Butterscotch
War Child
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 716
On the radio this morning, I heard the DJ's rallying for the local can drive for the food banks, as they always do. They listed places where the food should be taken, and one of these was the US Army recruiting office. They usually don't say a thing about that, but today they actually went into a semi-commercial for joining up, saying once you drop off your cans, the recruiters will give you all the info you need to make a decision on whether or not to join.
That is not exactly what I am upset about, though I do find it kind of morally wrong. The thing that is eating at me is that they also went on to tout how much money a person would get as a 'signing bonus', in some cases up to 50 grand! It made me think this is almost like 'buying' soldiers. Worse than that, it's almost like enticing poor families to feel that maybe one of their kids should be 'sold' to the US military in exchange for saving the rest! (or that the child him/herself would feel guilt tripped into this option)
Okay, I know that's not what they're saying, or implying, but come on, isn't that basically what it amounts to in many cases? Who joins up more than anyone but the poor, or those who live in places where they have little to no future or job prospects? Say there's a poor family with about 6 kids in the ghetto, or a dirt farm in Oklahoma, or in the desert of New Mexico, whose finances are grim and have no hope of improving. With one of the children joining up, the rest of the family could be better off. Of course there is a chance that he or she could be killed, but then it would just be written off as 'their sacrifice' and 'they'd have wanted it this way.' It's like a throwback to the days when little boys were more or less 'sold' to work on a ship in exchange for a sum that would help the rest of the family survive. Has it come to that? Can you see how it may look that way?
That is not exactly what I am upset about, though I do find it kind of morally wrong. The thing that is eating at me is that they also went on to tout how much money a person would get as a 'signing bonus', in some cases up to 50 grand! It made me think this is almost like 'buying' soldiers. Worse than that, it's almost like enticing poor families to feel that maybe one of their kids should be 'sold' to the US military in exchange for saving the rest! (or that the child him/herself would feel guilt tripped into this option)
Okay, I know that's not what they're saying, or implying, but come on, isn't that basically what it amounts to in many cases? Who joins up more than anyone but the poor, or those who live in places where they have little to no future or job prospects? Say there's a poor family with about 6 kids in the ghetto, or a dirt farm in Oklahoma, or in the desert of New Mexico, whose finances are grim and have no hope of improving. With one of the children joining up, the rest of the family could be better off. Of course there is a chance that he or she could be killed, but then it would just be written off as 'their sacrifice' and 'they'd have wanted it this way.' It's like a throwback to the days when little boys were more or less 'sold' to work on a ship in exchange for a sum that would help the rest of the family survive. Has it come to that? Can you see how it may look that way?