Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
99.9% of people don't even know who the bases were named after. Probably one radical thought this up, then it went viral.
In fact I wonder if the whole thing is a prank from the start.
I mean, I've read numerous interviews and speeches over the years from minority servicemembers and veterans who talked about how it made them feel to join the military, go off to training, and wind up at a base named after a traitor general who fought to keep their forefathers enslaved. When black veterans talk about serving in segregated units, being discriminated on-base and off during the first half of the 20th century, being denied benefits everyone else got like the GI Bill, and more, the Confederate naming issue a lot of times has popped up.
But they were probably making it all up anyway, right? I mean, who could actually care about this issue (other than the people telling you they care about it)? Better to just dismiss it all out of hand, rather than give a few seconds of actual thought to it.
I just learned of a similar (though not bases) situation in the school system I worked in for 20 years.
Sidney Lanier Middle School has been renamed.
Who is Sidney Lanier, you ask? Well, that's my point. Lanier was a Georgia poet and served in the Confederate Army.
Who cares?
I was the principal of Longfellow Middle School. In 20 years at that school there was only one person who ever mentioned Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (other than as part of the state's English curriculum)...me. Every 18th of April I'd read part of Longfellow's poem that began: "On the eighteenth of April in '75, hardly a man is now alive, who remembers that famous day and year, and the midnight ride of Paul Revere". Nobody cared. But I liked tradition. When they renovated the school I prevented them from cutting down the two chestnut trees ("Under the spreading chestnut trees..." that had been planted there when the school opened). Nobody else cared that the trees were planted as an ode to Longfellow. I retired on April 18, 2008. Nobody else cared about the date.
As with military bases, when it comes right down to it, who really cares? Almost nobody. It's just a political football.
I just learned of a similar (though not bases) situation in the school system I worked in for 20 years.
Sidney Lanier Middle School has been renamed.
Who is Sidney Lanier, you ask? Well, that's my point. Lanier was a Georgia poet and served in the Confederate Army.
Who cares?
I was the principal of Longfellow Middle School. In 20 years at that school there was only one person who ever mentioned Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (other than as part of the state's English curriculum)...me. Every 18th of April I'd read part of Longfellow's poem that began: "On the eighteenth of April in '75, hardly a man is now alive, who remembers that famous day and year, and the midnight ride of Paul Revere". Nobody cared. But I liked tradition. When they renovated the school I prevented them from cutting down the two chestnut trees ("Under the spreading chestnut trees..." that had been planted there when the school opened). Nobody else cared that the trees were planted as an ode to Longfellow. I retired on April 18, 2008. Nobody else cared about the date.
As with military bases, when it comes right down to it, who really cares? Almost nobody. It's just a political football.
Renaming of roads like Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway, is currently a contentious issue in Va, as is the renaming of schools in Va, and to a lesser extent in DC and Md.
Monument Ave. in Richmond has seen some big changes this year.
I mean, I've read numerous interviews and speeches over the years from minority servicemembers and veterans who talked about how it made them feel to join the military, go off to training, and wind up at a base named after a traitor general who fought to keep their forefathers enslaved. When black veterans talk about serving in segregated units, being discriminated on-base and off during the first half of the 20th century, being denied benefits everyone else got like the GI Bill, and more, the Confederate naming issue a lot of times has popped up.
But they were probably making it all up anyway, right? I mean, who could actually care about this issue (other than the people telling you they care about it)? Better to just dismiss it all out of hand, rather than give a few seconds of actual thought to it.
The renaming and destruction of statues does not serve any real purpose.
It does not change anything.I have my feeling's and never have given any thought to this matter.
Why destroy history.
The renaming and destruction of statues does not serve any real purpose.
It does not change anything.I have my feeling's and never have given any thought to this matter.
Why destroy history.
The destroying of statues seems to reflect the fact that these statues were erected at a time when we didn't really understand the implications of coming social change. Just as the Civil War was a point of national contention, these modern times are fraught with social/political unrest, so revisiting our history will most likely continue until we align ourselves to a more modern view of the past. For some, this will be a matter of resisting change, but those statues/base names, are a monument to changes that profoundly affected people in the past, so having them figure prominently in a modern time doesn't seem all that earthshaking.
Ever since the days of G. Washington the military has been subordinate to civilian leadership. The military works for (in theory), and is funded by the peeps, and while I don't favor micro management why shouldn't the military do what the peeps reps tell them to do, if the reps believe it will help solve one or more recognised problems?
The civilian control of the military is through the Service Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, it is the executive branch of government that runs the military. The Representatives are in the legislative branch - they are not who the services answer of the 3 branches. Civilian control of military is not the peeps - the military can't respond to society as a whole. Civilian control was put in place so the military would defend society rather than define it, but it also does NOT mean can or should politicize military policies. The Legislative branch has some control on the military through laws, budgets and approving the military promotion lists and technically the jobs of senior military. There is more at stake than political correctness - the reps are looking for votes and knee jerk to the loudest, not the majority. Again, leave the decision up to the military leaders which includes the service secretaries who are civilians in control of the services, instead of caving to a vocal minority.
The civilian control of the military is through the Service Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, it is the executive branch of government that runs the military. The Representatives are in the legislative branch - they are not who the services answer of the 3 branches. Civilian control of military is not the peeps - the military can't respond to society as a whole. Civilian control was put in place so the military would defend society rather than define it, but it also does NOT mean can or should politicize military policies. The Legislative branch has some control on the military through laws, budgets and approving the military promotion lists and technically the jobs of senior military. There is more at stake than political correctness - the reps are looking for votes and knee jerk to the loudest, not the majority. Again, leave the decision up to the military leaders which includes the service secretaries who are civilians in control of the services, instead of caving to a vocal minority.
Therein lies the problem of why this naming of bases lasted though the ages, that executive branch IS, all too often, a vocal minority..
The civilian control of the military is through the Service Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, it is the executive branch of government that runs the military. The Representatives are in the legislative branch - they are not who the services answer of the 3 branches. Civilian control of military is not the peeps - the military can't respond to society as a whole. Civilian control was put in place so the military would defend society rather than define it, but it also does NOT mean can or should politicize military policies. The Legislative branch has some control on the military through laws, budgets and approving the military promotion lists and technically the jobs of senior military. There is more at stake than political correctness - the reps are looking for votes and knee jerk to the loudest, not the majority. Again, leave the decision up to the military leaders which includes the service secretaries who are civilians in control of the services, instead of caving to a vocal minority.
In the OP I noted:
Quote:
Pentagon top brass plus just fired Sec. Def. Esper have indicated they are open to discussion about changing the names, due in part to a rise of white supremacy in the ranks.
Your analysis is a little off. Both houses have passed legislation requiring it. 81-14 in the R controlled Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
