job.
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 3:52 PM
"That they also tend to end up assholes is a rather sad byproduct of the job."
I tend to think that the job attracts the asshole rather than the job making an asshole. My dad was a DI, so I have some first hand knowledge. ; )
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 3:59 PM
I used to work on Sand Hill, where this took place. This is far from normal and I suspect SOME of the aspects of this have been exaggerated. However, the Army has a very strict EO policy and you can expect action to be taken against the recruits and Drill Sergeants, as well as the company command for allowing it to happen.
Drill Sergeants, at least in the early 90s on Sand Hill, are under constant scrutiny for EO style issues as well as physical abuse. It doesn't take much for a recruit to contact their parents who in turn will contact their congressmen and initiate an investigation. Far and away the majority of NCOs who wear the "This We'll Defend" patch are not going to support this kind of behavior and will bust up abusive cliques of recruits. At the same time, there's something that often happens with these kinds of training units that most people don't know about: reserve AT. Reserve training units, full of drill sergeants, often spend their two weeks a year (annual training) being drill sergeants on Sand Hill (and other training units). Again, not the normal behavior for these individuals, but majority of abuse/problems I saw in my year on Sand Hill came from overzealous Reserve Drill Sergeants with major power complexes.
Posted by: Brando | October 10, 2008 4:00 PM
It doesn't take much for a recruit to contact their parents who in turn will contact their congressmen and initiate an investigation.
That's assuming the parents have any pull. Most black, po' whites and Hispanic grunts just have to take the abuse.
Posted by: J. Fink | October 10, 2008 4:04 PM
Yeah, see...the atmosphere Brando describes on Sand Hill is rather different than how I remember it (except the point about the Researve DSs being about the largest assholes on post).
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 4:06 PM
But then, this is the newer more sensitive Army.
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 4:11 PM
Josh, keep in mind I saw it from both sides: once as a recruit in a 13 week OSUT training cycle and another as cadre over an entire year. Of course it's a different perspective.
Racial issues were probably the number one thing that popped up besides just fighting between recruits.
Posted by: Brando | October 10, 2008 4:15 PM
I was just trying to emphasize that I think Sand Hill was probably a rather different place when you were there. I went through right before they implimented "Low Stress Basic Training" (for as long as that lasted--I don't recall) and kids were still getting thrown down stairs (unofficially of course--and this wasn't at the Church--this was at Sand Hill). But yeah, though my career has been in the Infantry and with USASOC elements, I have no experience as OSUT cadre or anything like it. I suspect that it's a very different perspective.
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 4:31 PM
This discussion makes me wonder if gays in the military is such a good idea, because they'd have it worse than Jews.
Posted by: Bill in NC | October 10, 2008 4:38 PM
This discussion makes me wonder if gays in the military is such a good idea, because they'd have it worse than Jews.
I have NEVER understood the fucking homophobea in the Army. I talk about this with the guys on my team all the time...I simply fail to understand why they fucking care, and in particular, why they seem to care so much. The unit cohesion argument is fucking ridiculous. I wrote that anecdote a while about when I broke my foot last year and was sitting in the waiting room at the hospital with a couple of the guys in my unit, and I won't retype it, but suffice to say, the attitude makes me crazy. But then again, they don't understand why I'm liberal either.
Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2008 4:47 PM
Posted by: Beowulff | October 10, 2008 4:52 PM
Posted by: Taz | October 10, 2008 4:56 PM
I have to wonder if the guy was black and got a beating for it if the attitude towards "Well he just stood out!" would hold any water.
Given the authoritarian nature of the army(and people in general, nowadays) and the amount of ignorant shit they allow, it probably would.
Can't have those negros jews and messicans messin up our white christian male group integrity!
Posted by: JThompson | October 10, 2008 5:54 PM
"though my career has been in the Infantry and with USASOC elements"
Former 10th Group guy here myself. Yep, being even slightly liberal at the tip of the spear is a rare thing and it's own kind of "closeted" behavior.
Posted by: Brando | October 10, 2008 7:23 PM
THe army is full of assholes. What is his problem? Why did he join?
Posted by: monson | October 10, 2008 7:39 PM
Over nearly 20 years I've learned the Army is just a microcosm of the population. It's not a bunch of idiots and assholes any more that the rest of the country is. If the population has it, be it gays, hippies, fundamentalists, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, Satanists, Geeks, Jocks...you'll also find it in the Army.
Posted by: Brando | October 10, 2008 8:00 PM
Well, yes, the army is full of thugs who will beat the will to live out of you, and if you join you must know that. But, really, how much can we trust a gang of thugs of this sort to be content to take orders from a civilian government, rather than stage a coup? This is a serious problem.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | October 10, 2008 8:14 PM
Valhar2000,
The military has always had roughhousing and dehumanizing brutality. I don't like it, either, but I don't think it portends a coup d'etat. Most of the elite that runs the US was probably involved in fraternity hazings.
Posted by: Bill in NC | October 10, 2008 8:45 PM
Josh wrote:
Were they ridiculing and belittling other Christians about their baby Jesus, pro-life, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor "crap"? Or was it primarily outsiders like Seventh Day Adventists who were targets?
(I'm not surprised that it was unpleasant. I'll take your word for that. And I'm not suggesting you agree with the actions. But it seems to me that your example of the maligned Seventh Day Adventist could be used not only as an argument that "everyone" gets abused, but also as another case in point.)
Posted by: Leni | October 10, 2008 8:56 PM
This reminds me of the harassment non-Christian cadets were (are?) receiving at the U.S. Air Force academy in Colorado.
Posted by: Troy Britain | October 10, 2008 8:59 PM
Doesn't the military provide special meals for some religous groups? Do they provide kosher meals to Jews or meatless meals to Catholics during Lent? If they can accommodate with food, why not with headware?
Posted by: wrpd | October 10, 2008 10:07 PM
I'm not too sure that soldiers surrender their constitutional rights--I'll leave that argument to the constitutional experts.
I'm quite sure that the guys who beat the young man and the DI's who harassed him should spend time at Leavenworth, getting shit from the screws.
This is a professional military?
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2008 11:28 PM
What you see here is a clear failure of leadership.
Practical military training is traditionally based on a 'there are no bad privates' standard. This has been lost to some extent because of the focus on the individual within this 'all volunteer' army. People outside fail to understand how this might work.
Classically privates were not allowed to brush their own teeth without a lesson on hygiene, an observed demonstration of their ability to use the proscribed method, and regular observation and dental checks to make sure it is being done effectively over the long haul.
Privates, like their anatomical namesakes, are not responsible for their actions. If a private screws up it is because of a lack of training, equipment or supervision. You never send a single private to do anything, they operate in twos and threes, often supervised by a PFC, even on small jobs and are directly supervised on jobs of any importance by a sergeant. This is very 'old school army' and it promotes better behavior and teamwork.
In keeping with this PFCs and above in the platoon should be knocked down a rank across the board and up through the company chain of command. A substantial drop of pay and privilege. It also means advancement will be much slower. Only the most determined will be able to overcome this black mark.
Second, the battalion might shift to a squad level score system. In this the scores of all members are averaged and this becomes the unit score. This greatly improves unit cohesion and has been suggested as a way to promote cooperation and teamwork within a diverse unit.
In one case I'm aware of a soldier with a sprained ankle was literally carried during a scored two mile run. The commander was initially outraged until a senior NCO pointed out that this is pretty much what goes on in the field. Your not allowed to leave your wounded behind. You live and die as a team.
The other aspect is that internal divisions and conflicts, particularly when focused on meaningless distinctions, are almost always a sign of an undemanding training program, to much focus on individual ratings and insufficient pressure on the unit, as a unit. People who are kept at a steady run and worked hard, both mentally and physically, 4AM to 11PM don't have the energy left to fight among themselves.
As one sergeant told me: 'If your worried about the guy in your unit might be gay (or Jewish in this case) your not close enough to the fighting'. Under fire nobody cares.
This is a leadership failure and such failures can be engineered out of the system. Couching it in terms of religion overlooks the fact that it could be, and has in the past, focused on any number of insignificant issues and all of these cases shared the same dynamic of a failure of leadership. The military has gone through many of these evolutions. Like when blacks and women came in.
There is some small place for 'sensitivity training' and 'cultural awareness' classes and certainly the structures can be engineered to get desired results but in the end this is the military and the bottom line is that soldiers are simply ordered to behave correctly independent of their personal beliefs and biases. Failure to comply with orders results in a loss of pay, rank and privilege. Repeated failure results in discharge. Simple as that.
Posted by: Art | October 11, 2008 9:34 AM
Art:
Now, that sounds professional.
Since I don't have any idea how devout a jew the assaulted soldier was I don't know if his wearing of a yarmulke was optional for him as a jew.
Instructors berating any individual for physical handicaps, intellectual deficits or religious affilition is something that can be avoided by refusing those persons who exhibit such from the military; or, by having a zero tolerance policy for instructors who resort to such measures. Obviously, beating him and causing serious harm is completely off the scale of any acceptable behavior.
Posted by: democommie | October 11, 2008 1:19 PM
The problem is that it never happened, he lost a fist fight with ONE soldier and then tried to make a national scandal out of it with the radical Mikey Weinstein group MRFF.
"Associated Press - October 10, 2008 7:03 PM ET
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - The father of a Jewish soldier who was beaten by a fellow soldier says he's "infuriated" by the Army's decision to give the alleged offender nonjudicial punishment.
Commanders at Fort Benning, Georgia, have decided not to seek a court-martial in the attack on Pvt. Michael Handman and will resolve it as a personnel matter rather than a crime."
Posted by: paul | October 11, 2008 2:58 PM
The problem is that it never happened, he lost a fist fight with ONE soldier and then tried to make a national scandal out of it with the radical Mikey Weinstein group MRFF.
"Associated Press - October 10, 2008 7:03 PM ET
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - The father of a Jewish soldier who was beaten by a fellow soldier says he's "infuriated" by the Army's decision to give the alleged offender nonjudicial punishment.
Commanders at Fort Benning, Georgia, have decided not to seek a court-martial in the attack on Pvt. Michael Handman and will resolve it as a personnel matter rather than a crime."
Posted by: paul | October 11, 2008 3:02 PM
Paul,
Could you provide a link to an article or something that supports the claim that this attack never happened?
Posted by: DaveL | October 11, 2008 5:21 PM
Here is a link to the AP story verifying that no "group" attacked private Handman, instead it was a fight with a fellow trainee that was not related to anything religious.
http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=9161622
Here is another link to a typical story that was easily available days ago, showing that this was not the conspiracy that the activists were pushing, here is a quote from this Oct. 5 article.
"Neil Block, a retired Navy captain and a leader of the Jewish community in Columbus, near Fort Benning, was brought in to talk with Handman and assess the situation.
"The incidents involving Handman are not the same incident. There's not this great conspiracy out there ... and the Army is absolutely behind rectifying any issues that need to be resolved," said Block, who runs a Jewish religious program in Columbus that attracts about 300 soldiers every week."
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/10/05/soldier_1006_web.html
Posted by: paul | October 11, 2008 5:55 PM
Paul:
So that means none of the other stuff happened?. He fabricated the entire story about the yarmulke, the instructors and everything else.
Of course we know that DoD and the armed services would never lie, witness their always being forthcoming about things like Pat Tillman's being killed by taliban fighters--um, maybe not such a good example.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2008 7:48 AM
Brando wrote: Former 10th Group guy here myself. Yep, being even slightly liberal at the tip of the spear is a rare thing and it's own kind of "closeted" behavior.
I'm gonna avoid posting current unit data on a blog (OPSEC), but yeah, I hang around with a group of guys myself. We like to flash blue at people.
Taz wrote: I have the same attitude towards civilian homophobes.
Yes, me too.
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 9:23 AM
I wrote: We had a guy who was a Seventh Day Adventist. He told me he had to sign a waiver to get into the Infantry that stipulated he was non-practicing. He took no end of shit from the instructors. Stuff along the lines of: "What's the matter, you fucking little peace-nick? Push-ups hurt? Too fucking bad. We're gonna cause you plenty of pain, man, because we need to make sure your fucking pathetic little pacifist ass is actually capable of killing motherfuckers when it comes to it." I don't see how that's much different from what these guys apparently did...
To which Leni queried: Were they ridiculing and belittling other Christians about their baby Jesus, pro-life, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor "crap"? Or was it primarily outsiders like Seventh Day Adventists who were targets?
It was outsiders. As I've mentioned in other threads, I don't personally remember seeing a lot of the bullshit prostlytizing that seems to be common now in the training units, but I definitely came away with a sense that being Christian was better than not. And maybe a mild sense that it was better to be the right kind of Christian. This was a long time ago, though. I mostly recall specific incidents more than a general atmosphere.
Leni then wrote: (I'm not surprised that it was unpleasant. I'll take your word for that. And I'm not suggesting you agree with the actions. But it seems to me that your example of the maligned Seventh Day Adventist could be used not only as an argument that "everyone" gets abused, but also as another case in point.)
Yes. I think you're right that it could be. I used him to support the idea of "everyone getting abused" because I distinctly remember that my take on it at the time was just that. I didn't see what they were doing to him as particularly different in philosophy from what they were doing to the rest of us. I had one drill sergeant who used to routinely ask me if I thought my "little cunt girlfriend" would give him a blowjob (he'd seen a photo of her). At the time, to my rather stupid 18-year-old ass, it all seemed kind of the same. There is enough temporal distance now that it's difficult for me to dissect the memories apart and determine if I think what was happening to him was specifically religiously oriented abuse or what I would consider "general." Your hypothesis seems valid though (let's keep in mind the lens I was seeing it all through).
Posted by: Josh | October 13, 2008 9:55 AM
Seventh Day Adventists are Christians, just another Christian denomination. Jews who complain about diversity and tolerance should start practicing it themselves and learn about other faiths. By the way, is there any evidence at all that yarmulkes are allowed in the dining hall? Any evidence why they should be? And please, do not pretend that Christians and Muslims in Israel's IDF don't complain about discrimination. As a matter of fact, even non European Jews, especially Ethiopians, complain about not only discrimination in the military, but pervasive discrimination in Israeli society. Jews have it much better than America than racial and religious minorities do in Israel. So if Jews treat people, especially racial and religious minorities, any better than Christians do, the state of Israel certainly isn't an example of it.
Posted by: Gerald | October 13, 2008 6:11 PM