No more Warriors....Lots of bangers

As you may or may not know, Hawaii is one of the most militarized states.  For those of us who live here, this means we have to deal with the influx of military personnel and their abject ignorance. It is sometimes common to overhear army and navy idiots discussing the war while using words like "raghead" "haji" and "sand nigger".  While the normal person would cringe at the mere thought of using these slurs, military personnel seem to think they are commonplace.  Now, I know that the military is not comprised of the most intelligent people.  After all, the military recruiters pray on the "bottom rung" in terms of intelligence and socio economic status.  Many of these young men and women think they are being patriotic when they are often showing that they are being brainwashed into a racism that serves their commanders. What is more is that we, as a society, permit these young people (and often praise) who get sucked in to this monster to behave however they wish.  For example, proposed laws in Alaska and South Carolina would allow marines under the age of 21 to drink on bases.  We can not let these people think that they are above or outside the law.  Military personnel, regardless of service branch, are citizens like you and I.  Nothing in any law gives them  exceptional rights besides being able to kill who they are fighting during wartime (and this is sometimes not legal).  I fear laws like this further the farce in the minds of young servicemen and women that they are "special".  On the contrary, the very fact that they are in the service proves that they are "expendable" in the eyes of the government.  We need to wake these people up and show them the error of their ways.  If this means social science class for all servicemen than so be it.
           Another connected issue I have been revisiting lately is the notion of the warrior as it relates to the modern US soldier. I am of the mind that warriors, in the classical sense, do not exist in our military.  After all, we kill people from extremely far away not knowing if  the actual targets are the correct ones.  Furthermore, drones and guided weaponry are often targeting virtual targets and are operated by pilots thousand of miles away. These pilots only see a number or symbol and not the actual person being affected. This also eliminates any code of honor against, for example, killing women or children.  Instead, our military has a term called "collateral damage". When I hear people referring to our soldiers as warriors, I often laugh.  I wonder what samurai or perhaps Masai would think.
          I have found that our armed forces do resemble another group that would label itself a warrior class. Many of us know about "gang bangers", but this could also be applied to most organized criminal organizations. Gangs and other organized crime syndicates also label their street level enforcers "soldiers".  They have a similar hierarchy as well, answering to a commander in chief figure in their "boss". Interestingly, many former gang members have been recruited into our armed forces.  This has happened to such an extent that some aspects of inner city gang culture are permeating through the armed forces.  I have friends who have told me that aircraft carriers have gangs that control parts of the ship as their territory by wearing certain colors and levying passage taxes.
        However you want to look at it, our military is totally broken.  They seem to be a group that has been cultivated into something malleable so it can be pointed at the enemy without question.  We can not get mad at them for not knowing any better as they are often the least educated members of our society. However, we do have a responsibility to try to show them why they are wrong. I think with a little tweaking, our military could be at least a little useful instead of just costly.

Amy Chua: Tigers eat their young...

So, this is my first blog. Here I will talk about things that more than likely "grind my gears" or just generally make me fed up with our society.  This week, one of those wonderful things that focuses my ire came into my purview. I had some house guests from China who left an interesting (and bootleg) book on my coffee table.  It was called "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom". Written by a Harvard law professor named Amy Chua, it showcases this "woman's" (and I use the term loosely) approach to rearing her two daughters.  This approach is, shall we say, less than appropriate.  Not only does she belittle her daughters, but she pushes a somewhat racist and elitist approach to child rearing.  For example, her children have a variety of rules.  Often redundant and repetitious, these rules force choices in cultural and social taste on the daughters that Mrs. Chua deems appropriate.  She actually requires her children to play instruments like professional musicians, often invoking names like Yo Yo Ma as an example why her daughters should follow them.  Her approach to enforcing this rule actually made me sick to my stomach.  Forcing them to learn by rote, the young girls' lives are actually consumed by their mothers desire for them to become musicians. Mrs. Chua of course thinks she is doing a bang up job.  Of course we only hear slight mentions of these girls' difficulties with regard to social interaction.  The older sister, Sophia, has few friends and is at one point found always spending recess alone. It must be hard to make friends when you are not permitted to sleepover a friend's house( another rules) or do anything besides practice music. This cruelty that she perpetrated on her children will undoubtedly be something that created problems when her children go to college. Mrs. Chua obviously is not someone who is familiar with the maxim " too much of any one thing can be bad".
    In actuality, this books is less a battle hymn and more a portrait of a control freak.  Her parents controlled her and made sure that she forced herself into a professional career.  Once she became a lawyer (who by the way hated being a lawyer), she found herself free to take control of her own life.  For example, her parents told her that she should marry a Chinese man.  As a "show of force" to her parents she married a Jewish American. Hilariously, she then rails against guys who have "yellow fever" and only date any Asian woman, not forgetting to mention that she was the first Asian woman her husband ever dated (yea fucking right!). This "personal exceptionalism" is common amongst control freaks.  It is no wonder it permeated into her relationships with her daughter as she sought to control everything about them since they were born.
        The author, however, is given a hard time by her younger daughter, Lulu.  Lulu is to be commended for standing up to her cruel and ridiculous mother.  In the face of unrelenting authority, Lulu (as the author admits) humbles her mother's Chinese approach to child rearing.  From a young age Lulu shows her mother that authority can be faced down, eve as her mother threatens to lock her outside all night in the cold, East coast weather. There is also the episode when Lulu finally has enough of her "cunty" mother and screams at her and smashes a glass at a restaurant in Moscow.  All of this simply proves, and should unequivocally how Mrs. Chua that unrelenting authority is not the answer.  I find this ironic as this type of authority is exactly how the Chinese state treats its people.  One would thin that Mrs. Chua, someone who left the authoritarianism of China would see the error in the way they go about modeling their society. Instead, she uses authoritarianism as her tool of oppression against her children.
      There has been some backlash against this book, and rightfully so.  Her approach to parenting is great is someone wants a socially backward automaton.  I for one, do not want to be around anyone like her and if I ever meet her I am going to tell her she is wrong.  I have seen the product of this style of parenting, and so have you.  I am sure we have all seen the angry little Asian woman screaming and yelling at a store clerk over nothing, simply wanting nothing but her way.  Our western parents may not have made us awesome at math or music, but I can guarantee these little females automatons that her mother intended to create are not the answer.  Who would want to be around people who are only interested or dedicated to one thing, regardless of that thing.  Variety is the splice of life Mrs. Chua, let your daughters embrace it.  Furthermore, childhood is for enjoying yourself so that we do not become miserable little arguers (lawyers) like you.  I hope soon the world stops listening to people who only know about being argumentative.  Our whole fucking government is composed of these people who think authority is the way to get things done.  As they often find out, people will rebel in the face of a control freak.  Just ask Lulu, as she plays tennis instead of practicing violin.