Renaming Confederate Named Military Installations.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts

I don't understand all this anger. Changing a few names won't change history. Nor will it clean up the ghettos, disarm the gangs, fix the schools.

Pulling down statues is a punk move, it's what thugs do. It's easy but pointless. Once the statue is at the bottom of the river, life just goes on as before.

Renaming things is an ignorant move, that creates more ignorance.

Addressing the actual problems of the African-American community is hard. It's what real leaders do.

What did that mayor of D.C. accomplish with her "Black Lives Matter Plaza" or whatever it's called? Black violence in the city remains very high, corruption in city government is just as bad, and if anything there's even more racial animosity than before.

I respect real leaders, not thugs and ignorant people.

It may not change history.
It may improve the present and future.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by webster

There was a big stink in Richmond when Ashe's statute went up on Monument Ave. There was another big stink when a statue of Lincoln was proposed for Richmond. A smaller version of it is at the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond.

We are still waiting for the VA State Supreme Court to rule on whether the Lee statue will come down. Either way, the Governor has established a commission to redefine how Monument Ave will look now that the other Confederate statues have come down...or as Tom Robbins wrote about Monument Ave: the banana belt of snuffed generals (Even Cowgirls Get the Blues).

I love that Lincoln statue!

Despite my general feelings, Monument Avenue was impressive. It was a difficult choice.

[amil23]

Rachel NewYork:
Your suggestion about new base names is waayy better than mine! What a great idea!

[Rachel NewYork]

Originally Posted by amil23

Rachel NewYork:
Your suggestion about new base names is waayy better than mine! What a great idea!

Well, thank you, amil23! I'll repost it here for those who may be wondering what we're talking about:

Originally Posted by Rachel NewYork

I have difficulty remembering my own phone number so I don't think I'd be in favor of our military bases being named in geographic coordinates, like "Fort 35/79." But I do like your suggestion of not naming them after people again.

If you ask me, I'd like to see at least four of those bases named Fort Allegiance, Fort Republic, Fort Liberty, and Fort Justice -- words from our Pledge of Allegiance, to remind all of the importance of keeping the nation intact and indivisible.

I've never really been a fan of naming any public/government/military installations after people, or erecting statues of people, as it always seemed kind of idolatrous, to me.

I'd much rather celebrate ideas instead of individual people.

[Slater]

If there's Confederate flags flying/displayed in rural Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc, maybe you have bigger issues than a few military base names...

[ackmondual]

Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner

not to make any subject more involved than it already is....... but if you seperate the personal side of a person and just look at the say.......political/military side; he may be very close to perfect for the sake of what he did or sacrificed for just that part. If you include his personal side IE slave owner, personal prejidices etc....then far from being a saint. Of course I also believe in that adage "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Many of the founding fathers were indeed aware of their hypocrisy in the saying "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Especially since they themselves owned slaves. They acknowledged that slavery was an issue, but not something they can deal with right away (they just won vs. Great Britain. They didn't want to go through another battle with the half of the US that wanted to keep slavery). Slaves did actually fight for America's freedom. They were promised freedom, but letters to Washington, unfortunately went unanswered. FWIW, Washington did have a slave that was with him to consult on matters. He would be seen riding alongside Washington himself.

[ackmondual]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Historical problems do not have instant solutions. However, setting the tone is important. Removing the names of confederate generals from US military bases sends a signal. The signal is that the United States recognizes that 155 years after the Civil War we realize we are still struggling to live out the basic creed of our nation: That all men are created equal. Whether you like it or not it doesn't change the fact that many people perceive statues of confederate leaders and the names of military bases as signifying that many still do not believe African Americans and people of color are equal.

Perhaps, if a statue of Robert E. Lee was next to a statue of Frederick Douglas or Martin Luther King people might think differently. I have wondered if that was a way to solve the statue problem. The difficulty is that if southerners had wanted to move in that direction they should have done that on their own and done it a couple of decades ago. The pattern is very evident in many ways. The south still remains largely divided by race. Its evident during elections. I speak of the fact that white southerners vote heavily republican and black southerners vote heavily democrat. The struggle in the South to accept equality was evident for all the years that the confederate flag was flown next to the state flag in front of public buildings in several states. Segregation may be illegal, but for all practical purposes it persists in many areas and I bet you could even identify some.

You've basically rambled on in post after post claiming that changing a few names or taking down statues won't change history. What you neglect is that these are powerful symbols to many African American people about what values society holds. It does not send a message of a pluralistic society that regards non-white people as valuable members. Being white (and I believe a southerner) and conservative to boot I think its just something that goes over your head.

I don't think anyone is calling for the elimination of the white race. What sensitive people do suggest is that if true racial reconciliation is to occur than some changes need to be made.

Some are willing to do it as evidenced by the passage of the NDAA. Others are not as represented by our President saying he will veto the bill just over renaming bases. I can assure you there are many, many white people in the North that want the names of these bases changed too. We regard an attempt to glorify leaders of a rebellion against the national government in a bad light.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Slater]

Historically, the actual soldiers that served at these bases really couldn't care less about the naming conventions. They had other things to worry about.

Since the Navy saw fit to name an active duty cruiser the USS Chancellorsville, apparently that name had no special political meaning at the time. It was part of a class of ships named for famous American battles.

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by Slater

Historically, the actual soldiers that served at these bases really couldn't care less about the naming conventions. They had other things to worry about.

Since the Navy saw fit to name an active duty cruiser the USS Chancellorsville, apparently that name had no special political meaning at the time. It was part of a class of ships named for famous American battles.

Each branch of the military has its own naming conventions.

[Rachel NewYork]

It seems as though this debate has reached a circular repetition of the same points, with nothing new being added. This thread has run its course and it's time to put it to rest. Thank you to all who participated.