-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Racism in the Military
- Thread starter Charles Edward
- Start date
Nah.
Yeah, can't ignore any mods. [shrugs]
Plugging your ears when you disagree with someone? Man, it'd be so great if everyone did that /Sarcasm
Watching you beclown yourself entertains me
If you become a moderator, then any moderator who has put you on ignore can no longer ignore you.
Sounds good, I'll remain grounded. And I've alluded to it twice, but picking six words out of a long post to get upset about is kind of silly. If it's a line by line rebuttal, that's cool. If there is one specific thing you have an objection to, also cool. The way you've done it twice now is somewhat disingenuous. But I don't have you on ignore, and am happy to see your replies
Coming into this pretty late, but I think that while the military is among the better organizations in our country at equality and fair chances there is a merit in pointing out that our top leadership isn't as reflective of our country as it could be. Lots of reasons for that, as the article pints out to a degree, but I think there is change coming slowly but surely. In my time in the Navy I've gone from my first squadron wardroom that was ~95% white males to my current command where ~60-70% of the US officers are not white dudes, though they are almost all SWO's so a bit less fun. I think in 20 years that picture of top military folks will look a lot different and a lot more reflective of American society.
The military needs to help ensure they help it along though, with targeted recruitment and effective incentives to keep the talent they want and need. If the military isn't reflective of the society we serve it'll only alienate both from each other in the long run.
The military needs to help ensure they help it along though, with targeted recruitment and effective incentives to keep the talent they want and need. If the military isn't reflective of the society we serve it'll only alienate both from each other in the long run.
I'm tired of the trope that we will be 'erasing history' if we take down statues, rename bases or put away a few flags. There is a big difference between memorializing and honoring someone, and in the case of quite a few confederate 'memorials' blatantly glorifying them and their cause. We are honoring those former confederate generals by keeping their names on the bases, it was a sop to domestic politics at the time they were named but no longer necessary. I don't really care how significant role they played in the US Army, though few of them did as they were JO's or field grade officers at best before the Civil War, they were traitors to the United States of America. Contrast that with Benedict Arnold, who actually did play a significant role for our side in the Revolutionary War helping ensure our independence, and there sure ain't any bases named after him.
There are countless others who are far more deserving of that honor than someone who fought to ensure the continued enslavement of the ancestors to some of the people who now serve on those bases. To use an example pointed out in the NYT article, I think Petty Officer Doris Miller is a far more fitting person to honor than Carl Vinson or John Stennis.
I give it a better than even chance that they change during the next Democratic administration. I wouldn't have thought that not long ago but with even Bobbie Lee coming down in Richmond nowadays, the very statue that helped kickstart the whole statue craze into high gear down south ~120 years ago, times are a changing.
And American society is living with the direct consequences of the Roman Senate's decisions today? With statues glorifying the Roman Centurion, Legates and Emperors? Nope. We are living today with the direct consequences of the Civil War though.
So yeah, not so much.
It is not about “erasing” history, history is far more complex than the binary good/bad people seem to want to put on anything focused around the Civil War. Southern bases were named in the 20th century as an act of both political reconciliation and a nod to local pride. For every Hood, there is (was) a Sheridan or Custer. Indeed, there is an entire memorial wall focused on reconciliation at West Point. I absolutely agree that bases don’t need hallways filled with Confederate battle prints or similar images. I see no reason not to rename buildings on bases if they bear certain names...but I advise caution. Very few “heroes“ can ever remain “heroic” under the shifting terms of any evolving society. Every leader in the history of this country...up to and including many recent ones...have sufficient skeletons in their closets to warrant a close review. So, what does that leave us? Should we be like the Soviets and work out of People’s Base #5? Should our ships just be called American War Vessel #12?
When JFK wrote profiles in courage he landed on a few very controversial people...and he knew it. But, he measured each person for the wholeness of their contribution to the nation. I am retired, you can change the name of any base you want...but beware of the doors you are opening when you do.
When JFK wrote profiles in courage he landed on a few very controversial people...and he knew it. But, he measured each person for the wholeness of their contribution to the nation. I am retired, you can change the name of any base you want...but beware of the doors you are opening when you do.
Did you see my follow-up about why I posted it? You and I agree.
Like I emphasized in my post, there is a difference between memorializing and honoring. What West Point did was to memorialize their alumni, what the US government did in naming the bases was to honor those individuals. Those bases were named as a nod to 'local' pride when the only 'locals' we were acknowledging were the white ones who happened to be enforcing segregation of their fellow black citizens through Jim Crow laws and terrorizing them. Frankly what it really shows is the only citizens that mattered in those areas back then were the white ones. Why else would we name those bases for the very people who fought to keep black people enslaved and from becoming citizens in the first place?
Another cliche that needs to die is that we will end up with no left to name bases after if we apply today's standards to yesterday. While all of our Founding Fathers had their failings and skeletons in their closet, or a slave mistress in some cases, folks like Jefferson and Washington had magnificent accomplishments and qualities to weigh against their flaws and sins. Those US Army officers that chose to violate their oath at the beginning of the Civil War to take up arms against the United States have far fewer redeeming qualities, especially since the cause they fought for was the antithesis of the great experiment this country was and still is. You can find plenty contemporary arguments to that effect from back then as well.
Finally, Army bases aren't museums. To continue to honor traitors by leaving those bases so named is not whitewashing, minimizing or erasing history, it is merely correcting a mistake made by leaders a century ago to somehow ameliorate some local white folks feelings about the Yankees coming back into town. Keep those names and their history in museums, books and in the battlefield parks.
We almost agree. Your use of the word “cliche” indicates that you are among those who think people are willing to stop “if only they can make this one change.” They won’t, but keep imagining that humans are reasonable...now that is a cliche. Need some evidence?
Hofstra students want Thomas Jefferson statue removed
Student activists are planning a protest on Friday.