WOMEN AND WAR
COMPARATIVE COLONIALISM

           In colonial conquests, war is inevitable. In order to expand and appropriate lands in pursuit of profits, war has become a permanent feature of colonial rule. While war is destructive, its effectiveness is appropriating goods for capitalistic means is quite productive. War, in essence, requires the organization of an army, which build forts and camps to house troops, which creates a protected location by which attacks can be launched. The embodiment of war is physically represented by the military, and the face at the front of that physical representation, is the soldier. War, the military, and the soldier, carries with them this traditional air of masculinity, or an assumed idea of what masculinity must be. That to be masculine is to be strong and decisive. That to be one thing, must mean the abolishment of its opposite. That to be masculine is to not be feminine. This dichotomy between what is considered feminine and what is masculine widens and is hyper-defined in cases of war. And the lasting effect of their definitions bleed into civilian culture even after a war has ended.

           This dichotomy of gender roles and their application to war has been seen throughout history. With respect to the American colonial conquests and he establishment of the American empire we know today, colonial women took on a more domestic purpose, while men tried to take on the new world. The purpose was to seize territory and appropriate lands to persists the capitalistic agenda.  The 18th century was riddled with wars that emancipated colonial America from British rule due to several treaties that had been drafted by the British with the native others over the land. The treaties had prevented American colonialists from expanding and conquering native lands. This began a series of wars that ended with America’s liberation from British rule, and declared independence. While also declaring independence from British rule, this also liberated them from the treaties that had been created. This then allowed for American colonists to declare independence on natives. The following centuries constituted of a westward expansion to acquiring what we now know as the continental US, it’s freestanding states of Alaska and Hawaii, and its numerous territories. While territories were at one point candidates to become states themselves, most of them held power under federal tutelage. This allowed territories to develop institutions, grow their populations, and participate in the voting/election process. Prior to becoming an established state, each colony had to become a copy of American fundamentals. Therefore, each colony was expected to uphold these same ideals, laws, and culture. Colonies also served as outposts to the American empire. Establishing an empire implies how this governing body is viewed by other governing bodies, and within what context. Furthermore, in what ways does this governing body protect its interests. Which proposes the question of what might be the relationship between war and empire.

​

           An empire is represented in both visible and invisible ways, with respectable purposes for governing. The disembodiment of an empire is invisible and indirect. These methods are established through treaties, alliances, and even cultural exchanges. Covert operations act as an invisible militaristic representation of empire. They carry out discrete campaigns to manage political climates with the intent to participate in assassinations, proxy wars, and aid local governments. Covert operations also seek to gain access in places where a more visible and obvious representation of an empire would not be possible. The embodied representation of an empire is more obvious, and by being so, it is more visible. We can think of the visible form of an empire as being the physical occupation of territories. For the United States, this would include places like Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, the Continental US, in addition to other sites across Europe, South East Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. These other sites are often referred to as colonial archipelagos. Yet we also call these archipelagos by another name: military bases.

​

            US military bases serve as the embodied and physical representation of the colonial empire. Their purpose is to serve as a base network in areas that can either be domestic or foreign. Outside of the United States, these military bases serve under United States sovereignty. Foreign military bases equip themselves with high security and are extremely very self-contained. Usually very heavily guarded, military bases are segregated fortresses that are highly restricted to civilians. The function of a military, aside from the physical representation of an empire, is to establish a position of power. This establishment of power can be seen through commercial, political enforcement of that power. A military serves to protect the empire and the population inhabiting it. Military bases also serve as areas to expand technology advances, to be cites of transport between archipelagos, to serve as an area to communicate with or from, and an area to develop weapon systems. But another very visible and purposeful characteristic of the military and military bases, is the very real and the earnest potential of war. Because to have an empire requires that there also be a military, and to have a military is to be prepared for a war eventually. So to be without war, would be to lack purpose for a military, which would then propose the lacking need of an empire; utopia. The United States protects its empire and its interests via this embodied and disembodied representations of their military. Yet if the military is a complex collective, boding the question of who are the real agents of war in the physical sense? Weapons pose a threat to mortality, yet are material at best without a user, making the real agent of war the users. Soldiers are the most visible agents of war, yet their coming into being is far more complex.

            The process of making a soldier is arduous and emotionally exhausting. The strenuous process is not without purpose. The successful body of the soldier is represented to make war as well as signifying the permeant possibility of it. The making of a soldier happens in 3 disciplinary phases: 1) subjugation, which is considered the de-individualization of one’s single identity, 2) weaponization, which is considered the hyper-masculinized mindset of the now reprogramed soldier, and lastly 3) collectivization, which is considered the resocialization and collective mindset notes by soldiers. The entire process requires that the individual is stripped from their esteem and mindset, and replaced with the militaristic agenda. The process of subjugation acts like a rite of passage (getting haircuts, everyone looks the same). Troop members endure harsh slurs intended to de-individualize them. While in basic training, the troops themselves are in enclosed supervision and are exposed daily, with little to no privacy. Humiliation is a tactic used to drain a prospective militarily operatives of their pride and individualism. The next process is known as weaponization. This is the process by which soldiers have already been broken down, but are now ready to be rebuilt and reprogrammed. This is the stage in basic training where soldiers become physical weapons. The last stage of becoming a soldier is collectivization, or the process by which a soldier develops his comradery. That the soldier is no longer alone or individualized, that he is a part of a brethren and brotherhood. John Leech talks about this mindset of a soldier creates a collective between brothers, so much so that they'd be willing to sacrifice their lives for another, for the sake of the survival of the brethren.

​

           The hyper-masculinity developed through the making of a soldier is defined as being everything and anything but feminine. In this context, to be feminine is to be everything that retards or slows down or blocks the ability for weaponization of the soldier. That to be feminine is to be soft and indecisive. A soldier must then be objected or expelled from his own body and wills. Because to be feminine is to be docile and to be weak. Feminity is therefore seen as a threat to the making of a soldier and used against the soldier during the process. As a result, this threat of feminity translates into forming a sense of an enemy. That to be masculine is to be strong, brave, hard, and decisive.  There is a sense of ambivalence with how this mindset contributes to the mindset of how a soldier views femininity and those who are feminine. The enemy then becomes both the idea of femininity and those who are feminine.

​

           In the case of the war in Vietnam, the enemy was established as the native other, yet was at its extreme with respect to the feminine native other. Under the collectivization, soldiers forge a sense of solidarity against the native other. They set them apart and treat the menace as if she is an existential threat to the community, or in the case of war and the brotherhood, she is a threat to the military, and more extremely, a threat to the American culture.  The most important elements of the forging solidarity amongst soldier versus their enemies, are that on the outside their solidarity is to each other, while on the inside, that sense of solidarity is part of the soldier’s identity. And part of the conditioning of a soldier is riding the soldier of his weakest parts, his feminine parts. So there is an internal struggle of threat that is maximized by the presence of the feminine other. The enemy in this case, is a figure of ambivalence, which is reoccurring in the form of the native prostitute.

​

           The native prostitute is a kind of enemy in two different ways. One, she is seen as a sexual need, satisfying the weaker, less masculine parts of the soldier. While two serving as a threat to the soldier’s integrity, through his body. This double edged sword serves as a support for the soldier and a potential threat to the soldier. Historically, prostitutes have been used in military campaigns throughout the ages. Prostitutes often times accompanied military forces out of need. War would often create conditions that set for a rise in demand for and supply of sex work, where men, women, and sometimes even children, were left with just their bodies as means for survival. War traditionally brought a lot of male soldiers who were often the potential buyers of sex. Post WWII, the regulation of prostitution gave rise to “rest and relaxation” areas (R&R). This allowed an area for soldiers to limit their relationships with locals, and created a more regulated area for prostitution to exist.

​

           To say war is inevitable is to say prostitution is inevitable, especially in case of colonial conquest where marginalization of one group is too, inevitable. Yet the dichotomy between what is or isn’t masculine has greatly decreased over the years, the position of strength in a setting of war seems to becoming redefined. The essence of colonial conquests and appropriation is far from ceasing, meaning the elements of creating militaries to protect personal agendas, may also be far from ceasing. The redefinition of the feminine position is needed as we move forward with collectivization as a community. Because at the end of the day, our communities, either large or small, matter.