The Nationalist Myth, War and "Vintage"

[WH1]

I hope I'm wrong about this, I really do. But that said, I have to say that I don't personally know a single middle-class person of current military age -- and by that I mean a person raised in a middle-class environment by middle-class parents, with a middle-class worldview, middle-class attitudes, and a middle class education -- who is actually serving in any branch of the armed forces. I know they're out there, statistically they have to be, but every single person I've personally known who has served in the armed forces since the end of the draft -- with the exception of two doctors'-sons who got into West Point and retired as mid-grade Army officers -- has been of working class background. The middle class kids I know, and have known, for the most part come from families where military service would be very very strongly frowned upon, especially if it was a choice made in lieu of college. "You're better than that," is the phrase that might most often be used.

Perhaps it is a regional phenomenon as the area I grew up in had a tradition of military service among all classes but there was a fair concentration of military bases so there were large numbers of still serving and retired veterans in the communities. It was viewed as an honorable profession.

 

[WH1]

thinking more about this I do think it is a regional phenomenon. The number of military bases has significantly decreased in the last couple of decades with the Base Realignment Commission (BRAC). The largest concentrations of US military installations are in the South and the West. Consequently American exposure to the military is very compartmentalized. If you go to parts of North Carolina, Texas or Colorado you will find large concentrations of military current and former, whereas this would be a less common occurence in the Northeast which has fewer current military installations and smaller populations of current and former military.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I hope I'm wrong about this, I really do. But that said, I have to say that I don't personally know a single middle-class person of current military age -- and by that I mean a person raised in a middle-class environment by middle-class parents, with a middle-class worldview, middle-class attitudes, and a middle class education -- who is actually serving in any branch of the armed forces. I know they're out there, statistically they have to be, but every single person I've personally known who has served in the armed forces since the end of the draft -- with the exception of two doctors'-sons who got into West Point and retired as mid-grade Army officers -- has been of working class background. The middle class kids I know, and have known, for the most part come from families where military service would be very very strongly frowned upon, especially if it was a choice made in lieu of college. "You're better than that," is the phrase that might most often be used.

The question is do we really want such people in our military? I think the two Hipster threads more than adequately answers that question as the subjects of the discussions seem to come mainly from that particular socioeconomic group. And though the discussions are generally in a more jocular vein, I think it still reflects a deeper underlying, not to mention disturbing, truth about a significant portion of today's younger generation and its attitudes.

Unfortunately I forgot who said it but a major figure from the American Revolution once wrote that the reason he became a soldier was so that his son wouldn't have to and could become a doctor instead and so that his son in turn could study poetry. The trouble is that over 200 years later we're getting too many poets (and bad ones at that) and fewer doctors and soldiers. Meanwhile the world hasn't become less dangerous.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

The question is do we really want such people in our military? I think the two Hipster threads more than adequately answers that question as the subjects of the discussions seem to come mainly from that particular socioeconomic group. And though the discussions are generally in a more jocular vein, I think it still reflects a deeper underlying, not to mention disturbing, truth about the younger generation and its attitudes.

Well...I think there are only three choices.
Appreciate all those who volunteer..make it through the training..and lay their lives on the line.
Institute a draft for the numbers.
Have an insufficient military too small to protect our nation.
HD

 

[sheeplady]

My sample is probably pretty biased, but the young people I knew who went direct into the military from my high school (as opposed to going to college and participating in ROTC and being commissioned upon graduation) tended to be from working class and poor families. Those that I met in college who were in ROTC tended to be from a mixture of middle class, working class, and poor backgrounds.
But, my experience is totally impacted by the fact that I grew up and went to high school in an economically depressed area- most of the kids were from farming and factory families; with quite a few poor families who didn't have steady work mixed in too. 30% of my classmates went into the military, tradeschool, or college. Very few went to college, so it was unlikely they would have the opportunity to do ROTC, it was something that wasn't really presented as an option at my school- if you wanted to go into the military, you were told to join the military. I went to a college that drew people from all over the country, not just economically depressed areas, so it was a very different set of people.

So I think who you see going into the military really depends upon what the population you are drawing your sample from.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Utterly absurd. Somehow the very tiny number of hipsters attaints the entire middle class?

The question is do we really want such people in our military? I think the two Hipster threads more than adequately answers that question as the subjects of the discussions seem to come mainly from that particular socioeconomic group. And though the discussions are generally in a more jocular vein, I think it still reflects a deeper underlying, not to mention disturbing, truth about a significant portion of today's younger generation and its attitudes.

 

[Edward]

Have you ever wondered why a sub-group of people would be so interested in a time in world history underlined for its brutality; i.e. WWII? Have you ever wondered why modern culture has suddenly taken to "vintage" clothing and ocassionally pines for "the good old days"?

I wonder these things, of course, and as I was reading a book War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning, by Chris Hedges, I found an entry particularly interesting.

Do you think what he says has any bearing in your life? Or perhaps this doesn't reflect on us, the Fedora Lounge, so much, but maybe it explains levels of patriotism after 09/11 and the seemingly constant upheaval of culture after each conflict in which we're involved?

"Art takes on a whole new significance in wartime. War and the nationalist myth that fuels it are the purveyors of low culture - folklore, quasi-historical dramas, kitsch, sentimental doggerel, and theater and film that portray the glory of soldiers in past wars or current wars dying nobly for the homeland. This is why so little of what moves us during wartime has any currency once war is over. The songs, books, poems and films that arouse us in war are awkward and embarrassing when the conflict ends, useful only to summon up the nostalgia of war's comradeship."

What are your thoughts?

Seems to me the guy has a fair point to some degree. I don't think all these things disappear entirely outside times of war. Indeed, I believe that they bubble under the surface always, which is why they are so easily activated and exploited when it suits governing interests so to do.

Utterly absurd. Somehow the very tiny number of hipsters attaints the entire middle class?

Quite. Of all the hipsters I have encountered, I remain unconvinced that there is a single (or even, proportionate to the overall population, dominant) class background to them. It is, however, absolutely the case that the proportion of the middle classes who queue up to pour scorn on the hipsters far outweigh the proportion of the latter which may originate from among the former. [huh]

 

[kiwilrdg]

Why does everyone have such low opinions of our troops?

I am retired from the military and I am around the military a lot today.

The average person in the military has some college (many come in straight from High School but they take courses and many det degrees while in the military but many have degrees coming in as well).
One of the reasons for young people to join is to get experience. After a military career an average performer has at least some experience leading people which is really good for a resume.

If the person decides to stay in they end up with a pension and medical care after 20 years (and they don't need to wait till they are 65 to get it). A person who retires at 38 from an engineering career where they also had management responsability can walk into some pretty decent jobs to start on a second career. They can also use vetran's benefits to get further college to improve job standing even more.

A slacker or hipster may not do very well in the military but a person with motivation can do very well.

 

[sheeplady]

Why does everyone have such low opinions of our troops?

Who has expressed low opinions of our troops?

 

[Undertow]

...I'm not sure about the proposed link to vintage clothing, though. It would be like suggesting those who are into 1960s vintage British menswear are nostalgic for a period of almost universal economic depression and poverty. When in fact their into it for the aesthetics.

I'll admit, it was a bit hamfisted on my part. There's certainly no direct link, and a sociologist or social psychologist would probably say there was a weak correlation if any was found at all. On the other hand, I could only quote so much of the passage without getting a little tedious and as Hedges continues, it would seem some of what he's suggesting applies to either a few Loungers, or perhaps at least those interested in wars and war eras.

His point seems to be that we (all countries, not specifically the US) have a national amnesia of the atrocities committed during war coupled with a nostalgia of unity through values such as "patriotism", "honor", "duty", "valour", etc. Thus, some groups, and often an entire nation, look back to the "good old days" and forget all of the horrible things that happened. That probably applies to some of us on the lounge, especially those of us who aren't directly affected by the war's aftermath.

BK, you also hit the nail squarely regarding the post-war embarrasment factor. But to those who challenge it even now, would you disagree that some cultures, especially American culture, glorify war? If war is glorified in culture, it would be difficult to find nationally embarrassing moments as history would tend to be rewritten. An example of a nationally embarrasing moment for the US would be the detention and relocation of Japanese Americans during WWII.

 

[Flicka]

No wonder it doesn't resound with me; last time we were at war was in 1814 and I don't feel much nostalgia for those days.

 

[sheeplady]

His point seems to be that we (all countries, not specifically the US) have a national amnesia of the atrocities committed during war coupled with a nostalgia of unity through values such as "patriotism", "honor", "duty", "valour", etc. Thus, some groups, and often an entire nation, look back to the "good old days" and forget all of the horrible things that happened. That probably applies to some of us on the lounge, especially those of us who aren't directly affected by the war's aftermath.

I'm not arguing that war is a good thing, but war and life surrounding war is not just a black pit where life is suspended for all parties involved. It would be far preferable that war never ever happened, but if it does, it is not as if people's lives cease to have any meaning or value during the war years. There is nothing wrong with the statement saying, "I really admire X group or X person during the war, because they showed such great strength in despite of the circumstances." Those demonstrations of strength are positive things in horrific situations; admiring them isn't taking away from the horribleness of the situation, it's paying homage to it and the people involved. Most of the situations where I think of true heroes from wars, it is embedded within horrific circumstances, and that is what makes their behavior heroic. Abstract heroes don't work, or at least they don't work for me.

 

[Undertow]

I'm sure some of us remember America in 2003, with whoops and hollering and cheering for the flag, changing "French Fries" to "Freedom fries", getting teary eyed during the National Anthem, buying drinks for soldiers, all that business. The narrative across the nation was that America entered into a "necessary" war to vanquish a dictator who had not only supported terrorists, but who was harboring loads of nuclear weapons and chemical agents.

This glorification of war, the call to duty, the noble and righteous pursuit, echoes throughout world history. It's not just an American sentiment, any country that goes to war does this. Us versus Them - and "they" are always downright evil; the broadbrush effect.

So how does this all tie in? Well, the "vintage era" is steeped in the imagery, history and glorification, of two world wars. The 1920s came on the heels of WWI, the 1930s led up to WWII and the 1940s closed that war out.

How, if at all, does that affect us on the Lounge? Or perhaps if you're uncomfortable with that question, maybe you could answer to how that affected the people of those eras, their art, their architecture, their literature, and such.

 

[Classydame]

Lizzie while I agree with some of what you say I have to take some exception to the characterization that the only people fighting and dying in Afghanistan are from the lower classes. I did 2 tours in Afghanistan and 1 in Iraq as a Marine, combat arms all 3 times and while there were a large number of blue collar, lower income, there were an equal number of middle class citizens serving. My Marines were a fairly equal mix of classes.


Off topic...

Thank you for your service WH1! And also, thank you to Hoosier Daddy and Kiwilrdg for your service!

My grandfather has two purple hearts from WWII and my father served as a Marine in Vietnam and my cousin is in the Army and just got back from Afghanistan. I understand the sacrifices made.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm not arguing that war is a good thing, but war and life surrounding war is not just a black pit where life is suspended for all parties involved. It would be far preferable that war never ever happened, but if it does, it is not as if people's lives cease to have any meaning or value during the war years. There is nothing wrong with the statement saying, "I really admire X group or X person during the war, because they showed such great strength in despite of the circumstances." Those demonstrations of strength are positive things in horrific situations; admiring them isn't taking away from the horribleness of the situation, it's paying homage to it and the people involved. Most of the situations where I think of true heroes from wars, it is embedded within horrific circumstances, and that is what makes their behavior heroic. Abstract heroes don't work, or at least they don't work for me.

Agreed. War is a dirty, filthy, obscene job. But sometimes there's just no other alternative.

As for the rest of it, it's all well and good to sit in the 21st Century with all our Media-Savvy-Ironic-Detachment and all the rest of that smug beard-stroking and say that the people of the Era were all naively marching along, unwitting victims of their own blind patriotism, but the reality was *nothing*like*that.*

America from 1938 to 1941 was as divided as any nation has ever been on the question of war. There were Americans who wanted to immediately wade into it and mop up Hitler, there were others who were convinced that Europe deserved exactly what it was getting and that Europeans should be left to stew in their own juices, and there were still others who had no problem with Hitler at all and thought "it's too bad we didn't have a man like that here." Anyone who thinks all that divisiveness vanished at Pearl Harbor is very much mistaken.

There were plenty of Americans who didn't want to go to war even when the war was a fait accompli. In any city somebody knew somebody a man could go to get an eardrum punctured -- an easy way to a 4F card. There was always somebody who could help a man "beat the physical" or could tell you who you had to talk to get that deferment. In every town there was somebody who had black-market meat to sell or counterfeit ration stamps, and in every town somebody was buying them. Everybody knew somebody who was working the angles -- bribing somebody in the OPA office to get a new set of tires or a C card or a third pair of shoes. Patriotism was fine for these people as long as it didn't interfere with one's personal needs of the moment.

How many people did this sort of thing? We have no way of knowing. How many people didn't skirt the law, but griped and complained about the sacrifices they were expected to make? Many, and most people who were there at the time will tell you so frankly. They made a lot of these homefront sacrifices not because of idealism but because those sacrifices were mandated by law.

Why don't people make those same sacrifices today? *Because there's no law requiring them to do so.*

 

[Undertow]

America from 1938 to 1941 was as divided as any nation has ever been on the question of war...They made a lot of these homefront sacrifices not because of idealism but because those sacrifices were mandated by law...

Isn't that the truth? But you'd be hard pressed to find someone at the gas station who knew that, especially in the younger generations who only have grandparents that experienced the war.

According to Hollywood, America was a group of rowdy young men who fought and died in a bloody war, but we all learned something in the end, and ain't life swell? There's little room for nuance.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's where the Lounge comes in. Every once in a while somebody pokes in here to accuse us of "idealizing the past," and when that happens it becomes evident pretty quick that very few of us here are guilty of that particular fallacy. It's our responsibility to make sure people understand what the Era was really like, because they aren't going to get that from the pop-culture Era, where all hats were snappy, no car had a dented fender, and everybody thought exactly alike.

 

[Fletch]

And even today, almost a lifetime later, it's the biggest single event in the history of the world.

So much so that it is difficult to overstate. It was the coming-of-age of humanity's oldest living generation. It is the zero point for relevancy in modern times: the foundation for present-day technology, politics, economics, society, culture.

I don't think I'm exaggerating too much here, honestly. A good young student of history as it's taught today would be passingly familiar with the world of 1945, but probably know less about the world of 1940 than that of the Renaissance or the Revolutions.

A lifer for The New Yorker, Wolcott Gibbs, had it right, really, writing on the eve of the opening of the tragically optimistic 1939 World's Fair. "The notion that in 5,000 years the period between 1920 and 1940 will appear as any more than a little breathing space between two great wars strikes us as an almost perfect comment on the vanity of a strange day."

That is true today, barely one and a half percent of the way into those 5,000 years. The vanity may be ours for wanting to look back, because, for better or worse, the world no longer can. The world isn't ready. It is too late, yet also too soon.

 

[Edward]

According to Hollywood, America was a group of rowdy young men who fought and died in a bloody war, but we all learned something in the end, and ain't life swell? There's little room for nuance.

...and Americans stole the enigma machine, cracked the code, and John Wayne on a white charger beat Hitler single-handedly....

 

[LizzieMaine]

You forgot William Bendix taking a bullet and in his last breath wondering how the Dodgers were doing today.