Posted by shar on July 2, 2000, at 23:18:15
In reply to Re: Saving the Forest and the Trees, posted by bbob on July 2, 2000, at 1:59:04
> Bbob wrote:
> According to the articles, and studies cited there-in, the psychological damage of war often lasts for generations.Yes, too true. You yourself may have experienced life with a Vietnam vet. Certainly, the vets from that war, who have high rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, are passing that right along to the next generation.
The Vet to whom I was married came back from Nam after being a Medic. He had lost most of his ability to control his rage, and was very violent, engaged in significant risk-taking behavior, had physical symptomology from what the VA denies could hurt anyone, and generally was on alert at all times. Multiple perimeter checks through the night. He also used about any drug he could find.
We (society) have at least one and maybe two generations who will probably grow up under the direct influence of the men and women who survived Vietnam. Most of the vets I know struggle with demons that are so beyond the understanding of the 30 year old therapist, it's hard to take therapy seriously. I've seen more catharsis during a vet's group barbecue, where they can (and do) laugh and cry and wonder what will become of them. It is a serious business.
>
...those of us who are environmentally oriented is the part that says:
>"Popular culture is dominated by advertisements that offer the following promise:
buy ... and your subjective well-being will increase. The happiness research demonstrates that
most such promises are empty.I believe this is just known as marketing. I think we have the capacity to learn over time that, by and large, the things we buy don't make us happy (but some do). Whether everyone has the interest or capacity to take that further as introspection or worthy of analysis, is the individual's responsibility. Some people will just keep buying, and feeling empty. Others won't.
>
Regarding McVeigh, Kazinski and the insanity of all that...
>
> Kazinski's trial when he was wrestling...with a court ordered mental examination, he **not wanting to make a insanity defense that would weaken the message of his acts.**Emphasis mine (asterisks mine). I find that a breathtaking remark. It assumes there was a strong message to be weakened, and the acts (murders) sent this strong message (from my reading).
Suffice it to say that there must be many interpretations of "the message of his acts." The message I got was that he chose to kill/maime innocent people in order to make a point. Whether or not one agrees with the point, it seems rare to me that a mere mortal would have an idea or set of ideas worth the surreptitious killing of innocent people.
>> Regarding McVeigh, he was trained to kill>
> we end up with a confused, war-scarred, well-trained killer .... his participation in a conspiracy to bomb.> I just want to suggest...the evident erosion of boundaries that was not entirely self-inflicted and that seems to have arose from his desire to serve his country.
No doubt his war experience eroded his boundaries, exposed him to horror, shocked his sensibilities, and left him with unearthly memories and ideas. And, he may have held strong beliefs, going in, that he wanted to serve his country. He is not alone, I am sure there are thousands and thousands like him in the U.S. I'm glad they aren't blowing up buildings, killing children, men and women, who were also serving their country (government work, you know). Certainly the survivors of his acts have a life that will never be the same, and probably share some of the same shell-shocked reaction that Tim had.
>
My thinking, from a social psychology perspective, is that *people like this* tend to express what we as a society repress.(Asterisks mine) People like this meaning those who choose to "send a message" by harming innocent people? I am thinking those people are terrorists. If terrorists express what we as a society repress, I don't recall a concomitant "feel-good" cathartic response from society in general after Ted and Tim did their business. That is what one would expect if societal repression had been expressed (set free, if you will) and thus society is relieved (at the moment).
>We understand the severity of some contradictions in our collective unconcious, but are unable to articulate the entrenched contradiction sufficiently to act decisively. Individual, small groups, or secretly instigated acts such as these named acts of terror might let us, as a society, vent the conflict and form new positions before the repressed conflict erupts into an even greater conflagration.
I don't really understand the point here. There seem to be some oxymorons (understanding the severity of contradictions in our collective unconscious). I think the Jungians believe that it is unconscious, not in our heads to be understood, but I may be wrong.
However the thinking that violence observed vents the conflict and brings some form of relief or regrouping goes against the social psychological work that has for years studied violence on TV and the resultant behavior of children. They don't get calmer, or more centered, they become more violent.
I do believe riots (also violent acts) are that way too. After the Rodney King verdict, you could watch people being drawn into the ever-growing crowd; some people were interviewed and said they had never intended to participate--they went to see what was going on, and got caught up in it.
>
> My point is that war is a mental health issue. We are injured when we perpetrate war and we are injured if wars are fought around us. Improving mental health conditions...will involve finding ways to resolve conflict without creating a spiral of mental injury.I agree totally. One aspect of war is how it damages people. There are other aspects as well. I agree that finding ways to resolve conflict without mental injury is a worthy goal. If we take personal responsibility for our own ways of resolving conflict in the here and now, that is a start.
And, if we teach our children to do that, we've influenced another generation. Mental health is present in every possible configuration of our lives. Going to war, going to work, killing the guy in the car who is going too slow, insulting the waitress who may not speak English very well (in front of the children)--all of these will shape our mental health.
I can't change "war" but I can do something about my own comportment, and actions I take to let others know what is important to me (ie, the ones in power), and become active in groups who want to create change and where I won't have to kill anyone. Especially a child.
It starts with me, one person. And then you, one more. And then one more...IMHO
>
> Consumer society, environmental degradation, militarism and mental health are intricately interwoven issues that need to be collectively addressed as social/cultural issues.
>
Could not agree more!
poster:shar
thread:37688
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000630/msgs/39084.html