Renaming Army bases?

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
People really interested in changing the quality of their life make an effort and do so on their own. Changing the name of a fort or street ain't going to do it.

You have no idea what changes the quality of a given person's life, you know only what changes yours.

Quality of life doesn't matter anyway, there's no need to justify on a personal level resenting public property being named after rebels, traitors and slavers.

The naming of these bases was a political action, the renaming will also be a political action. That's the way it goes.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
You have no idea what changes the quality of a given person's life, you know only what changes yours.

Quality of life doesn't matter anyway, there's no need to justify on a personal level resenting public property being named after rebels, traitors and slavers.

The naming of these bases was a political action, the renaming will also be a political action. That's the way it goes.
Oh, there are things that offend me. But I figure we still have freedom of speech and if some thing is named for someone or some thing I don't like that's just how it is.
 

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
They're going for that too...
They will try. Though free speech or no the current debate if one can even call it a debate going on has been bombastic and unhinged.

Every other Tweet on the Civil War seems to be a caustic bombast the past few years. Real discussion online isn’t taking place all that much online outside of boards like this.
 
Last edited:

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
They will try.

Though free speech or no the current debate if one can even call it a debate going on has been bombastic and unhinged.

Every other Tweet on the Civil War seems to be an overly emotionally wrought bombast the past few years.

Real discussion online isn’t taking place outside of boards like this.

It looks out of control.
Anyone who dares to publicly offer any defence against the renaming of bases (or anything or anyone related to the Confederacy) is branded as a racist or labelled with some other derogatory term. Their views in opposition are silenced by such labels and increasingly not even reported as news organisations are wary that they will also be labelled with derogatory terms.
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
They're going for that too...

Who is "they"?
It looks out of control.
Anyone who dares to publicly offer any defence against the renaming of bases (or anything or anyone related to the Confederacy) is branded as a racist or labelled with some other derogatory term.

If you don't want to be considered racist don't defend an inherently racist rebellion or those who took part it in. Simple enough.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
If you don't want to be considered racist don't defend an inherently racist rebellion or those who took part it in. Simple enough.

I people can not use the names of any personality or event from the Confederate side of the Civil War or be able to speak up to defend their existence in the names of things or in other physical representations then that is definitely denying free speech. Simple enough.

[You will end up with nothing on one side and all of the other; a very skewed view of history indeed. It reminds me of what one Union veteran said when on an visit to Gettysburg after the war when he complained:
""The battlefield of Gettysburg, as it now stands, is a beautiful, one-sided picture. There is not a monument or inscription to show that an army of equal in numbers and valor to our own struggled fiercely for three days to destroy it." See also CWT Thread.]
 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
"
Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision. "

Patrick Cleburne
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
I people can not use the names of any personality or event from the Confederate side of the Civil War or be able to speak up to defend their existence in the names of things or in other physical representations then that is definitely denying free speech. Simple enough.

You have no right to be listened to, approved of or not be (lawfully) reacted to. Refusing to listen isn't denying free speech. Not approving of what a person says isn't denying free speech. Calling a person to account for what they say isn't denying free speech.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
You have no right to be listened to, approved of or not be (lawfully) reacted to. Refusing to listen isn't denying free speech. Not approving of what a person says isn't denying free speech. Calling a person to account for what they say isn't denying free speech.
I have to agree with this post, as written, stand alone.

The real rub to folks like myself is, these standards are not equally applied. Nobody who exercises free speech is immune from other folks disagreeing, or even being outspoken against their speech. However, speech has been treated very differently, & subjectively for awhile now. Both by private citizens, & government.

The renaming of bases, & the monuments situation in 2019, certainly prove my assertions above. Folks who are for the destruction of Confederate Monuments, renaming of all things Confederate, etc.. are treated much differently, even when their actions are lawless, than folks who are vocal about keeping them.
 

Sbc

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Location
Easley, South Carolina
I think one factor in why military leaders are pushing this is that the military has had a growing problem with hate groups in the ranks. More troops in the last couple years are reporting seeing white supremacist activity in the military. So the leadership is trying to distance the military from white nationalist ideology and symbols.
Can you cite evidence of this?
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Can you cite evidence of this?
There's a lot out there but for starters @DanSBHawk's statement is backed up by a 2019 poll of active-duty military by Military Times. There was also testimony at a congressional hearing a couple of years ago by the USAF that holding white supremacist views is not disqualifying - only taking action is. And there have been recent incidents indicating that groups like Atomwaffen and Evropa are specifically targeting and recruiting service personnel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sbc

Sbc

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Location
Easley, South Carolina
It's the job of the DOD to respond of the political will of the American citizenry, when it's legal. The citizenry need not explain their motives to the military.

If I have a choice between feeling good about something or feeling bad about it I'll take good every time.

I wonder why you bother to defend the status quo since this is of no importance to you. Just change the names and be done with it.
I defend the status quo because it works for the DOD. I do not advocate spending one red cent more than necessary for government operations. Changing names will cost ridiculous sums of money that adds to an already unmanageable federal debt; 27 trillion and rising. My children and grandchildren will bear the burden of that coming financial crisis. Continuing to transfer wealth overseas via Treasury Bill interest is not in the long term a health of the nation—-certainly not because of “feelings”.
You really have no empirical evidence either that this is the will of the people.
 

Sbc

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Location
Easley, South Carolina
There's a lot out there but for starters @DanSBHawk's statement is backed up by a 2019 poll of active-duty military by Military Times. There was also testimony at a congressional hearing a couple of years ago by the USAF that holding white supremacist views is not disqualifying - only taking action is. And there have been recent incidents indicating that groups like Atomwaffen and Evropa are specifically targeting and recruiting service personnel.
Polls are troubling as evidence as phrasing of questions usually determines outcomes. The only racism I witnessed in 7 years of Naval service was directed at whites and blacks by Phillipinos.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Thanks. Thought there would be more hard evidence but it seems to be primarily a survey.
I never claimed that was the only evidence. You asked me to cite evidence and I did. There's more out there if you look, including recent remarks by the incoming SecDef about needing to address racist extremism in the military.
 
Top