Thinking about the pisoner abuse in Iraq (and within many dictatorships around the world) and from things I have read and doumentaries I've seen, a question occurs to me. Does wearing a uniform change the way people behave? Are some people more likely to act in a brutal manner because they are wearing one?Why do events such as the My Lai massacre (where 500 old men, women, children and babies were massacered in Vietnam by US soldiers) occur? (www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.htm).
Are you kidding? Of course it changes people's behaviour. But it is not only the uniform though. It is the group sense that does a lot of evil. When spurred by one's peers you will do a lot more than you would do alone, when you have not your reputation to think of.
For example, you will not think about consequenses when with your friends, only the rush of doing something that is forbidden. If you are alone, you will think a lot more about what you are doing, and reason that you whould better leave it, because of the repercussions that might follow. (eg court martial and dishonorable discharge (is that the correct term?) in the case of the US soldiers who did those things to the Iraqi prisoners)
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html
This details an experiment with ordinary college students. Some became guards, other prisoners. The guards became sadistic especially when they thought nobody was watching. It had to be shut down after 6 days because things appeared to be getting out of control.
These were just ordinary college students playing a role to get $15 a day. It isn't surprising at all what a group of soldiers, that thought they were autonomous, having in their possession the people they feel may have killed or tortured their friends. The videotape part is the only part I find surprising.
Originally posted by ianpickeringWas a uniform necessary for the tribal killings ot the Tutsis? Or varous other incidents of ethnic cleansing around the world?
Thinking about the pisoner abuse in Iraq (and within many dictatorships around the world) and from things I have read and doumentaries I've seen, a question occurs to me. Does wearing a uniform change the way people behave? Are some p ...[text shortened]... law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.htm).
How many massacres have the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army been responsible for?
I don't think the major cause of human rights abuse is the wearing of funny hats.
Originally posted by steerpikeThe boy scouts can be particularly vicious.
Was a uniform necessary for the tribal killings ot the Tutsis? Or varous other incidents of ethnic cleansing around the world?
How many massacres have the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army been responsible for?
I don't think the major cause of human rights abuse is the wearing of funny hats.
I took it to mean the uniform as being in a position of authority.
Originally posted by pidermanAgreed. But what posseses soldiers to shoot children in cold blood ?
Are you kidding? Of course it changes people's behaviour. But it is not only the uniform though. It is the group sense that does a lot of evil. When spurred by one's peers you will do a lot more than you would do alone, when you have not your reputation to think of.
For example, you will not think about consequenses when with your friends, only the rush ...[text shortened]... t the correct term?) in the case of the US soldiers who did those things to the Iraqi prisoners)
Originally posted by knapperjaSo it might not be the uniform? Wasn't that the whole point of the post? Peace minded liberals become crazed thugs once they put on a uniform?
The boy scouts can be particularly vicious.
I took it to mean the uniform as being in a position of authority.
Perhaps the uniform has to be coupled with a position of authority? I guess that rules out the kids on the MacDonalds counter but not Mother Teresa.
Maybe it is a militay uniform you mean? The problem here is the difference between civilian and military goes a little beyond what sort of pants they wear. Soldiers can have a high risk of death and injury. In an insurgency, it comes from civilians who are all around them. Some are friendly, some are neutral, some will shot you in the back. Not really surprising this can cause some hostility.
I would argue a uniform prevents massacres. Discipline and group pressure act as deterrents to war crimes. Where groups of soldiers commit atrocities, it is nearly always because leadership, discipline and morale have broken down. There have been exceptions but most armies do not have a policy of terror.
Combatants in militia units have a poorer record of rights abuses than professional armies..
prison study: i read that when i was reading psychology a few years ago. i seem to remember that the conclusion was that uniform serves to de-individuate the person. this occurs on both sides: leaving aside the symbolic nature of the uniform, the roles engender themselves as a result of setting up heirachies. as soon as a group has the same group identity, as in war garb, they cease to be people; the enemy is other, the soldier is a machination, a facilitant to the war machine.
faintly reminiscent of football supporters, the ritualised nature of football crowds whereby the power of the group with single cause gives the individual power to do what they wouldn't normally; the movement of the 'riot' is highly rituatlized, like the scalping of native americans...their war machine, as it were, was in such contrast to the settlers that the opposing war machines were largely incommensurable, as we've seen in the recent iraq war again - the western 'democratic' war machine and the loosely islamic war machine have no common ground. likewise, islamic states have the problem of being of two masters - islam as a worldwide, abstract state, will always come higher than the physical graffiti of the western concept of state. to clarify, the american state is master (in the hegelian sense) to america, whereas islamic states (not necessarily iraq) will always have a sense of not being of geography, though not quite the nomads of judaism.
i shall stop there before controversies creep.
K