The People's Cultural Revolution

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    Call me crazy, but I have never understood why the United States had bases named after people who led an armed insurrection against the United States in order to preserve their perceived right to own other humans as property and exploit them for financial gain.

    They do not need to be erased from history, they deserve the same basic respect as our other past adversaries, but it's super weird to name a military base after a traitor.
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    Call me crazy, but I have never understood why the United States had bases named after people who led an armed insurrection against the United States in order to preserve their perceived right to own other humans as property and exploit them for financial gain.

    They do not need to be erased from history, they deserve the same basic respect as our other past adversaries, but it's super weird to name a military base after a traitor.

    I'm right there with you.

    Stranger yet; we still have Fort Lee and Fort Jackson, but no current Fort Grant or Fort Sherman. I don't get it.
     

    NKBJ

    at the ark
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2010
    6,240
    149
    I always appreciated what Sherman said about Grant.
    "He always stuck by me when I was crazy so I stuck by him when he was drunk."
     

    NKBJ

    at the ark
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2010
    6,240
    149
    Call me crazy, but I have never understood why the United States had bases named after people who led an armed insurrection against the United States in order to preserve their perceived right to own other humans as property and exploit them for financial gain.

    They do not need to be erased from history, they deserve the same basic respect as our other past adversaries, but it's super weird to name a military base after a traitor.

    Perhaps being taught that it was an insurrection is the problem.
    Seriously, that's also pretty much what I was taught in Texas schools.
    Later I learned about the 1850's trial Lincoln was involved in where the European controlled churches up the Mississippi Valley had been used as bases for secret operations to try to take back political control (great shades of liberation theology!). And how the federal government had been used to shift financial burdens to be upon agricultural states and it was acknowledged (published) in 1828 by the Vice-President that it would lead to hostilities. And how there were European agents provocateur to use divide and conquer tactics, to use the created points of contention to split up the country. And apparently there were agents of secret organizations within the governments of the sister republics to be sure the shooting started.
    And my teachers taught me what? Gaahhh!!!
    The more layers you peel back the more your eyes want to water.

    And as a side note, then I really came to understand the "house divided" speech. And I figured out that President Lincoln stomping on the constitutional rights of the press and individuals, and using underhanded maneuvers to get his way... well sure he did. He was on the hot seat and had to do what works with what he had to work with. Because he had already been steeped in the secret intrigues and took on the job to do what had to be done.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,693
    113
    .
    Long and short of the civil war was we were all Americans fighting. Regardless of whose side your ancestors were on it's long over. The statues and monuments were put up by Americans for Americans. In my opinion it's strictly a local issue.
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    It's absolutely a civil war.

    It's just hard for the average American to understand that war has progressed since ww2.
    It's 4th and 5th generational warfare being carried out. When the state is more absent than usual, sometimes it devolves into warfare that is more familiar.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,687
    77
    Camby area
    I understand it was about professional competency and professional respect. Yes, they were on the losing side, but the ones granted naming rights were DAMN good at what they did.

    And having some damn racists in the selection process sure didnt hurt either.
     

    Wolfhound

    Hired Goon
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    45   0   0
    Apr 11, 2011
    3,966
    149
    Henry County
    I'm right there with you.

    Stranger yet; we still have Fort Lee and Fort Jackson, but no current Fort Grant or Fort Sherman. I don't get it.

    Not trying to be picky Rob but there is (or was?) a Fort Sherman in Panama. It is where the US Army jungle school was located for many years. There were also coastal artillery batteries there during World War 2. I spent many months there and attended the jungle school before we booted Manual Noriega out of power. It is now in the hands of the Panamanians thanks to Jimmy Carter.

    Edit: I see now you used the word current Fort Sherman which is correct. My apologies.
     

    Dutchisaurus

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 30, 2020
    430
    28
    US
    Call me crazy, but I have never understood why the United States had bases named after people who led an armed insurrection against the United States in order to preserve their perceived right to own other humans as property and exploit them for financial gain.

    They do not need to be erased from history, they deserve the same basic respect as our other past adversaries, but it's super weird to name a military base after a traitor.
    Because before all of that Northern Aggression stuff they were US Soldiers and as such are veterans still entitled to honor.

    These men Braved the west to fight indians and the Mexican War.
     

    jwamplerusa

    High drag, low speed...
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 21, 2018
    4,210
    113
    Boone County
    It's absolutely a civil war.

    It's just hard for the average American to understand that war has progressed since ww2.
    It's 4th and 5th generational warfare being carried out. When the state is more absent than usual, sometimes it devolves into warfare that is more familiar.

    Tombs, bit of a sidebar, but what do you consider 5th generation warfare? The only reference I really have to the generational changes in warfare is Major Jeffrey L. Cowan's U.S. Air Force MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIES thesis "From Air Force Fighter Pilot to Marine Corps Warfighting: Colonel John Boyd, His Theories on War, and their Unexpected Legacy". Major Jeffrey L. Cowan defined 4th generation as "...4th generation warfare will be characterized by an "increased reliance on irregular/urban combat, with intermingling of friendly, hostile and neutral parties." According to Spinney, "the rise of 4th generation warfare implies an increased need for irregular warfighting skills ... with decreased reliance on firepower/attrition in ground warfare ... [And] decreased reliance on deep strike/strategic bombardment in air warfare.".

    I've Googled the term, but didn't find references which had hooks back to material I was familiar with which were substantive. The closest I could come was some comments by Mr. Chet Richards on his Defense in the National Interest site. https://dnipogo.org/another-view-of-45-gw/#more-133

    The references I did find, did describe some of what we saw with the recent unrest. If you attribute much of the violence to organized actors (AntiFA) and consider the bricks and fuel to have been placed war fighting material (I do); then the argument is reasonable that the "rioting" was 5th Gen warfare.
     

    NKBJ

    at the ark
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2010
    6,240
    149
    Raising the side bar of 4th generation warfare...:):

    In the days of big yard dishes, dearly loved watching Bill Lind's TV show Modern War.
    Greatly enjoyed his novel Victoria as well.
     

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Long and short of the civil war was we were all Americans fighting. Regardless of whose side your ancestors were on it's long over. The statues and monuments were put up by Americans for Americans. In my opinion it's strictly a local issue.

    Well... some statues at some times were put up by Americans for certain Americans.


    It's absolutely a civil war.

    It's just hard for the average American to understand that war has progressed since ww2.
    It's 4th and 5th generational warfare being carried out. When the state is more absent than usual, sometimes it devolves into warfare that is more familiar.
    Pfft. I'm already into 8th generation warfare; keep up.
     
    Top Bottom