From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Evil Black Belts (Re: Fighting against animals?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan27.080013.17194@parc.xerox.com> coombs@parc.xerox.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.224240.8840@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <C1HAtF.A44@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> shulick@cineret.ucs.indiana.edu (Sam Hulick) writes:
>
>>	I seem to recall the Marines getting into severe trouble
>>when, on a training exercise, a number of trainees were killed
>>by the training, leading to an overhaul in the way the M.C. functions,
>>resulting in the current policy that a trainermay not touch
>>the trainee. Thus, one would not be able to have an officer
>>practice violent instruction and be accepted as a member of the
>>Corps.  I realize that individuals will do whatever pleases them,
>>however, and so there will be isolatd stories of abuse.
>
>Oh, did this make me laugh!  Yes, there is policy and there is
>practice.  What shall we consider abuse?  Perhaps it will give you a
>sense of things if I tell you that on my last day, my DI wanted to know
>who he had not hit, and everyone volunteered me.  Now, it wasn't true,
>but I suppose that I had taken relatively little direct instruction,
>given that I was highly motivated from the start.  I didn't mind the
>attention until he started punching me in the throat instead of the
>solar plexus.  Not hard punches, but then he was just being friendly.

	The difference between the corps in 69 and today is very great.
Today you could have gotten your friend into a great deal of trouble 
by reporting his actions.  Today violence takes the form of 'would
you rather be punched or have X done to you,' where X was some equally
if not worse thing.  Generally the punch is chosen.
>
>I don't really want to talk about the more impressive episodes.  It
>would take too long, and I'm sure that there were no hospitalizations
>that could be clearly attributed to violating policy.
>
>Well, there was the night that they kept running a guy up to the
>platoon upstairs.  "Pack your gear and go up to 2047."  Well, what do
>you think the DI up there did?  Eventually, as far as I could tell,
>they were tossing him in a dumpster and banging on the sides with
>garbage can lids.
>
>What goes on behind closed doors....
>
>Oh, yes, you used the word "officer."  Officers don't touch you in
>training.  They don't have anything to do with you, except to check you
>out on guard duty.  So, sure, officers follow policy in training, but
>they don't do the training.

	A drill instructor follows the same restrictions.   
>
>>	Training by violent method can be effective but it
>>can also be counterproductive in the sense that the trainee
>>can be 'turned-off' to the subject, by associating it with
>>violence and hectic authority.  This brings up some interesting
>
>"Turned off"?!  John, what world do you live in?  The most important
>part of training is to turn off your mind, your feelings, your
>association with everything but your platoon and the corps.  They want
>discipline and fighting ability and that's all.  No one gives a shit
>about your whiney-assed little feelings, you're going to war!  Your
>squad is going up that hill to divert machine gun fire while another
>squad goes up the other side.  John, Marines are fodder.  And if you
>get wimpy, your own unit will trash you to the extent necessary to
>protect their own lives.  No one is well served by gentleness in
>training.

	My 'winey-assed little feelings?` If a person cannot perform
then a person cannot perform. If the cause of this lack in performance
is bad training policy, then the training policy needs to come in question.
Psychology is a very big factor in any combat situation.  Having the
desire to perform effectively, and being, as you say, animated cannon
fodder are two different things. In todays world the Marines are more
brains than brawn. In your world, maybe you folks were just fit to be
dog food. I really can't say.  Look at it this way; once being able
to fight very well with a sword was important and tantamount to success
in battle. Then the age of the gun came, and being very coordinated became
important. Today the Marine is more than merely a minute element of a
coordinated whole but must take initiative due to developments in the
nature of warfare.
	Discipline is of utmost important for the successful coordination
and application of the unit.  However, performance is also a factor and
can not be glossed over by sentimental bullshit.  
	Perhaps you should talk to some currently active members,
and see for yourself where the Corps is today.
>
>That does not mean that an MA instructor should beat up on people
>without motivation.  But you made general comments about training, and
>I could not help reacting.  Yes, incidents with trainers other than
>your DIs tend to be isolated, but I wouldn't push my luck.  We ran into
>one rifle range instructor who thought being from the north was in
>itself an act of reprehensible cowardice.
>--Jim

 	Living on the edge of a nervous breakdown keeps one moving and
develops fast reactions, but these things are Pavlovian.  True grit comes
not from dogma but some inner strength. Dogma can be worn down, and when it
goes the subject is basically soggy grits.

			John
		
Organization: Sponsored account, Accounts, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA