NY Times: Why Does the US Military Celebrate White Supremacy?

[foszoe]

Nor do they care about facts.
They view truth as, not what the facts support, but that which they declare is true.

Name an news organization that cares about facts.

 

[Doug]

Some care more about facts than others.
Some care more about fairness than others.
Some, the majority of television networks, will lie by omission and commission, in order to attack opponents of the Democrat party.

And since somebody will undoubtedly ask for a link...

 

[foszoe]

Some care more about facts than others.
Some care more about fairness than others.
Some, the majority of television networks, will lie by omission and commission, in order to attack opponents of the Democrat party.

And since somebody will undoubtedly ask for a link...

Profit. That's all the national organizations care about.

 

[Route 45]

Not after Obama called Lincoln his favorite president.

Read some of Lincoln's letters, sometime.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Beowulf]

Timing aside, I think they have a point.

Why would you name United State military facilities (or anything for that matter) for traitors and enemies of the nation? If it's a matter of respecting bravery of enemies, should we have facilities named after Lord Cornwallis? Irwin Rommel or Isoroku Yamamoto? Perhaps Ho Chi Minh?

I frankly never understood the reverence that some Americans hold the Confederacy in, especially in the north. Last I checked, Indiana stayed in the Union, though you wouldn't necessarily know it with how many "Confederate Flags" people are flying (most of whom too stupid/ignorant to realize it isn't actually the Confederate flag, but rather either a modified flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or the Confederate Naval Ensign).

The Confederates were traitors to America, and their names, as well as their odious cause, belong in the dust bin of history.

 

[Doug]

They don't care a fig about racism. It's just something with which to attack Trump.

 

[two70]

Profit. That's all the national organizations care about.

If they care about profit, they sure are doing it wrong.

The agenda comes first, last and always.

 

[KLB]

Timing aside, I think they have a point.

Why would you name United State military facilities (or anything for that matter) for traitors and enemies of the nation? If it's a matter of respecting bravery of enemies, should we have facilities named after Lord Cornwallis? Irwin Rommel or Isoroku Yamamoto? Perhaps Ho Chi Minh?

I frankly never understood the reverence that some Americans hold the Confederacy in, especially in the north. Last I checked, Indiana stayed in the Union, though you wouldn't necessarily know it with how many "Confederate Flags" people are flying (most of whom too stupid/ignorant to realize it isn't actually the Confederate flag, but rather either a modified flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or the Confederate Naval Ensign).

The Confederates were traitors to America, and their names, as well as their odious cause, belong in the dust bin of history.

They are named in honor of Generals that were from the general area where the Fort is located. Your not going to find a lot of Generals from the South that weren't part of the Confederacy.

 

[mmpsteve]

Timing aside, I think they have a point.

Why would you name United State military facilities (or anything for that matter) for traitors and enemies of the nation? If it's a matter of respecting bravery of enemies, should we have facilities named after Lord Cornwallis? Irwin Rommel or Isoroku Yamamoto? Perhaps Ho Chi Minh?

I frankly never understood the reverence that some Americans hold the Confederacy in, especially in the north. Last I checked, Indiana stayed in the Union, though you wouldn't necessarily know it with how many "Confederate Flags" people are flying (most of whom too stupid/ignorant to realize it isn't actually the Confederate flag, but rather either a modified flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or the Confederate Naval Ensign).

The Confederates were traitors to America, and their names, as well as their odious cause, belong in the dust bin of history.

Your post leads me to believe you think the Civil War was only about slavery. That's not the case. There used to be a concept called States' Rights, i.e., that states retained all rights not enumerated by the Constitution to the Federal government. States joined the Union voluntarily. Were they wrong to believe they had the right to leave the Union voluntarily? Robert E. Lee, whom you apparently consider a traitor, was asked to lead the Union Army first, but decided his State's rights were more important. If States' Rights had been successfully defended and fought for (including after the Civil War) the Federal government might not be the monstrous beast it is today.

.

 

[Doug]

Rather than


about the causes of the War Between the States,

Can't we just

 

[KLB]

 

[HoughMade]

They are named in honor of Generals that were from the general area where the Fort is located. Your not going to find a lot of Generals from the South that weren't part of the Confederacy.

...and at the time, it may have made sense.

Not so much now since the Confederacy passed out of whatever existence it may have had 155 years ago.

Horrible to publish that on Memorial Day. That in and of itself shows that the Times editorial staff are a-holes and America haters. To headline this in a way that flat-out accuses the present military of white-supremacy is indefensible.

That being said, other than inertia, I don't see a reason to not change the names at this point.

 

[Doug]

Again, if they cared about it, they could have mentioned anytime in the last 15 years.
They brought it up now to attack Trump.

 

[HoughMade]

Again, if they cared about it, they could have mentioned anytime in the last 15 years.
They brought it up now to attack Trump.

I do not doubt that.

 

[foszoe]

I bet they will find newer Generals to name them after. If not now, in the next 50 years.

They are named in honor of Generals that were from the general area where the Fort is located. Your not going to find a lot of Generals from the South that weren't part of the Confederacy.

 

[Beowulf]

Your post leads me to believe you think the Civil War was only about slavery. That's not the case. There used to be a concept called States' Rights, i.e., that states retained all rights not enumerated by the Constitution to the Federal government. States joined the Union voluntarily. Were they wrong to believe they had the right to leave the Union voluntarily? Robert E. Lee, whom you apparently consider a traitor, was asked to lead the Union Army first, but decided his State's rights were more important. If States' Rights had been successfully defended and fought for (including after the Civil War) the Federal government might not be the monstrous beast it is today.

.

Huh, you learn something new everyday. Though you might want to get in your time machine and travel back to the founding of the Confederacy and let them know, cause they made it very clear that maintaining slavery was their primary reason for seceding. The states rights you are talking about is the right to own another human being. This revisionist view of the reasons for the Confederacy doing what it did is just mind boggling.

Other than slavery, what rights were they losing? The population shifts and economic shifts were happening due to industrialization and not slavery. In fact, the North was terrified of a industrialized South filled with factories manned by slaves. Immigrants were pouring into the North because that's where the jobs were. The South saw their voting power dwindling away and they saw the abolitionist movement growing. They only option to maintain their chosen lifestyle based on chattel slavery (and they being the elite of the Southern "aristocracy", not the poor dopes they roped into being cannon fodder for the mechanized war machine the North could unleash) was breaking free and starting their own entirely slave based nation.

Frankly, no one who proclaims to love freedom and the ideals this country was founded upon should hold the Confederacy in anything other than disgust and contempt.

 

[KLB]

...and at the time, it may have made sense.

Not so much now since the Confederacy passed out of whatever existence it may have had 155 years ago.

Horrible to publish that on Memorial Day. That in and of itself shows that the Times editorial staff are a-holes and America haters. To headline this in a way that flat-out accuses the present military of white-supremacy is indefensible.

That being said, other than inertia, I don't see a reason to not change the names at this point.

Personally, I'm not in favor of renaming things to placate someone's faux outrage. Ask the average person who those posts were named after, and I doubt very many will be able to tell you. If you don't know who a person was, how can you be offended by what they were?

 

[KLB]

I bet they will find newer Generals to name them after. If not now, in the next 50 years.

I'm sure that a Democratic President will come along and show everyone how socially conscious they are by changing the names of these posts. People still won't know who they are named after. For that matter, most people probably don't even know they are named after anyone.

 

[drillsgt]

Personally, I'm not in favor of renaming things to placate someone's faux outrage. Ask the average person who those posts were named after, and I doubt very many will be able to tell you. If you don't know who a person was, how can you be offended by what they were?

Agree, I was going to post something similar. These long-time posts are more than who they are named after, Benning is synonymous with the home of the Infantry (and now Armor), I can guarantee most cycling through there do not know who the post was named for, i've been going there for 20 years and wouldn't have known without that SJW article, and I still could care less. Fort Sill in Oklahoma, home of field artillery and ADA was born out of the Indian Campaigns after the Civil War should we close it down?

 

[Route 45]

Huh, you learn something new everyday. Though you might want to get in your time machine and travel back to the founding of the Confederacy and let them know, cause they made it very clear that maintaining slavery was their primary reason for seceding. The states rights you are talking about is the right to own another human being. This revisionist view of the reasons for the Confederacy doing what it did is just mind boggling.

Other than slavery, what rights were they losing? The population shifts and economic shifts were happening due to industrialization and not slavery. In fact, the North was terrified of a industrialized South filled with factories manned by slaves. Immigrants were pouring into the North because that's where the jobs were. The South saw their voting power dwindling away and they saw the abolitionist movement growing. They only option to maintain their chosen lifestyle based on chattel slavery (and they being the elite of the Southern "aristocracy", not the poor dopes they roped into being cannon fodder for the mechanized war machine the North could unleash) was breaking free and starting their own entirely slave based nation.

Frankly, no one who proclaims to love freedom and the ideals this country was founded upon should hold the Confederacy in anything other than disgust and contempt.

The idea that the south winning would have prevented the federal government from becoming a "monstrous beast" is so ****ing absurd that it is off the charts.