As a direct result of feedback from soldiers, the U.S. Army, in a rare policy reversal, is rolling back a number of the restrictions it placed on tattoos just last year in March of 2014. Those restrictions, as part of the Military Uniform Regulations, were widely unpopular as it restricted the number and size of tattoos allowed below the elbows and knees. Soldiers with existing tattoos were grandfathered in, but the new regulations to all practical purposes created a ban on large arm or leg pieces and "sleeves" that extended past the elbow joint.
The Army published their revision of U.S. Army Regulation 670-1 0n April, 10, 2015 meaning that they are essentially in effect as of now. Under the new policy there are no longer any limitations on the size or number of tattoos that soldiers can have on their arms or legs. Unauthorized tattoo locations are now limited to the head, face and neck, and the hands and wrist, the lone exception being the allowance of a single tattoo wedding ring.
The list of unauthorized tattoos still stands.
- Extremist tattoos or brands are those affiliated with, depicting, or symbolizing extremist philosophies, organizations, or activities.
- Indecent tattoos or brands are those that are grossly offensive to modesty, decency, propriety or professionalism.
- Sexist tattoos or brands are those that advocate a philosophy that degrades or demeans a person based on gender.
- Racist tattoos or brands are those that advocate a philosophy that degrades or demeans a person based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said when making the announcement that the U.S. military needs to change alongside society, a tacit acknowledgement that there has been a major culture shift in the last two decades about the perception of tattoos, and body art in general within mainstream popular culture and that the military has to keep up with the times.
Aside from an undesirable effect on morale among tattooed members of the military, the 2014 regulations were rumoured to be having a negative effect on recruitment, a hardly surprising turn of events when one in three Americans aged 18 to 25 has a tattoo these days.
Said Gen. Odierno,"Society is changing it's view of tattoos, and we have to change along with that.
It makes sense. Soldiers have grown up in an era when tattoos are much more acceptable and we have to change along with that."
Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey noted that tattoos are still expected to be hidden when a service member is wearing an Army Service uniform with long sleeves.
"As long as it's not visible in the Army uniform... that's the spirit of what we went after".
Aside from the issue of turning away otherwise acceptable new recruits, the tattoo issue was also becoming a deciding factor in the decision of many soldiers of whether or not to re-enlist said Dailey at a press conference announcing the policy changes.
"You can't go anywhere without hearing about the Army's tattoo policy... I think this is a realization that we are in a different generation. Tattoos are more prevalent in young Americans than I think they ever have been throughout American history."
Interestingly enough, the latest Army regulations regarding tattoos is not that different from the dress code of the tattoo artists of the fifties, sixties and seventies. Many of those artists had full body suits of tattoos, yet when then they put on a suit and tie they could blend in easily with the crowd at the swankiest social affairs! This was tacit acceptance on the part of the tattoo fraternity that there would be occasions when life would simply be made easier if they could travel and mingle with a certain amount of body art anonymity within mainstream culture. Few mid-century tattoo artists had hand, neck or face tattoos. And nearly all of them actively discouraged such tattoos in their clientele, if only because such body art made it more difficult when it came time to seek employment, if nothing else.
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/uniform/
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/uniform/docs/uniform/Tattoo%20Branding%20and%20Body%20Mutilation.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment