“A fight is going on inside of me,” he says to the boy. “It’s a terrible fight between two wolves. One is evil – he is full of rage, jealousy, arrogance, greed, sorrow, regret, lies, laziness, and self-pity.”
He continues, “The other is good – he is filled with love, joy, peace, generosity, truth, empathy, courage, humility, and faith. This same fight is going on inside the hearts of everyone, including you.”
The grandson thinks about this for a few minutes, and then asks his grandfather, “Which wolf wins?”
The old Cherokee simply replies, “They both win if you feed them right.”
“You see, if I starve one wolf, the other will become imbalanced with power. If I choose to feed only the light wolf, for example, the shadow one will become ravenous and resentful. He will hide around every corner and wait for my defences to lower, then attack. He will be filled with hatred and jealousy and will fight the light wolf endlessly.“
I’ll start with the first. To be human and creative is to constantly dream up a bunch of cool ideas to do. Unfortunately, our ability to dream is not coupled with the ability to do everything we dream up — yet we often forget that as we’re writing things down on our ToDo lists.
It’s often the case that we find jobs or other work that allows us to manage our own time or do our creative stuff in the time we own. And those periods can carry the same terror for us as a blank screen can for writers — they’re filled with so many possibilities that it’s hard to focus on any one thing and get going.
So, on the one hand, we overcommit ourselves and get frustrated. On the other, we don’t commit ourselves and don’t have a clear idea of what we need to be doing. The middle ground is clearly where we want to be, but how do we get there?
The Important Things We Do Fall into Create, Connect, and Consume Buckets
The important stuff that we need to do falls within three broad categories. We need to create something. We need to connect with people. And we need to take in and digest information — we need to consume.
I used to describe what we need to do using breath metaphors: you can’t breathe in and breathe out at the same time. Taking in information is breathing in, and creating something is breathing out. The reason I liked this metaphor is that it helps us think about how off-balance we are.
Consider how much of our lives we spend in school, in training, or just reading the works of other people, when what we need to do is take that information and output something. There’s a balance in the rhythm of breathing, just as there should be a balance in the intake and output of information.
Where the metaphor breaks down, though, is that connecting with people is not something that should be squeezed in in the leftover time. True, meaningful connections with people happen only when we take the time to invest in those relationships and people, and we can’t do that as a byproduct of creating or consuming. We all know this on some level, yet it’s both too easy to forget and hard to put on a list, so we leave connecting with people to chance, habits, and history. Chance, habits, and history don’t create meaning; intentions (and following through on those intentions) make meaning.
Though I’ve presented these as discrete categories, the reality is that it’s possible to connect with people while you’re creating and/or consuming. For instance, making the deliberate choice to watch a movie with someone and being fully with them while watching is a way to both connect and consume. Working on a collaborative project that all parties enjoy and find meaningful is a way to connect while creating.
Knowing that we have only those three categories of things that we actually need to do makes it easier on the day-to-day level to figure out what we need to be doing. And the fact that they’re all qualitative helps us get over the tendency to beat ourselves up — there’s not a list of things to do per se, as much as a meaningful metric we can use to evaluate our day.
We can also use the categories to help us set priorities for the day. We know on a gut level which component we need to be working on, and as we become more self-aware, we know what we’re capable of doing. There are some times in which we can’t be creative but we do have the energy and desire to connect with people. There are times when we don’t have it in us to either create or connect. And there are times when all we want to do is create.
At the same time, though, we can’t leave all of this stuff to fate; and this is especially true with connecting with people since they have their own lives and time. This is the point behind the heatmapping ideas: grab the reins of your creativity by learning how to figure out the trends in your days and weeks — trust me, they’re there — so that you can plan around when you’re going to be able to do what you need to do. If you’re especially creative from 9:30 am – 11:30 am, that time block is probably not the best time to be consuming. If you’re dead past 4:00 pm, don’t plan your creative work for that time.
Develop a list (I know, yet another list) of action items that relate to those three categories. For example, logging onto Twitter can be a great way to connect with people. So can reading blogs with the intention to comment rather than just read. Or see how your friends are doing.
Do a similar thing for consuming and creating. What counts? What doesn’t? Are there some activities that you can do that are synergistic, i.e., both creating and connecting?
It may help if you see this like building a deck of cards. You may have a Create deck, a Connect deck, and a Consume deck. They should all be things that are actually important to you. Then you can use the deck in one of two ways.
The point of all this is to get you out of trying to figure out what you need to do when you should be doing it. There’s a time to plan and review (a Weekly Review, perhaps?) and a time to do and hopefully, thinking about some of this helps you develop a system that works for you.Taking it to the next level: Can each aspect of our beings — the physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual — be viewed this way, too?
‘Whether we know it, or not, most of us react to life as victims. Whenever we refuse to take responsibility for ourselves, we are unconsciously choosing to react as victim. This inevitably creates feelings of anger, fear, guilt or inadequacy and leaves us feeling betrayed, or taken advantage of by others. I refer to the “Drama Triangle,” as the victim triangle. I’ve sometimes referred to the victim triangle as a “shame generator” because through it we unconsciously re-enact painful life themes that create shame. This has the effect of reinforcing old, painful beliefs that keep us stuck in a limited version of reality. I believe that every dysfunctional interaction, in relationship with other or self, takes place on the victim triangle. We move around the triangle as rapidly inside our own minds as we do out in the world.. inner drama of any kind perpetuates a vicious cycle of shame and self loathing. Moving around the triangle keeps the self-disparaging messages running.The victim triangle becomes our very own shame-making machine. It’s up to us to learn how to turn this noisy mental machine off.
Placing the three positions on a straight line with Victim in the middle, is a way of demonstrating that Persecutor and Rescuer are simply the two extremes, or shadow aspects, of victim-hood.
Persecutor —— VICTIM —— Rescuer’
The drama triangle is a social model of human interaction – It was conceived by Stephen Karpman, a student studying under Eric Berne, the father of transactional analysis. Karpman, who had interests in acting and was a member of the Screen Actors Guild, chose the term “drama triangle” rather than the term “conflict triangle” as the Victim in his model is not intended to represent an actual victim, but rather someone feeling or acting like a victim. It defines the unconscious roles people take on (and can switch between) in stressful, emotional or high conflict situations. It is what it sounds like – creating drama, creating stress, conflict or rescuing people from their own responsibility of looking after themselves. Being in the drama triangle, can also prevent people from creating and leading their own lives (i.e. a life they love.)
So to sum up, for a simple concept, the Drama Triangle can get bloody confusing. Maybe this is because it is so easy to move around a Triangle when nobody can ever really be a winner. We’re all too busy blaming and shaming each other to notice that all of the roles available are distinctly unhealthy.
The Winner’s Triangle was published by Acey Choy in 1990 as a therapeutic model for showing people how to alter social transactions when entering a triangle at any of the three entry points.
The Power of TED, first published in 2009, recommends that the “victim” adopt the alternative role of creator, view the persecutor as a challenger, and enlist a coach instead of a rescuer
All of the positions in the Winner’s Triangle can be seen to be positive and valuable: Assertiveness is not about domination, abusing power, or being better than others; Caring is being supportive without discounting the attributes or abilities of the Vulnerable; and Vulnerability is not about being powerless or laying blame. Nobody steps on the other person, no one is one-down. The only way to move into this Triangle is to commit to positive change, self-responsibility, learning and growth; and leave behind those who refuse to do so. Now is the time to extract ourselves from the toxic drama and move into the Winner’s Triangle.
The role of Starting Gate Victim is also a shadow aspect. It is the wounded shadow of our inner child; that part of us that is innocent, vulnerable AND needy. This child-self does need support on occasion – that’s natural. It’s only when we become convinced that we can’t take care of ourselves, that we move into Victim. Believing that we are frail, powerless or defective keeps us needing rescue. This relegates us to a lifetime of crippling dependency on our primary relationships.
The very thing a Rescuer seeks (validation and appreciation) is the thing Victims most resent giving because it is a reminder to them of their own deficiencies. Instead they resent the help that is given. SGV’s eventually get tired of being in the one-down position and begin to find ways to feel equal. Unfortunately this usually involves some form of “getting even” and can quickly move to a persecutor. For a SGV, a move to persecutor on the triangle usually means sabotaging the efforts made to rescue them, often through passive-aggressive behaviour.
In terms of derailing resilience, victims have real difficulties making decisions, solving problems, finding much pleasure in life, or understanding their self-perpetuating behaviours.
The Rescuer might be described as a shadow aspect of the mother principle. Theirs is a misguided understanding of what it is to encourage, empower and protect. In terms of derailing resilience, rescuers are frequently harried, overworked, tired, caught in a martyr style while resentment festers underneath. A Starting Gate Rescuer is the classic, co-dependent. The SGR tends be enabling, overly protective – the one who wants to “fix it.” Rescuing is an addiction that comes from an unconscious need to feel valued. There’s no better way to feel important than to be a savior! Taking care of others may be the Rescuers best game plan for getting to feel worthwhile.
Like the other roles, the Starting Gate Persecutor is shame based. This role is most often taken on by someone who perceived mental and/or physical abuse during their childhood. As a result they are often secretly seething inside from a shame based wrath that ends up running their lives. SGP’s tend to adopt an attitude that says; “The world is hard and mean … only the ruthless survive. I’ll be one of those.” In other words, they become perpetrators. They “protect” themselves using authoritarian, controlling and downright punishing methods. Their greatest fear is powerlessness. Because they judge and deny their own inadequacy, fear and vulnerability, they will need some place else to project these disowned feelings. In other words, they need a victim. SGP’s also tend to compensate for inner feelings of worthlessness by putting on grandiose airs. Grandiosity inevitably comes from shame. It is a compensation and cover-up for deep inferiority. Superiority is the attempt to swing hard to the other side of “less than” in order to come across as “better than.”
Ironically, a main exit way off the triangle is through the persecutor position. This does not mean we become persecutors. It does mean however, that once we decide to get off the triangle, there most likely will be those who see us as persecutors. (”How can you do this to me?”) Once we decide to take self-responsibility and tell our truth, those still on the triangle are likely to accuse us of victimising them. “How dare you refuse to take care of me,” a Victim might cry. Or “What do you mean you don’t need my help?” a primary enabler storms when their victim decides to become accountable. In other words, to escape the victim grid, we must be willing to be perceived as the “bad guy.” This doesn’t make it so, but we must be willing to sit with the discomfort of being perceived as such.
These are the most extreme versions of these three roles, but we can encounter people playing milder versions of these roles on a pretty regular basis.
The Victim Triangle
The Winner’s Triangle
Skills to learn
Listening and self awareness
Problem solving and self awareness
Moving through from the Drama/Victim triangle to the Winner’s Triangle
Obviously, these three roles need each other. If you function in one of these roles, you’ll try to draw someone into a corresponding role on the Drama Triangle. Or if you’re not in one of these roles, you may find someone else is trying to pull you into one of them.
The Drama Triangle Creates Pain and Misery
Most people operate from one primary or habitual role when they’re involved in a Drama Triangle. They typically embrace this role as their identity in life.
But we also move between roles. For example, a victim can become a persecutor or a rescuer can move into the victim role. You might even move between roles in a single conversation.
When you interact from a position on the Drama Triangle, you re-enact and reinforce painful beliefs and patterns that keep you from living a conscious, authentic, and fulfilled life.
So how do you move out of the Drama Triangle? Let’s take a look at the Empowerment Dynamic.
How to Get Out of The Drama Triangle
The Empowerment Dynamic was developed by David Emerald to help people move out of the Drama Triangle. It identifies three empowered roles: Creator, Coach, and Challenger.
Below are some of the actions you can take to move from a dysfunctional role in the Drama Triangle into an empowered one. You’ll have to take these actions again and again to create new modes of healthy interaction.
Victim -> Creator
To move from victim to creator take these steps:
Take responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and actions.
Think like a problem solver and use your creative imagination.
Take actions that will achieve your desires outcomes.
Instead of looking for someone to save you, learn to take care of yourself.
Focus on what you want instead of what you don’t want.
Ask empowering questions like: “What do I want?” and “What steps can I take to get what I want?”
Look at what’s going right in your life. You can do this by practicing gratitude each day, reviewing your accomplishments often, and appreciating the goodness in life.
Rescuer -> Coach
To move from rescuer to coach, take these steps:
Be helpful and supportive by acting like a teacher or a coach instead of a rescuer or a fixer.
Help people learn to solve their own problems instead of solving problems for them.
Encourage self-responsibility rather than dependency.
Set boundaries on the amount of time you’ll listen and provide support.
Ask empowering questions like: “What would you like to see happen in this situation?” or “What can you do to change this?”
Trust that the other person can solve their own problems.
Persecutor -> Challenger
To move from persecutor to challenger, take these steps:
Challenge people but don’t blame, criticize, or oppress them.
Be firm but fair in your interactions.
Ask for what you want, be clear but not punishing.
Address the consequences of their actions and set boundaries.
Ask questions like, “What do you think you react so strongly in this situation?” or “What would happen if you challenged the belief you can’t take care of yourself?”
Another empowered model, the Winner’s Triangle, was developed by Acey Choy in 1990. It recommends alternative ways of being to counteract the roles on the Drama Triangle: vulnerable and outcome oriented instead of victim, caring instead of rescuer, and assertive instead of persecutor.
Are You Ready To Get Out of the Drama Triangle?
There are characteristics of and consequences to being on the triangle that all three roles bear in common. Let’s talk about a few of them.
Lack of Personal Responsibility
Whenever we fail to take responsibility for ourselves, we end up on the triangle. Not even Rescuers, who pride themselves on being responsible, take responsibility for themselves. They take care of everyone else, but have no idea of how to do it for themselves. Not taking responsibility is a key identifying factor in recognizing when we are on the triangle. Persecutors shift responsibility by blaming others for their misery. Victims look for someone else to take responsibility for them. Not one of the three roles take responsibility for themselves.
As long as we chase ourselves and others around the triangle, we relegate ourselves to living in reaction. Rather than living spontaneously and free through self-responsibility and personal choice, we settle into dull and painful lives ruled by the agendas of others and our own unconscious beliefs. To experience a fulfilling life requires a conscious willingness to get off the triangle and extend grace to those still encumbered by their drama.
It’s not necessarily easy because we’ve practice and reinforced these patterns so many times. You need to give it your all. Take time to study the Drama Triangle and the Empowerment Dynamic. Journal about your reactions and and the role you see yourself playing. Make your own program to practice the skills for your corresponding role in the Empowerment Dynamic, one at a time.
Painful Beliefs Rule
Sometimes we simply need to sit with an uncomfortable feeling – such as shame, without acting on it. Shame does not necessarily imply that we have behaved wrong or unethically. Shame is often a learned response.
Frequently we get on the triangle through the port of painful feelings. It seems that many of us tend to let painful feelings rule us. We think a thought and it triggers shame or fear, which prompts us to react in a way that puts us back on the triangle. Our reaction is usually a misguided attempt to control or get rid of the painful feeling so that we can “feel better.”
Anytime we deny our feelings we set ourselves up for a victim perspective. Feelings are real. They are “energy-in-motion.” When we discount or undermine our emotions we end up being overtaken by them, becoming impulsive reactors. We can’t take responsibility for ourselves when we refuse to acknowledge our feelings, which means that these disavowed “inner tyrants” will go on driving our behavior from behind the scenes.
Although it is true that our feelings are generated by what we believe, feelings are nonetheless important. They alert us when we are thinking unhappy thoughts; feeling “bad,” for instance, lets us know we are thinking a most unhappy, possibly distorted, belief. Instead of denying the feeling, we learn to follow the feeling in to the belief behind it. This is where true intervention is possible. The feeling dissipates once the belief behind it is made conscious and addressed. We learn to recognise that our feelings are what point us to the limiting beliefs that are keeping us stuck on the triangle. When suppressed, these denied emotions become secret pockets of shame within the psyche. They only serve to alienate us from others and sentence us to a life on the triangle.
We tend to deny feelings and beliefs that we have judged as negative or unacceptable. As previously mentioned, we rescue ourselves by pushing these unacceptable parts into the dark unconscious. They don’t necessarily stay there, however. Whatever thoughts and feelings we don’t own, i.e., take responsibility for, will end up being projected out into our world, usually on someone we “love.” As soon as we judge some thought or feeling within us as unacceptable, we will unconsciously look around and find someone who has these same traits and hate them for it. This is called projection and it is a propelling force on the triangle. Projection ensures that the victim dance continues.
Chances are, you’ll return to and play out your former role in the Drama Triangle again and again. But every time you act from an empowered place, you build your capacity to interact in healthier and happier ways. Gradually, your relationships will feel more satisfying, you won’t feel so powerless, and you’ll be able to avoid toxic relationships that would only draw you back into the Drama Triangle.Your Turn: Which role on the Drama Triangle feels most familiar to you? What emotions come up when you see this? How do you notice when you’re in a self-defeating role and how do you get out of it?
Stress is usually characterized as an unpleasant and unwelcome feeling that expresses itself both physically and mentally. The effects of stress range from irritability and anxiety to raised blood pressure and heart disease. When you think of stress in these terms, it’s no wonder you spend so much time trying to manage or avoid it altogether.
But what if, instead of stressing over how to rid your life of stress, you focused on ways to use it to your advantage? What would happen if you perceived stress as a helpful companion with benefits to offer rather than as an irritating foe out to make your life harder?
As Dr. Kelly McGonigal describes in her bookThe Upside of Stress,it is this shift in mindset that allows you to have a healthier, even beneficial relationship with stress. Dr. McGonigal, a health psychologist, once shared the same stance a majority of health professionals have adopted: stress is bad and you need to eliminate it immediately before it affects your health. However, she discovered that perceiving stress through such a negative lens can actually be harmful to your health. On the other hand, when you view stress as a helpful tool and motivator, and learn how to harness it to your advantage, your health is less likely to be negatively affected. In fact, stress may actually begoodfor you if you learn to embrace it and use it properly.
Benefits of Stress
Often when you think of stress, the first thing to come to mind are its negative symptoms (i.e., panic, headache, tightening in the chest, etc.). But stress actually has an abundance of benefits to offer, such as:
Stress can serve as a great motivator for reaching goals or accomplishing simple tasks. Whether it’s landing a new job promotion, meeting a deadline, or tackling a to-do list, a little stress can push you to take action. If you didn’t feel any stress at all, you might not feel inclined to break out of your comfort zone, which is essential for personal growth.
When you experience small amounts of stress, you are actually building up your resistance to future stressors. According to theAmerican Psychological Association, over time humans are wired to adapt to stressful situations by building personal coping systems.
Boosting Cognitive Function
A 2013 studyfrom the University of California – Berkeley found that acute stress can generate new nerve cells in the brain, improving cognitive and mental performance. According to the authors of the study, a certain amount of stress can promote:
Optimal levels of focus
Enhanced learning of new tasks
Using Stress to Your Advantage
If stress has its benefits, then how do you take advantage of them? How can you make stress workforyou rather than against you?
Retrain Your Brain
As previously discussed, how you view stress can determine how it affects you. Retraining the brain to view stress as a helpful tool rather than a roadblock will take time as the latter has likely become deeply ingrained. While it will take some practice, it is possible to change your response when stress rears its head.
Replace the negative thoughts that typically arise at the first sign of stress with more positive ones, such as,I’m experiencing stress and welcome it fully.Then, think of how you could best use it to solve a problem or reach a goal. How can you make the stress workforyou?
Tip:Don’t stress over trying to think of a way to best use stress! This strategy will get easier over time. If you’re unable to think of how to take advantage of whatever stressor you’re facing, simply accept that it’s there. Sit with it rather than flee from it.
Reframe Your Perspective
When you attach purpose to a difficult situation, it becomes easier to handle or, at the very least, motivates you to handle it. When you reframe stressors in order to add meaning to your life, you are giving your stress a positive purpose.
Perhaps its purpose is one of the above benefits discussed such as motivating behavior, building resilience, or boosting cognitive performance, or it could be something else entirely. Pairing stress with a purpose will allow you to broaden your perspective as to why it exists and the benefits it provides.
Sometimes you feel stressed and can easily identify the cause; other times you’re unsure where it stems from. Pinpointing the root cause of your stress puts you in a position to work with it rather than against it. When you feel the symptoms of stress, either physically or psychologically, but don’t know what’s brought it on, you may feel as though you aren’t in control of what’s happening. However, identifying its origins and approaching it within a more positive framework puts you back in the driver’s seat.
Stress is a part of everyday life, and as much as you might try to will it away, it will inevitably creep up again. By making stress your ally, you can learn to use it to your advantage and perhaps even learn something new in the process. So next time you’re feeling stressed, accept it as part of the journey and embrace it whole-heartedly. You might be surprised by the result.
Political ignorance is far from the only factor that must be considered in deciding the appropriate size, scope, and centralization of government. For example, some large-scale issues, such as global warming, are simply too big to be effectively addressed by lower-level governments or private organizations
political leaders and influential interest groups often use public education to indoctrinate students in their own preferred ideology rather than increase knowledge.
indoctrination was one of the major motives for the establishment of public education in the first place.
A smaller, less complicated government is easier to keep track of.
Democracy and Political Ignorance is not a complete theory of the proper role of government in society. But it does suggest that the problem of political ignorance should lead us to limit and decentralize government more than we would otherwise.
The informational advantages of foot voting over ballot box voting strengthen the case for limiting and decentralizing government.
1 Ilya Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013), ch. 1.
3 Tony Blair, A Journey: My Political Life, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010), 70-71.
6 Bryan Caplan, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
8 Ibid. 110-17. For an important recent defense of this kind of argument, see Hélène Landemore, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence and the Rule of the Many, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
‘This happens because the means or mechanisms by which public attention is attracted and sustained is almost irrelevant to the modern MassMedia.. This internal inconsistency arises simply because the specific content of media is subordinated to the guiding necessity to attract and sustain public attention in a competitive media environment.’
Nietzsche: ‘What does not kill us will make us stronger’.
In World War One, the executions of 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers took place. Such executions, for crimes such as desertion and cowardice, remain a source of controversy with some believing that many of those executed should be pardoned as they were suffering from what is now called shell shock. The executions, primarily of non-commissioned ranks, included 25 Canadians, 22 Irishmen and 5 New Zealanders.
Between 1914 and 1918, the British Army identified 80,000 men with what would now be defined as the symptoms of shellshock. There were those who suffered from severe shell shock. They could not stand the thought of being on the front line any longer and deserted. Once caught, they received a court martial and, if sentenced to death, shot by a twelve man firing squad.
The horrors that men from all sides endured while on the front line can only be imagined.
“We went up into the front line near Arras, through sodden and devastated countryside. As we were moving up to our sector along the communication trenches, a shell burst ahead of me and one of my platoon dropped. He was the first man I ever saw killed. Both his legs were blown off and the whole of his body and face was peppered with shrapnel. The sight turned my stomach. I was sick and terrified but even more frightened of showing it.”
With no obvious end to such experiences and with the whole issue of trench life being such a drain on morale, it is no wonder that some men cracked under the strain of constant artillery fire, never knowing when you would go over the top, the general conditions etc.
Senior military commanders would not accept a soldier’s failure to return to the front line as anything other than desertion. They also believed that if such behaviour was not harshly punished, others might be encouraged to do the same and the whole discipline of the British Army would collapse. Some men faced a court martial for other offences but the majority stood trial for desertion from their post, “fleeing in the face of the enemy”. A court martial itself was usually carried out with some speed and the execution followed shortly after.
Few soldiers wanted to be in a firing squad. Many were soldiers at a base camp recovering from wounds that still stopped them from fighting at the front but did not preclude them from firing a Lee Enfield rifle. Some of those in firing squads were under the age of sixteen, as were some of those who were shot for ‘cowardice’. James Crozier from Belfast was shot at dawn for desertion – he was just sixteen. Before his execution, Crozier was given so much rum that he passed out. He had to be carried, semi-conscious, to the place of execution. Officers at the execution later claimed that there was a very real fear that the men in the firing squad would disobey the order to shoot. Private Abe Bevistein, aged sixteen, was also shot by firing squad at Labourse, near Calais. As with so many others cases, he had been found guilty of deserting his post. Just before his court martial, Bevistein wrote home to his mother:
“We were in the trenches. I was so cold I went out (and took shelter in a farm house). They took me to prison so I will have to go in front of the court. I will try my best to get out of it, so don’t worry.”
Because of the ‘crimes’ committed by these men, their names were not put on war memorials after the war. Many of their nearest relatives were told that they had died in France/Belgium but werenever told how or why.
A French military observer witnessed one execution by the French Army:
“The two condemned were tied up from head to toe like sausages. A thick bandage hid their faces. And, a horrible thing, on their chests a square of fabric was placed over their hearts. The unfortunate duo could not move. They had to be carried like two dummies on the open-backed lorry, which bore them to the rifle range. It is impossible to articulate the sinister impression the sight of those two living parcels made on me.
The padre mumbled some words and then went off to eat. Two six-strong platoons appeared, lined up with their backs to the firing posts. The guns lay on the ground. When the condemned had been attached, the men of the platoon who had not been able to see events, responding to a silent gesture,
picked up their guns, abruptly turned about, aimed and opened fire. Then they turned their backs on the bodies and the sergeant ordered “Quick march!”
The men marched right passed them, without inspecting their weapons, without turning a head. No military compliments, no parade, no music, no march past; a hideous death without drums or trumpets.”
Whether these men will ever receive a posthumous pardon is open to speculation. It is said by the government that the evidence required to go down this route simply does not exist after all these years. It may well be that a blanket pardon for all 306 men is not justified as some of
the men executed may well have deserted and did not have shell shock.
One of the many reasons that anger the campaigners is that far more men deserted in the United Kingdom than in France/Belgium (four times) but that no-one was ever executed for desertion actually in the UK. The actual legal status of court martials has also been questioned. The accused did not have access to a formal legal representative who could defend him. Some got a ‘prisoner’s friend’ while many did not even have this. Legally, every court martial should have had a ‘judge advocate’ present but very few did. The night before an execution, a condemned man had the right to petition the King for clemency but none ever did which suggests that none were aware that they had this right. On January 13th 1915, General Routine Order 585 was issued which basically reversed the belief of being innocent until found guilty. Under 585, a soldier was guilty until sufficient evidence could be provided to prove his innocence.
Immediately after the war, there were claims that the executions of soldiers was a class issue. James Crozier was found guilty of deserting his post and was shot. Two weeks earlier, 2nd Lieutenant Annandale was found guilty of the same but was not sentenced to death due to “technicalities”. In the duration of the war, fifteen officers, sentenced to death, received a royal pardon. In the summer of 1916, all officers of the rank of captain and above were given an order that all cases of cowardice should be punished by death and that a medical excuse should not be tolerated. However, this was not the case if officers were found to be suffering from neurasthenia.
Footnote: In August 2006, the British Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that with Parliament’s support, there would be a general pardon for all 306 men executed in World War One.
A new law passed on November 8th 2006 and included as part of the Armed Forces Act has pardoned men in the British and Commonwealth armies who were executed in World War One. The law removes the stain of dishonour with regards to executions on war records but it does not cancel out sentences. Defence Secretary Des Browne said:
“I believe it is better to acknowledge that injustices were clearly done in some cases – even if we cannot say which – and to acknowledge that all these men were victims of war. I hope that pardoning these men will finally remove the stigma with which their families have lived for years.” history learning site