Response for September 17th
"Most entered the military with little reflection, however, believing it a natural and unavoidable part of life."(84) This idea seemed to be the prevailing thought for the working and middle class men during the Vietnam War. Regardless if you were drafted or joined willingly there was the idea that you would be pulled into the war anyways. Men that thought about deferring their notice then came to the sudden realization that it would be their friends and neighbors drafted in their place. The war became an unavoidable part of their lives. The other prevailing idea is of, "It was my turn."(58) The men that were being recruited for the draft had fathers and grandfathers that had served in the World Wars, and as the book says "Whether the father characterizes the experience as good or bad, if the son perceives the military as a major experience in his fathers life, he is more likely to consider it for himself."(59) Growing up with a major role model being in the army coupled with the lack of good paying jobs, it only makes sense that men joined the military grudgingly.
The two readings for Wednesday, Sept. 19 discussed the army’s pursuit of an all-volunteer force during the Vietnam War and the controversy of the draft that came with it. In, “The Army in the Marketplace,” the author describe different advertising techniques that the Army used to recruit soldiers and convince them to volunteer. Some examples included ads that portrayed a military that has “changed.” On page 73, the author shows examples of new and improved slogans such as, “Join the new army,” or “Join today’s Army.” The second reading takes a look at the Army using the free market to advertise and recruit. One quote that I found very compelling came from General Howard Moore on page 34 as he describe that most of the army’s success comes from how a soldier, “views himself in relation to the Army.” The article goes further as to how some authority figures feared that it would change the Army and the attitude with which they fought. To an extent I can understand their worries, but this idea could’ve limited the issue of the short time a drafted soldier spent in the military.
ReplyDeleteFor Wednesday, September 19. "The Army in the Marketplace" focused on the Army's efforts to improve their image with the younger people of the country while they transitioned from the draft to an all volunteer military. There was an anti-military sentiment within the younger generation of America at the time due to the unpopular war in Vietnam. The Army created a new slogan, "Today's Army Wants to Join You", and created an advertising campaign around it. This was really interesting to me, because for as long as I can remember, everyday I have seen at least one ad for the Army, or the Marines, or the Navy, and the slogans "Army Strong" and "The Few, the Proud, the Marines" have been embedded in my mind. The passage that interested me was on page 74, "This slogan, Ayer creatives insisted, would help transcend the bitterness, the hostility, the anti-militarism of American society. “The Army
ReplyDeletewants to ‘join the people,’” they explained, was a “public assertion of the
Army’s concern over the many forms of ‘divisiveness’ confronting our society—including
some Anti-Militarism sentiment.” The army wanted to re-brand themselves as an organization that would allow soldiers to retain their individualism, and enhance their lives. However, many of the ads in this campaign were misleading, as they often depicted the Army experience as going on dates with women in foreign locations, and not of the combat in Vietnam. In fact, the Army never even mentions Vietnam in any of their ads, which isn't a surprise due to the fact that soldiers were on trial for their actions during the My Lai Massacre.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor Wednesday’s readings, the main area of focus involved the military draft, volunteer system, and recruitment concepts. Looking further into “The Rise of the Military Welfare State” by Jennifer Mittelstadt, a piece that stuck out to me in particular was the information regarding compensation and salary for first term enlistees (21). Mittelstadt states in the article that first term enlistees in the mid 1960’s received about $2,200 in earnings compared to about $3,200 by the year 1970. After reading this I was curious to see the change in salary during these time periods as opposed to that of inexperienced soldiers in 2018. With a surprise, after I calculated the inflation difference between 1965, 1970 and 2018 It showed that entry soldiers relatively earned the same income as they do today despite the grand increase in funding. An entry soldier in 1965 would be earning about $17,383 per year in 2018 and an entry soldier in 1970 would earn around $25,284 annually, which is a large increase. Another statistic that surprised me was that a first term enlistee in 1970 was earning an income that was 53.4 percent higher than civilian men around the same age. It is clear that during this time recruiting was a major focus of the military and the government needed to find certain ways to make the military attractable to young men around the country. Similar to how goods and products try to reach consumers by selling themselves with basic human life desires attached to them, the readings showed that the military did the same thing. Coca Cola persuades people to purchase it by telling them to “Open happiness”. The military recruiting ads in the article feature slogans like “Make your dream a reality” and “Today’s Army is a family of families”. Tactics such as increasing salary and promoting the benefits of joining the military are shown to be very important especially from the transition of a draft system to an all volunteer population.
ReplyDeleteFor Wednesday:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter three from America’s Army: Making the All-Volunteer Force by Beth Bailey, it brought up an important question in my mind. Is it morally correct for the military to even be in the marketplace? And if that is acceptable, the reason we have to advertise the military is not acceptable. In the excerpt, Bailey describes the need for young people to join the army. To get these volunteers, the army decided to send out solicitation letters to different businesses. According to Bailey, a senior advertising executive got the impression that the military bought advertising “as if it were shopping for machine guns.” Bailey talks multiple times about supply and demand. The army is the product and potential recruits are the customers. I feel that is not right to advertise the military. Advertising can be strong, and very persuasive. This can be acceptable if you are convincing someone to buy your brand of plastic cups, but we are talking about risking your life. They are persuading young people to fight and possibly die for their country. This is a very large life decision, especially for someone who hasn’t fully matured. The army shouldn’t be throwing persuasive advertising at them, to convince them one way or another.
Some people might say that it is acceptable, but why does the army have the need to advertise. Bailey writes about how the army wanted to portray the army as “mission oriented, dedicated, dignified, and disciplined” and as an army that “emphasized dignity and fair treatment regardless of race, color, or creed.” They needed to portray this in advertising because they weren’t these things. Bailey explains that two months prior antiwar protesters faced tanks in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. The army is somewhat corrupt at this point, and they shouldn’t be in the marketplace.
As a high schooler I knew that my options were low with regards to affording school. My parents were first generation college students and knew what it was like to have student loans and debt, they didn’t want this for me. With that they didn’t have the finances to pay for their eldest child’s schooling. I personally know what it is like to be captivated by the Army’s overwhelming possibilities. I applied to USNA, USMA, USCGA and ROTC, unfortunately I was denied all but the 4-year Army ROTC Scholarship. My plans if I didn’t receive the scholarship were to attend community college in hopes of being debt free. My experiences differ much from that talked about in the film and article though. Luz, had no other options and this pushed her. Although her story is fictional, its one that can be found all over our country for kids often are stuck in their hometowns. It acts much like a blackhole just sucking them back in, and these communities coincidently are never wealthy, white and spoiled neighborhoods. I truly believe the military is a great option to get out of these scenarios, but the targeting of under privileged individuals is wrong in many facets. In the piece by Garza, she speaks about how the Army started sending bilingual advertisements to families as a means of gaining “sales”. Not only are these advertisements meant for the parents, the recruiters would also call or meet with parents obviously knowing of their influence. In no other business is this acceptable, advertisement is sent directly to the intended person not their family. Garza also spoke about the Army’s point to use the phrase “protecting their mothers” knowing well the Latina cultures view on mothers. I personally believe that the systematic targeting of weak or under privileged communities/cultures is wrong in every sense. On the other hand, as a member of the army, I know the benefits it can provide to a person. The question that I battled with while reading and watching the film is: Can we really call the military “volunteer” based if they treat each recruit as a “sale”? If the signing of a recruit is a sale then isn’t the army just buying soldiers? I think these questions really push the truth behind the morals of the army and what is truly guiding their ambitions.
ReplyDeleteWill Kitsch - Blog meant for Friday 9/21
Friday, September 21st blog post.
ReplyDeleteIn early 2001 the Army went through a rebranding period, a new slogan, logo and state of the art website were designed to combat low recruitment numbers. There were video games developed, NASCAR sponsorships, bull riding teams and various other merchandise pushed on the public with the Army’s new logo to show that they wouldn’t become nameless cogs in the military machine. This bit of the reading alludes back to our class on how the Army changed by allowing their recruits more individuality, which was a major focal point in the advertisements on Wednesday.
The Army wanted to bring in Latina/o recruits because they were the fastest growing pool of military aged people in the United States. A top US military official even said “our nation’s ablility to fill ranks in the future will depend on our ability to successfully recruit Latinos.” Given this fact, I do not believe the Army is exploiting Latina/os particulartly. They see a need to bring in more troops and they are developed the YSEA program to do just that. Although Irene Garza (the author of the article) states that low educational rates are prominent in the Latina/o youth demographic, I believe that education level is not in direct correlation to military service. For some, it may be the only opportunity that they have, but others may feel obligated by family tradition.
For Friday 9-21!
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to distinguish the military as either an institution that preys on the most vulnerable in our society or as one that actually give these people a chance. As Irene Garza exemplifies, the US military is, in the absence of an American public one, a huge welfare state. Breaking down the military base pay of $1,467 a month into the rate for a 40 hour work week makes it about $9.17 an hour, and since the Walmart down the street from us has signs up marketing its 11-15$ an hour pay, the military’s pay in itself is not really recruiting anyone. The reason that many people sign up, other than patriotism or family legacy, is because the military is their way out. Similar to Luz and her brother, many poor people want an avenue to a better life, and for many the military is their only viable option. The military not only promises a steady job, but also: a place to live, free healthcare, a paid for college education, chances for advancement, and many other perks that people have never experienced before or even had a hope of accessing without military service. All of this is really great, but the problem that many Americans find with this though, is that many other countries provide these services for all of their citizens and not just those who serve in the military. Why is it that the richest country in the world cannot ensure these social programs for all of its citizens, while other developed nations such as France and Switzerland at least provide some of these. It may just be a byproduct of our capitalist society or in some ways it could be an effort to keep giving the poor a reason to join the military, but it's probably not that deep. Either way, while the military is a great option for many people, it is still not great that this is many people’s only option.
For 9/21/2018
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that throughout this week’s readings that the Army attempted to present itself to potentially young recruits through racially-motivated propaganda. However, while reading Irene Garza’s piece, “Advertising Patriotism: The “Yo Soy El Army” Campaign and the Politics of Visibility For Latina/o Youth”, I took notice to a quote that read, “For one former top US military official, the future of the US military rests with this youth population, as he noted that “our nation’s ability to fill ranks in the future will depend on our ability to successfully recruit Latinos.” (Garza 245-246) I found this quote interesting because in Bailey’s piece, “The Army in the Marketplace”, he mentions how “Many opponents--coming from all points on the political spectrum-- feared that an [All Volunteer Force] would be dominated by poor blacks…. “Volunteers” drawn heavily from the nation’s most disadvantaged group would not be true volunteers.” (Bailey 78) It appears that the army takes advantage of the societal infraction of minorities being societal pariahs and utilizes this to take advantage of young, minorities through it’s advertisement. In relation to the evolving ideas about citizenship, I believe the military’s advertisements are to somewhat meant to pressure the minds of young minorities as it presents itself as a gateway to express opportunities. I do not think that it is a coincidence the one of the two most disadvantaged groups in America compose a decent size of the military and have individualized campaigns for their groups such as Yo Soy El Army.
For Monday 9/24
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the reading for me was the part about the court-martial of Captain Davis for missing his deployment to Korea. The defense took the position that Capt Davis' actions were simply in response to the army not upholding the two-part "voluntary-contract military". Essentially, Davis and his legal team argued "if the army breached its contract he was “legally and morally excused” from fulfilling his contractual obligations to it. His willingness to
enter army service, he and his attorneys claimed, was based on promises
made by army advertising and army recruiters. Those promises had not
been fulfilled—most particularly, the promise that army doctors would
have modern, state-of-the-art medical equipment. This was the first example we see of any legal ramifications to the army's less than honest advertising. The prosecutor even acknowledged that the ads were "not contractual". While Davis eventually lost the case, his punishment was greatly reduced from the typical sentence for that offense, and it certainly raised a lot of questions.I believe the change in advertising has a lot to do with this case. This is especially relevant for the Iraq and Afghanistan advertising, as for the first time the army had to be honest and tell potential recruits of the danger, and even depict that danger to a certain extent in ads.
This case was also very interesting to me because this is the kind of thing I want to do when I graduate, and seeing the types of questions that are brought up in military courts are always interesting to me.
Robby