earlier today I downloaded a song by dave rovic called song for hugh thompson anyway hadnt heard of him before . he was a helicopter sgt who came across the my lai massacre and turned his guns towards the american soldiers killing civilians and saved about 10 people in two groups , he also made a complaint about the massacre . he was shunned by other soldiers had death threats and was threatend with court martial for pointing his guns at americans and 30 years later got a medal for his actions . how many soldiers would do what he did , and why arent people like him remembered , would you do what he did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jnr
Interesting reading, and fascinating psychologically. In his final years he became a true American hero, that's one way we neutralise the threat of against-the-group behaviour, we adapt our thinking so that we start to believe that these were our values all along and the standard behaviour of the past was just a temporary aberration, not part of how "we" really behave. That's if we can't suppress, silence, imprison or kill such "heroes" first...
well, honestly, his values didn't get into his head from NOWHERE. i consider mob mentality to be the abberration, and it never fails to horrify us when we see it, now doesn't it? just because people didn't get the full story, or were working within that conscienceless mob, doesn't mean that when you get them seperated and free of the brainwashing that they don't appreciate it. i'm a sickening optimist. oh, and my sister is a Seabee, too.
Of course, mob mentality is as much the norm as moral behaviour, both suitable for different circumstances/recipients. We are quite capable of justifying, excusing or participating in massacres and such like when the recipient is viewed as an enemy, part of the out-group, while at the same time seeing ourselves as morally good. Thompson's moral instincts were quite normal, just as were the murderous genocidal instincts on display at My Lai, but his were 'inappropriate' to these circumstances. Group behaviour is what sets the switch for which kind of thinking is appropriate, and he went against it. The tendency of the military would be to turn a blind eye, or even tacitly encourage such behaviour - this has been the way in all wars throughout history and across cultures. This is exactly what happened with the 'revenge' type briefings given to the Company concerned the night before, and the attempted whitewash/cover-up after the fact. The only thing that's remarkable is the fact that he went against the group, traitorous behaviour, and got away with it, requiring extraordinary measures to neutralise or assimilate this challenge to the group mind. You either kill or honour such a person...
in the one video I linked to there were two young men who were joining up and their responses were interesting after they had seen thompson....you dont know what you would do when your being shot at ,,,,and the sort of glee that they would be put in such circumstances , and the not being able to judge someone in those circumstances . well technically you should be able to judge if your not in a army that supports taking hundreds of civilians out and shooting them as offically our armys claim not to do. technically doing such things are war crimes and you should refuse to take part ,report them and try to stop them . I wonder if the response would have been different in the past
Well there was no such thing as a "war crime" until after WWII, the idea of treating 'enemy civilians' as noncombatants and not massacring them is relatively new in human history...
He prolly lost the war for the USA the guy wasnt much of a hero, just someone who lost his head and freakily killed his own side. Who would you rather have in your army? someone who is fighting with you, or against you?
longcat the people he stopped were the ones who lost their heads chopping off hands scalping people rape and suchlike . you could make a argument that thats the way to win a war kill as many civilians as you can and keep them down by terror , but that wasnt what the americans claimed to be doing
Where does it say he killed his own side? He turned his guns towards the US army, but didn't actually fire upon them.
