The Warrior Hero: Reality and Myth

Who was Joseph Campbell? What is a myth? What does "Follow Your Bliss" mean? If you are new to the work of Joseph Campbell, this forum is a good place to start.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:15 pm

As Clemsy points out, there are multiple ways of defining "hero"; at times, this discussion has reminded me of the six blind men arguing over the nature of the elephant each is touching.

However, I thought it woudn't hurt to re-visit Campbell's perspective (and I'm pretty sure even he would say his isn't the only way to conceive it).

In interviews with Michael Toms, Campbell ruminates on the hero's place today:
There are two aspects of the hero, I think. The hero is somebody whom you can lean on and who is going to rescue you; he is also an ideal.

To live the heroic life is to live the individual adventure, really.

One of the problems today is that with the enormous transformations in the forms of our lives, the models for life don't exist for us. In a traditional society - the agriculturally based city - there were relatively few life roles, and the models were there; there was a hero for each life role. But look at the past twenty years and what has come along in the way of new life possibilities and requirements. The hero-as-model is one thing we lack, so each one has to be his own hero and follow the path that’s no-path. It's a very interesting situation.

-- Joseph Campbell (with Michael Toms), An Open Life, p. 109. [emphasis mine]
Campbell further asserts that "the rejuvenation of the Arthurian grail hero [is] that of recognizing God as the dynamic of your own interior" (p. 39), restating his definition from Hero with a Thousand Faces:

"[T]he hero is symbolical of that divine creative and redemptive image which is hidden within us all, only waiting to be rendered into life."

...and that is the hero's journey within reach of each individual today - a quest for one's Self - for the real self, not just the mask of ego. Is it any wonder that Bill Moyers points out that Campbell believed in "the hero's journey not as a courageous act, but as a life lived in self-discovery"?
This is what Joyce called the monomyth: an archetypal story that springs from the collective unconscious. Its motifs can appear not only in myth and literature, but, if you are sensitive to it, in the working out of the plot of your own life.

The basic story of the hero journey involves giving up where you are, going into the realm of adventure, coming to some kind of symbolically rendered realization, and then returning to the field of normal life.

-- Joseph Campbell, Pathways to Bliss
The imagery that comprises the myriad expressions of this monomyth serves as a picture language, in symbolic form, of the crises met in our own lives.

Some critics contend that Campbell claims all myths are simply a retelling of the hero’s quest - but Campbell points to the hero archetype emerging somewhere in the third millennium BCE, with the Epic of Gilgamesh. This period throughout the Near East marks the appearance of a masculine solar hero, “dispelling darkness and shadow,” identified with the sun (and, coincidentally(?), the hero archetype emerges in the same period as the first wars of conquest). Previous traditions identify the sun as feminine and the moon as masculine, common to early Bronze Age cultures (traces of which linger in the gender of sun and moon - die Sonne and der Mond - in the German tongue, or in Amaterasu, the sun goddess of the Shinto nature religion native to ancient Japan). Campbell finds this orientation differs from what he terms “heroic mythology.”

The hero’s journey is not the only form myths take - but Campbell finds it is a continuing theme from this period forward, one still relevant today:
[T]he journey of the hero … I consider the pivotal myth that unites the spiritual adventure of ancient heroes with the modern search for meaning. As always, the hero must venture forth from the world of common-sense consciousness into a realm of supernatural wonder. There he encounters fabulous forces - demons and angels, dragons and helping spirits. After a fierce battle he wins a decisive victory over the powers of darkness. Then he returns from his mysterious adventure with the gift of knowledge or of fire, which he bestows on his fellow man.

Whenever the social structure of the unconscious is dissolved, the individual has to take a heroic journey within to find new forms.

-- Sam Keen, “Man & Myth: A Conversation with Joseph Campbell,” Psychology Today, July 1971
We are each of us an incarnation of the Hero - if we answer the Call. The quest today is for each to find within our self the resources to meet and embrace our individual destiny.

Myths, ancient and modern, point the way.
Now, all these myths that you have heard and that resonate with you, those are the elements from round about that you are building into a form in your life. The thing worth considering is how they relate to each other in your context, not how they relate to something out there--how they were relevant on the North American prairies or in the Asian jungles hundreds of years ago, but how they are relevant now--unless by contemplating their former meaning you can begin to amplify your own understanding of the role they play in your life.

-- Joseph Campbell, Pathways to Bliss
This is one reason why Campbell places such emphasis in his interview with Moyers on the episode of the police officer risking his own life for another human being. The significance lies in its graphic demonstration of the recognition in one’s actions of a primary metaphysical truth,
… that you and the other are one, that you are two aspects of one life, and that your apparent separateness is but an effect of the way we experience forms under the conditions of time and space.


Whether an Egyptian serf hauling stone for the pyramids or Bill Gates building Microsoft, life’s initiations remain the same: each is born of woman, an episode fraught with struggle and danger; each comes of age amid changes in body, emotions, and perception; each must come to terms with the dynamics of marriage and raising a family (questions that even those who choose alternative lifestyles - whether same-sex relationship, a life of contemplative celibacy, or something other - still must face); each grows old, withers, and dies.

There aren’t two ways of digesting food, two ways of menstruating, two ways of dying - these life moments, large and small, are remarkably constant for Hapsburg as well as Hottentot.

There are dragons to be slain and treasures to be gained in every life - these are also constants. Campbell identifies the motif of the hero’s adventure as a map, an outline to follow - but every individual fills in his or her own details, the circumstances of one’s own life.

Joseph Campbell challenges each of us to write our own hero’s tale.

Is the Warrior archetype an appropriate expression of the Hero? Can a soldier be a hero?

I fear we're in danger of concretizing the image, taking a mythological motif a mite literal - but, well, hell yes, a soldier can be a hero. We see it all the time in the movies ...

I can certainly understand the impulse to resist the John Wayne or Rambo stereotype; the hero, whether in fiction or in life, is far more complex, as are the nameless, faceless "bad guys" they kill, who aren't bad guys at all in their own world

... but again, we are talking about archetypal images - and even John Wayne and Rambo, despite the body count, are willing to sacrifice their life to something greater than their own ego concerns (keeping in mind that the ego's prime concern is survival of the ego). Within the context of the movie, each meets at least one of the definitions Campbell offers of the hero:
The hero is the one who has given his physical life to some realization of that truth. The concept of love your neighbor is to put you in tune with this fact. But whether you love your neighbor or not, when the realization grabs you, you may risk your life…

-- Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers, p. 138
Joe is making a sublime point about the realization that you and your neighbor are One (tat tvam asi - "Thou art That"), and that in today's world we must recognize we are all neighbors

... but for the warrior heroes of myth - Hercules and Achilles and Ulysses and even Arthur - the concept of "neighbor" is more narrowly defined.

There are neighbors, and then there are strangers - and the strangers are fair game, within the context of the myth, whether that myth is Samson slaying 10,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, or Davy Crockett encircled, the last man standing, ammunition spent, knife and tomahawk already thrown, wielding the butt of his rifle as a club against the raised bayonets of massed thousands of Mexican soldiers moving in for the kill.

Those are powerful mythic images - the Hero, steadfast, facing overwhelming, even insurmountable odds. It's the positive hero aspect of the warrior archetype, and can certainly inspire and enthuse us today. William Wallace facing off against the English, as portrayed in Braveheart, still has the power to stir my soul, as does Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star

(though, if we step outside the sepia tones of myth, no doubt hundreds of stock clerks, mechanics, and cooks perished along with those thousands of evil Storm Troopers when Luke remembered the Force ...).

However, we don't take these heroic images, whether historical or mythical, as literal models for our lives today, but as metaphorical models. One can certainly embrace the positive qualities of the heroic warrior willing to sacrifice himself for his neighbor, without accepting the literal, context bound definition of "neighbor" portrayed in the myths.

And then there are warriors who consciously recognize the "Thou" in the Other. The samurai who offers a prayer in the Bushido tradition for each opponent he slays in battle, the native American brave who does the same for a fallen enemy - these offer powerful, positive images of the warrior.

Of course, the warrior archetype casts a long shadow as well - but I prefer my heroes with shadows (Breaker Morant comes to mind, as does Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca), for in real life we are each a complex marriage of dark and light.

PBS recently aired another brilliant documentary from filmmaker Ken Burns - simply titled The War - twelve hours spread over seven episodes, devoted to the personal accounts of the lives of the men and women caught up in World War II. These are personal, intimate sharings, backed up by incredible archival footage recently unearthed, much shot in color.

In the words of the creators,
Over the course of the film’s nearly fifteen hours more than forty men and women opened their hearts to us about the war they knew -- and which we, their inheritors, could only imagine.

Above all, we wanted to honor the experiences of those who lived through the greatest cataclysm in human history by providing the opportunity for them to bear witness to their own history. Our film is therefore an attempt to describe, through their eyewitness testimony, what the war was actually like for those who served on the front lines, in the places where the killing and the dying took place, and equally what it was like for their loved ones back home. We have done our best not to sentimentalize, glorify or aestheticize the war, but instead have tried simply to tell the stories of those who did the fighting -- and of their families. In so doing, we have tried to illuminate the intimate, human dimensions of a global catastrophe that took the lives of between 50 and 60 million people -- of whom more than 400,000 were Americans. Through the eyes of our witnesses, it is possible to see the universal in the particular, to understand how the whole country got caught up in the war ... how those who remained at home worked and worried and grieved in the face of the struggle; and in the end, how innocent young men who had been turned into professional killers eventually learned to live in a world without war.
These soldiers and sailors and airmen describe witnessing - and sometimes performing - unspeakable horrors; their souls are heavily burdened with what they have seen and done - and yet, it's what they felt they must do, out of love for their neighbor.

There are some incredible epiphanies - the sadness that wells up at seeing the soldier you just killed, who was about to kill you, is just a teenager, or the accounts of those who did some of the fighting and the killing describing stumbling upon the Nazi death camps and liberating thousands of emaciated walking corpses, and fully realizing why they were fighting and killing

... despite the killing, there is an echo of "tat tvam asi" even here ...

As Burns notes,
Throughout the series, one theme has stayed constant, one idea has continually emerged as we have gotten to know the brave men and women whose stories it has been our privilege to tell: in extraordinary times, there are no ordinary lives.
Heroes in real life ...

No, I don't think the Hero and Warrior archetypes need be mutually exclusive.

mitakye oyasin ("we are all relations"),
bodhibliss
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:11 am

nandu wrote: Who can say what is "Right" and what is "Wrong"?

I also do what I feel is right, but I try to distance myself from the action: more importantly, never to judge.

Nandu.
Nandu, at last we are in agreement! :) 'Who can say what is "Right" and what is "Wrong"?' Just about everybody. Detachment means we intend to do what seems like the good thing to do at the time but we are not 'expecting' rewards for our 'goodness', since the outcome is never completely our achievement alone.


**********

Clemsy, does anyone on this planet - bar elephants and other big animals - have large enough mouth to eat these sandwiches? Thanks for the visual, although you are not helping my battle with the bulge ! :roll: :lol: :oops:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:20 am

Evinnra,

We were in agreement all along. In fact, most disagreements are created when the other's point of view is not respected. You do what you feel "right" and I do the same: only, your "right" may be my "wrong" and vice versa.

Understanding that the ego creates our value judgements is the first step on the inward journey, I believe. The self makes way for the Self.

"Judge not, lest thou be judged."

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
wags
Associate
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: columbus, ohio

right or wrong?

Post by wags » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:33 pm

hello, may peace preceed your every step, i am new to the group. discussing right and wrong is always fun. i find the terms to be man made and prefer to view right and wrong as "one thought or action and then another/different thought or action or "plan a and plan b." we tend to view actions as right or wrong when we buy into the whole opposite views of life, yin, yang ect... but when i contemplate that our creator never created anything "bad" it occured to me that all the actions that we think of bad or wrong is just our preception, it is how we react to what happens in life that makes things wrong or bad. my reactions to the happenings of life makes all the difference. i don't do anything because of what someone does or say's, i have a choice of what i do or say or think, and that is one step of the hero's journey of my life.

till next time,
wags
User avatar
noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman » Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:35 am

Is the Warrior archetype an appropriate expression of the Hero? Can a soldier be a hero?

I fear we're in danger of concretizing the image, taking a mythological motif a mite literal - but, well, hell yes, a soldier can be a hero. We see it all the time in the movies ...

- BodhiBliss
There are movies about saints, and about artists, and adventurers. But I think there are more Warrior heroes in the movies than all the other heroes combined - by a factor of ten to one. Why? Does it have to be this way?
- NoMan

* * * * * * * *
NoMan,

Call me anti-social if you please but I can't find it in my heart to admire a person who's 'rotten to the core' despite delivering some benefit.
- Evinnra
As Jufa says, you are not alone. But a real-life hero is different from a fiction hero. There is always this mixture of good and evil. “Every act contains elements of good and evil. Light and dark.”

In the film Saving Private Ryan, the German soldier who survived and was captured by the American soldiers after his ambush position had been taken would probably have been shot in real life. Not the nicest thing to do when someone surrenders. But it was a vicious war. And war heroes are not saints.

welcome wags,

- NoMan
A J
Associate
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:00 am
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

Post by A J » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:12 pm

noman wrote:
Is the Warrior archetype an appropriate expression of the Hero? Can a soldier be a hero?
----------------
As Jufa says, you are not alone. But a real-life hero is different from a fiction hero. There is always this mixture of good and evil. “Every act contains elements of good and evil. Light and dark.”
----------------
In the film Saving Private Ryan, the German soldier who survived and was captured by the American soldiers after his ambush position had been taken would probably have been shot in real life. Not the nicest thing to do when someone surrenders. But it was a vicious war. And war heroes are not saints.

- NoMan
I would also like to welcome Wags to the forum. Looking forward to reading you furure posts, Wags.

In A Myth in Action, I divided the campaigns of the 3rd Division (Murphy's dividsion) according to some of the lessons learned along the way (since all heroes learn such lessons during the journey). I focused their actions on the Italian mainland on "The Lesson of Irony." One of those lessons involved Murph and his platoon being pinned down on Hill 193, near Mt. Rotundo, with a group of mortally wounded German soldiers. Murph wrote of the incident in To Hell and Back:

In the valley the battle grows in its intensity. Several times we try storming up the southern side of Mount Rotundo and are stopped cold. A ruse does the trick. While elemsnts of our regiment attack from the south and southwest to divert the Germans, a battalion of the 30th strikes from the flank and rear, taking the enemy by surprise. The mountain falls into our hands. but counteraction is immediate and sudden. Barrages of artillery and mortar fire are thrown upon us. Groups are isolated. Lines become confused.
During the period of confusion, Murph and his platoon encounter a German patrol. Several German soldiers are wounded; the rest surrender. One member of the platoon takes the prisoners who can still walk back to headquarters. The rest remain with the wounded Germans until a medic can be sent to them.
The wounded must be got under cover. The peculiar ethics of war condone our riddling the bodies with lead. But then they were soldiers. Swope's gun transformed them into human beings afain; and the rules say that we cannot leave them unprotected against a barrage of their own artillery.
They soon learn that all the available medics are tending wounded American soldiers. They realize that the wounded Germans cannot survive, so they stay with them until they all die, making them as comfortable as possible in the meantime.
We have broken open first-aid packets and started dressing their wounds. It is a habit. No more. We are all aware that a battalion of doctors could not undo the work of Swope's gun. But through instinct and training we are compelled to act.
Kerrigan has unbuttoned the old fellow's shirt, baring a shrunken chest. One bullet has pierced the left lung. "Superman," says the Irishman softly, "you should have been home with your grandchildren."....Brandon tucks the covers around them. "The poor bastards," he says softly. "What is death waiting for."
He understands the necessity of killing men when they advance upon him with arms, and in combat he is ferocious. But he does not comprehend the purpose of this drawn-out agony of dying. He does not apporve of it, yet he will do everything within his power to keep breath in these shattered bodies. So would we others. But we are all realists. Since there is no hope for life, we wish these men would die quickly.
Most of the sources I used for writing A Myth.. are boxed away, so I don't have the complete information, but I remember one of the articles Murphy wrote for a Dallas newspaper in the summer of 1945. He spoke of a situation in France, nearer the end of the war in Europe, where some prisoners were killed. I don't remember the exact circumstances without rereading the article. But the Italian campaign was fairly early in these men's war. They still had the debacle at Anzio to go through, and their heavy losses in France. Time and blood would lessen their compassion, I would suppose. Sometimes, it is difficult to separate the good from the evil, they are so intertwined.

AJ
"Sacred space and sacred time and something joyous to do is all we need. Almost anything then becomes a continuous and increasing joy."

A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on the Art of Living
User avatar
noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:39 am

AJ,

Well, I can understand coming across wounded enemy soldiers and providing medical aid if they needed it and were rendered harmless. There was a scene in All is quiet on the Western Front where the German soldier assists a dying Frenchman.

But I know human nature.

Imagine that your platoon is ambushed. One or two of your buddies is killed – someone you’ve shared a lot of pain with already. And then one of the enemy responsible for it surrenders – after the damage is done. And you know, as an American soldier, that even if you could get them to a prison camp that they will be treated well until the end of the war. They will get that voyage back to the States that you only dream about – while you and your surviving comrades have to face the hell in front of you again and again. And who wants to waste time and energy making sure one or two enemy prisoners arrive at their destination.

It’s different if a whole big army surrenders. That’s news worthy and disheartening to the enemy. But some little ambush – well – better luck next life buddy.

I know human nature. Real life war heroes are not like the heroes in the movies. But it’s interesting to see how film has progressed toward realism since the end of WWII.

- NoMan
wags
Associate
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: columbus, ohio

Post by wags » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:16 pm

hi, thanks for the welcome NoMan,
a warrior who defends for self-preservation, again, his decision, say choice A, is viewed different than a warrior who falls into the trap of following someone else's decision, say choice B. for choice B's decision is made through the eyes of choice B's life, what is his motivation and is he or she telling the warrior the real reason for the fight? being someone who has been termed a "hero" i can say that the actions i took were my own for the preservation of someone else's well being in the matter of seconds, it was not a well thought out plan to act, you just act as you have been trained, again, choice A, choice B was to do nothing, not an option for me, i chose the path of a servant in this life, to serve brothers and sisters simply because, in my eyes, they needed help. let me say that i have never been to war, but i have seen the effects it has on my brother who served as well as friends and coworkers. i respect there decision to fight, choice A, but, they fell into the trap, the trap of revenge, the trap of the school yard, 10 yr. old, "i'll beat you up "trap told to them by the people who can make it possible for them to "kill or be killed". they get this mentallity in the service and come home unprepared to live this life, no one works with them to acclimate them to the world they left and so the cycle continues, a warrior without a cause, if you will. often the warrior returns to a life of medical problems, as my brother did, and will live their lives disabled, with a small pension, not enough to live above the poverty level. they can't work because that would cause them to lose their pension. some 30 to 50 percent of the warriors, over time, are homeless. most warriors will now deny those who they followed, feeling lied to and as no value to them, and themselves. what a price to pay. so they may have acted ,during the war, in a such a way as to be a hero to there fellow man, but the otherside looks at them as their enemy. just my view.
may peace preceed your every step, wags
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:23 pm

Hi wags... I deleted the duplicated post.

Great post, btw. Your voice is most welcome here.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
wags
Associate
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: columbus, ohio

Post by wags » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:47 pm

hi clemsy, and thanks for the welcome and the deletion, it's the double clicks that always gets you in trouble. ha! i am enjoying the site and have been a jc reader for a while. one of a few people who have been able to help keep my mind and spirit moving forward.
may peace preceed your every step, wags
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:01 am

Welcome to the forum Wags.

Nice thoughts you presented.

jufa (You are never alone!)
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
A J
Associate
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:00 am
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

Post by A J » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:55 pm

Just got my latest issue of TIME. This article, "What Makes Us Moral," falls right in line with the latest direction this thread has taken.


http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ ... 19,00.html

AJ
"Sacred space and sacred time and something joyous to do is all we need. Almost anything then becomes a continuous and increasing joy."

A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on the Art of Living
wags
Associate
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: columbus, ohio

time,time mag mag ,has got me, on the rag rag

Post by wags » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:57 pm

ah joni mitchel,, in new one day she would say what i needed to say!!

after reading the article,and he does make some good points, i have a few points in question.
he seems to contradict himself concerning how we become moral. in one breath he states we are born with it, later he states we are taught it.
he also makes some broad statements about humans being the wisest, principled ect... the only species with language... tools... i guess maybe what i am getting at is just because we consider ourselves smart ect.... does not mean that the other creatures on this planet don't possess the same attributes, we can't see or hear them communicate, or how about they don't need to verbally communicate as we do. same old same old, just because we can't see it, hear it , feel it, smell it, does not mean it's not there! just because a blind person can not see the moon does not mean it's not there.

as he went into the dilemmas on trading one life for five and the 85% said they would not push the man on to the tracks.... i guess i would venture to say that they did not want the death of 1 man on their soul, as the pusher, as they only have direct control over their own actions. the hero would jump on the tracks himself and save them all.

that's a few of the points i have, other views? and as always....
may peace preceed your every step, wags
RDCharlton
Associate
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Pacific NW USA

Post by RDCharlton » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:19 pm

wags wrote: but, they fell into the trap, the trap of revenge, the trap of the school yard, 10 yr. old, "i'll beat you up "trap told to them by the people who can make it possible for them to "kill or be killed". they get this mentallity in the service and come home unprepared to live this life, no one works with them to acclimate them to the world they left and so the cycle continues, a warrior without a cause, if you will. often the warrior returns to a life of medical problems, as my brother did, and will live their lives disabled, with a small pension, not enough to live above the poverty level. they can't work because that would cause them to lose their pension. some 30 to 50 percent of the warriors, over time, are homeless.
Wags,
As a former soldier, part of a group colloquially known as the "Green Berets," I am afraid I must disagree with you on several fronts. First is the most obvious, your assertion that “30%-50%” of returning soldiers are homeless over time. I understand and respect your anti war stance, but this statistic is grossly erroneous.

http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1 is a VA website dealing with homeless veterans and offers actual statistics, including the finding that their service is NOT the primary causal source of their homelessness. The two primary causes are mental illness and addictions. I suppose someone might attempt to make the argue that military service is the cause of the mental illness and addictions, however this does not prove out statistically as the incidence of both are in line with the incidence in the general population. So, from a scientific point of view, there simply is no substantive connection between service and homelessness.

Second, I must strenuously disagree with your schoolyard bully/revenge mentality. I spent years as part of a group which most consider synonymous with the term “warrior.” I can state unequivocally that you are mistaken in your impression of the soldier’s mentality. I can offer specifics if you like, but don’t want to clutter up the board unless they are wanted.

You are absolutely correct, however, in your assertion that not enough effort is made to facilitate a return to society. I believe, however, that more attention is being paid to this problem and that it will soon be better addressed.

Finally, though there are other points which I will refrain from addressing, is your comment about disability compensation. I receive disability compensation, though not at 100%, so I have personal knowledge on this issue. Scaled payment is offered from 10% disabled to 100% disabled, with many more benefits being offered by both state and federal agencies along the way. Someone who is considered 100% service connected disabled by the VA receives $2,471 if they are alone, $2,711 if they have a spouse and child, and an additional amount for each dependent after that. Keep in mind that this is disability income, so is tax free. In addition they receive free health care for life (which actually begins at 40% disabled), their children’s college tuition is paid, and many more benefits besides. You can see the current compensation tables here: http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/comp0106.htm#BM05 . There are also other links enumerating the many benefits offered. Incidental work does not negate benefits, but if someone is able to have a career then obviously they are not 100% disabled.

My sincere apologies if this post came across as defensive. I tend to take issue with the plethora of disinformation which is often offered as fact by various organizations. I am certain this was not your intent (to repeat disinformation), but felt I needed to correct the record a bit with actual data.

Bear
RDCharlton
Associate
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Pacific NW USA

Post by RDCharlton » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:56 pm

In reading over my response to Wags I realize that it may appear to be very off topic. While this is true, perhaps I can offer a rationalization which is more on topic?

The warrior, as some have already said, is much more than simply a literal battlefield persona. Any barbarian can kill on the battlefield, but being a true warrior, an iconic warrior if you will, is much more than this. In fact, I consider the Dalai Lama to be a great warrior even though he is a pacifist. I would consider Gandhi a great warrior, though also a pacifist. A warrior mentality is totally separate from violence and killing. Like the samurai and their bushido code, fighting may be an adjunct component, but fighting only occurs with a reason, a purpose. Indiscriminate killing is the realm of the barbarian or the mythic monster which the Hero Warriors devote their life to slaying.

Being a warrior is more about concepts than physical force. Concepts like honor, service, perseverance are integral. Things like a victim mentality or an entitlement mentality are anathema to a warrior. But this is exactly how many of the anti-war organizations attempt to paint those who served in the military, and this is primarily done through erroneous information.

And thus, my rant above.

It was not intended to be against any individual, but rather my reaction to the victim mentality being tied to soldiering. So, again, my apologies if the previous post was off topic or came across as defensive. And, also again to Wags. I know disinformation was not your intent.

Bear
Locked