Abuse among English Marines

Remove all ads!

im not so sure this is british to be honest, and i wouldnt put it past the news of the world to use a vid non related to britain and put this bull article behind it.

my evidence?:

you see an officer in a green uniform at the end... royal marines dont have green dress uniforms.

 

Actually, that's a rather bizarre phenomenon. The most visible example is a way of getting dogs to trust you:

First you have to get the dog to lie down on its side (paws away from you so you don't get clawed), and then you hold your arms over its neck and hindquarters for a while. It's helpless in this position and you could kill it if you wanted to, but you don't and that somehow gains the dog's trust.

The same thing applies here; getting beat almost to death can create a low level of subconscious trust because they didn't beat you all the way to death when they could have. Further (nice) actions are needed to cement it, but the seed is planted and trust grows. There is also something to a fair fight that tends to get a testosterone bond going.

 

Fear doesn't necessarily lead to trust, it more than likely leads to obedience. A dog obeys you because it fears you (if, of course, you hit it constantly). Getting beaten nearly to death would make me fearful, and thus obedient, because I would be scared to be beaten again. Trust (in the army) is being able to know that if you were dying, they wouldn't leave you behind; or if you needed someone to come rescue you, etc, they would.

 

Right, that's why the nice stuff afterwards is needed; to foster a sense of comradery rather than mastery. That's also why it needs to be a fair fight (rules agreed to) rather than unwanted abuse.

 

You don't even know what went on! The pictures could even be doctored for all you know! Jesus, anything for a good natter and debate .

 

That's explained in the article; it was a blue surgeon's outfit. And he wasn't an officer.

Summary:
The fighting is fine, the kicker has been disciplined, and the other stuff is hearsay for the moment.

 

@Felinoid:

I agree with the concept to an extent, but I suppose it doesn't look so black and white in practice. I mean, just how consensual initiation rites are. One thing when it's for a totally optional leisure club, another when it's a school and you need some education or the army. The element of pressure is too high. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough: being forced to strip to underwear when it isn't necessary and when the person isn't comfortable with it is bad. And you can't really have a good baptism kind of ceremony if you keep adding safeguards like "of course, you don't have to do this". It will lose charm if you previously say, "you can withdraw without shame at any moment you choose". Stripping to underwear in mixed company when the pressure borders on coercion is a definite no-no and so is stripping out of underwear even in same gender company. I would make an exception for requiring medical examinations which are necessary for the job and require the subject to show his privates to same gender personnel. Many men don't really care if there's any female personnel in the room but some do and most women do. In essence: pressure towards nudity or anything sexually significant needs to be outlawed and prosecuted, even if the intent isn't immediately sexual (e.g. sticking something in a person's underwear doesn't have to be sexually intended, but it may well be a bad sexual experience for the target, depending on individual sensitivity; sexually charged comments may not be intended as an assault but still taken as such; prolonged and/or close and/or wide-area body contact with the opposite gender may well not be intended sexually but still have sexual significance for some people involved; especially females may feel violated, even sexually, if forced into a submissive position by someone of the opposite gender; etc etc). Even nagging is way too much in such circumstances highly charged with peer pressure (potentially also pressure from immediate superiors, especially in the army). Behaviour that matches the definition of assault or harassment should be prosecuted as assault or harassment. This means that soldiers and other people in service should be free to sue their superiors in normal courts (even military courts, but courts and not some ephemeric commission) and even if they lose, they should be transferred to a different unit to avoid revenge.

This may sound strict to you, but I just believe that it's better to have a hundred ceremonies banned altogether than just one person violated, even subjectively.

 

It seems like this is going to two different directions (even if those involved do not think so). One is the abuse during an initiation ceremony. The other is abuse in general in the military.

Initiation ceremonies are done to build comraderie. They may involve putting the individual at risk or in a compromising situation -- but only to build trust (that those in the unit would not allow any harm to come to any that belong). This example was clearly over the line and criminal. A point was made that in units like this the ceremony actually has the opposite effect and makes people not trust each other. An excellent point actually and one that most in the military recognize. I have been involved in many initiation ceremonies and none were abusive (some were very borderline though). Anyone could choose not to participate -- but at the cost of not being a welcome member of the group.

Abuse in the military in general is a more difficult thing. Some abuse is required (not sexual, not racial). One of the primary goals of boot camp is to weed out those that cannot take the stress -- being verbally abused is far less stressful than being shot at. Recruits also must learn to obey orders immediately, which can be quite a reprogramming process for the average teenager. Fear is an excellent motivator in the short term and drill sergents use it regularly. However, when successfully completed there is a bonding for those that 'survived' that lasts for years. The Navy tried a 'kinder and gentler' approach to boot camp which was a dismal failure. Individuals who should have been weeded out in boot camp were being discharged for psychiatric reasons in the fleet -- after the Navy spent tens of thousands of dollars in training on each person.

Some training requires full contact. There is no substitute. People get injured in hand-to-hand combat training. Any instructor that does not go full out is not preparing their students properly (this is literally life and death here). There are also courses which teach how to survive enemy capture -- these are quite brutal courses where violation of rules nets severe punishment.

 

I guess that the real crux of the issue is whether or not the initiation achieves its goal without damaging the victim too terribly. I used a religious baptism as an example of a socially acceptable initiation that does not place the person in any danger.

As for the military, while some initiations and training practices are necessary to encourage survival in combat situations, it is my opinion that many of them are not official practices but rather practices that have evolved to enable people to victimize others for their own pleasure.

 

First off I would like to apologise for bringing an old post back to life. I know its frowned upon but I have some insight into this topic that may prove interesting. [It's only frowned upon if you have nothing to contribute to the topic - BTA]

My best friend is a Marine. He is stationed not far from Bristol (where I now reside), in Plymouth (where I grew up).
His father was an officer in the Marines for 25 years, having fought in both the Falkland and Gulf wars during his career.
The father speaks very little of the combat he has seen (as is the way with many Royal Marines), but has assured me that he never saw any behaviour of this kind while he was with the force.
My best friend however, has a different story to tell. He has not experienced the same treatment as was documented on the video, but he has experienced severe bullying and physical abuse.
"Marines are verbally abused beyond reason and are put through physical hell".

I was surprised and shocked by this at first. However, he explained it to me this way.

The Royal Marines are the hisghest quality regular troop on the planet. Royal Marine does NOT translate into American Marine. Royal Marines are the British equivilent of Navy Seals. (which one is better is a long running debate that I will not enter).
The fact is that British Marines are expected to produce results in the harshest of conditions with the odds stacked against them. They are expected to deal with the most insane physical punishement.
If a Marine is not capable of coping with the physical and verbal abuse that he recieves through training then he will be risking his, and his friend's, lives in a combat situation.
It is as simple as that.
the fact is that many rules and standards regarding the treatment of soldiers are influenced by people who have never experienced combat.
My friend made it clear to me that he places more faith in his commanding officer than he does in anyone else on the planet.

Personally I like to sit on the fence.

[ January 12, 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

I can agree with that, but only if it doesn't include sexual abuse or beating, kicking etc.

 

The chap in question is from my area. There was an interview in the local paper where he stated that the exercise/event was purely a bit of fun and he was good mates with the man who knocked him out. There was no bullying and he couldn't believe it had gone as far as it had.