At least 347 and up to 504 civilians, almost all women, children and elderly men, were murdered by U.S. Army soldiers. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated, and some soldiers mutilated and raped children as young as 12.

only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., the leader of 1st Platoon in C Company, was convicted. He was found guilty of murdering 22 villagers and originally given a life sentence, but served three-and-a-half years under house arrest after his sentence was commuted.

Research has highlighted that the My Lai Massacre was not an isolated war crime. Nick Turse places it within a larger pattern of American atrocities enabled by deliberate policies from commanders, such as “free-fire zones” and “body counts”, as well as widespread racism amongst American military personnel. Many other atrocities were also covered up by commanders.

Why you should know about this: It is important to know about history so that we can learn from it, avoid the mistakes and atrocities of the past, and know which institutions have a history of performing atrocities, trying to cover them up, etc. and what that looks like.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    The issue here is humans. In large groups humans do terrible things. Usually in small group interactions they are pretty decent. It’s very odd. But probably the result of evolution. Other branches of “human” that didn’t act this way were probably wiped out by those that did.

    Edit: This is not an attempt to excuse or justify their actions. All of the men (and maybe women now too) who have done these things, and the leaders who let it happen should be punished severely. I have my own ideas on that punishment, but don’t want to start a debate on that.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Please tell me you’re not trying to excuse the rape of civilians as “it’s just what humans do”.

      It has nothing to do with evolution. These were angry men, taking out their frustration and anger of being drafted, watching their friends die for nothing in a jungle, on the local population. Rather than the government that sent them there in the first place.

      The source of their anger fueling their ruthlessness is not evolutionary. It’s manufactured by the ones that sent them there in the first place.

      Neither of which justifies rape or mutilation in any way. But it’s why they were capable of doing what they did. Anger and hate.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I’m not excusing it in any way.
        I wish I had a way to advance our evolution past this point so that we didn’t have a significant portion of the population that are monsters.

        • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          41 minutes ago

          Evolution. You keep using that word. But I don’t think it means what you think it means. Because this has nothing to do with evolution. Why are you trying to make this into some kind of evolutionary instinct?

    • bearboiblake@pawb.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      While I understand what you’re trying to get at - that humans in a group can do terrible things they wouldn’t do alone - what you wrote is simply not true in and of itself - large groups of humans do not necessarily conduct massacres, it’s far more of a function of the society and the conditioning of the people - these atrocities were conducted because those in the US military saw the Vietnamese as subhuman, and thus had no empathy for them. The reason they felt that way was because of societal conditioning.

      You may be surprised to learn that humans are actually the most co-operative animals on the planet - the scope, scale, and variability of human cooperation greatly exceed that of other animals. Our species is the only one we know of which demonstrates an innate willingness to help others we have nothing in common with.

      Some of the greatest accomplishments in human history have been achieved by humans working together to accomplish a larger goal. The ruling class divides and atomizes us to turn us against our best interests and our better natures so that we may be more readily exploited to their benefit.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        So both are true. Humans are the most co-operative. But if you look at the achievements, most are done to better one group of humans over another. Rarely is something done for the good of all humans. I’m actually struggling to think of even one thing that was done for the good of all humans. There must be a few, but I just can’t think of any.

        • bearboiblake@pawb.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Yeah, I get it. The most modern examples I can think of are probably things like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive. I guess you can make the argument that those ultimately benefit those in power too, which I would understand.

          You are basically right that the problem we have is that we allow our society to elevate some people over others, which is why I am an anarchist. I believe that we should abolish all unjustifiable hierarchies, and make all humans equal, through a social revolution. If you’ve not encountered this philosophy before, I’d encourage you to check it out. I think it is a very comprehensive analysis of the problems we have, and the only ideology I’ve encountered which actually takes into account human nature to take advantage of any power they have to gain benefits over others.