Are there any places in the U.S.A. where it’s better not to admit you’re a Veteran?
(Even WW2 Veterans or Veterans who never actually participated in a war?)
Berkley?
Arguably communities dominated by pacifist religious groups (such as Amish communities) although I don’t you’d see the Amish calling the soldiers “baby-killers” or anything.
Are veterans actually disliked as a group by anybody? I suppose a few extreme leftist loons might, but they would be delusional. Most veterans become veterans out of economic necessity, not some lust for war and killing.
However, here I must admit to becoming a bit annoyed at the incessant worship of veterans by the media. But that’s not the veterans’ fault.
I can’t imagine any community being actively anti-WW2 veterans. Even those primarily populated by people of Japanese or German descent.
Other, more controversial wars, maybe. But me, I see a “veteran” hat on a stranger, I thank him for serving, regardless of which war.
I should of asked the hippy goofs I met up in Vermont about 5 years ago.
I only dislike certain specific veterans I know. I think most people would at least be respectful and not overtly rude.
Yea but how many? I know a few hippy goofs who are actual Marxists, rail against commerce and think hunter/gather is the pinnacle of human existence(they usually aren’t even consistent in beliefs).
You can probably find some actual man hater feminists on the internet too who think men are evil and should be all killed, that doesn’t tell you whether it is a popular view.
Just the other day I saw a guy argue North Korea isn’t such a bad place to live because marijuana use is not prosecuted there.:smack:
Most anti-militarists would probably tell you they love veterans, since they’re just as much a victim of the military-industrial complex as anyone. If a veteran happens to still have a positive view of the military after their experiance, they might want to keep that to themselves in polite conversation in somewhere like Berkley, but they wouldn’t be disliked only for their veteran status alone.
The movement was started by a veteran, google Smedley Butler.
In ultra-leftist Santa Cruz, I don’t think individual veterans would get much hate. People definitely did not appreciate recruiters, who were seems as using false promises to prey on the vulnerable, but someone who served would be met with sympathy and maybe a little bafflement.
Now if you were talking about enlisting, you might get some shit. That’d be seen as a bed decision, both personally and ethically.
Without (hopefully) starting too much a hijack, I’m truly curious about this attitude. Is it a case of “well, yeah, we needed armies back then, but now the military is just used for wars of agression and should be pared way back or eliminated” or is it the true-blue “war is bad always”? I can (sort of) understand the former, but the latter…
I think we can count a university as a community.And there are lots of campuses which are actively opposed to the military as an institution, and anyone who participates in it as an invidividual. ROTC programs have been taboo for years at many of the most elite Ivy League schools.
For context, it’s a leftist college town in California, and a bit of a haven for people with fringe political beliefs.
Among the more grounded set, there is a general objection to how the military recruits. The argument is that recruiting is heavily targeted towards poor, minority children in high school. I know in my relatively poor high school, our “career day” was dominated by a bevy of helicopters, armored vehicles, and marines doing pull ups- which seemed a pretty obvious attempt to dazzle a group of students who often perceive themselves as having limited opportunities in life. Quite a few of my friends signed up at the tender age of 17, getting themselves into something that is very hard to get out of. I know that recruiting on more upscale high school campuses is more subdued, and more suited towards encouraging students to choose the military after careful consideration. It is really a striking difference in how different classes are recruited.
There is also an argument that the military’s job-training and education benefits are misrepresented and oversold, and that individual recruiters often make promises that are not kept. Again, many people I knew had little information about our higher education system, and saw the military as their only route to college. This wasn’t particularly true at the time, when there was a great deal of no-strings-attached financial aid available to low income students.
Anyway, in these cases it’s not that they don’t want the military to recruit, but that they don’t want young adults from poor families to be disproportionately affected by wars they had little to do with. In the ideal situation, I think people would like to see students have access to higher education and job training in general, and not have that be something the military is trying to sell them- in other words, the nobody should feel like they need to join the military out of desperation. They’d also like to see more evenly targeted recruiting, some kind of accountability for recruiters who make false promises, the end of 17 year olds enlisting, and a recruiting process that is generally aimed at presenting the military objectively.
Anyway, among the more radical folks, you can find all kinds of beliefs. There is everything from pure pacifists, anarchists who see the military as a tool of oppression, radical one-worlders, and everything else. Santa Cruz is an eleclectic town.
If one knows enough about the past, present, and presumed future of this country’s foreign policy, then starving the beast seems like a great idea. It might be different in an era when the policies have been revamped to make the US more like Japan, Costa Rica, and many other places where defense actually means defense, and military personnel are just another kind of civil servant.
Remember, also, that until the end of World War II, the US had very little standing military. It was seen as a threat to freedom, and thus at the end of each war/crisis/etc. the military was rapidly downsized. A relatively small group of pros were on hand to deal with an emergency, keep the ships functioning, and train and assimilate new troops called up in the event of war, which only Congress can declare. This did not actually prevent aggression, but I suppose it made it more difficult.
And isn’t war bad always?
This has always puzzled me. Do you also thank civil servants, who also spend their lives serving the public? Teachers? Police and firefighters? Or only veterans?
I certainly don’t hate veterans, and I would appreciate it if the government who sent them to war would take a little better care of them afterwards, but I really genuinely don’t understand why they’re so special. I guess it’s that we’re all collectively traumatized by the people who died in war, and thankful for the ones who didn’t.
Back around the Vietnam War, veterans weren’t appreciated in a lot of places. However since 9/11 it’s quite the opposite. I seldom mention I’m retired from the military as people start up with the “hero” crap. I’m not. I seldom take advantage of military discounts and other such benefits.
There are some communities that have love/hate relationships when a military base is nearby. I was stationed at one place where they only wanted our money and otherwise wished we’d stay away. However I not live near Scott AFB Illinois and have never felt that way here.
Generally speaking, the big 3 are military vets, cops and firefighters. They’re usually appreciated beyond the rest of the civil servants because their jobs require them to take a large amount of personal risk on the public’s behalf that say… the weights and measures guy who verifies the calibration at gas pumps doesn’t.
Yes … everywhere!
By the way, I just registered. How do you start a new thread on here? :o
