New commission on renaming Army bases gets early makeover

[Schism]

I went to basic and AIT at Ft McClellan, Parachute School at Ft Benning, then stationed at Bragg.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, but I expect military installations will be named Ft Harry Potter, Camp Facebook, or Sonic the Hedgehog Air Force Base.

 

[code1211]

Yes, we know, change is too traumatic for the right to handle.

Your response is simplistic, ignorant, myopic and prejudiced.

 

[dave8383]

Your response is simplistic, ignorant, myopic and prejudiced.

I would say those distinctions belong to your response.

 

[code1211]

No one is erasing history no matter how much you repeat that falsehood.

In what way is erasing history NOT erasing history?

Does it not create any curiosity in you whatever to know why the fort named Benning was named Benning?

If you erase that bit of history, then ALL of the other bits of history that led to that naming are also erased. You can't view any particular event or idea in history AND UNDERSTAND IT without the pre and post to set it in context.

There were causes leading to the naming and causes leading to those causes and ad infinitum to the beginning of time if you care to track them back that far.

You are recommending erasing history.

 

[dave8383]

In what way is erasing history NOT erasing history?

Does it not create any curiosity in you whatever to know why the fort named Benning was named Benning?

If you erase that bit of history, then ALL of the other bits of history that led to that naming are also erased. You can't view any particular event or idea in history AND UNDERSTAND IT without the pre and post to set it in context.

There were causes leading to the naming and causes leading to those causes and ad infinitum to the beginning of time if you care to track them back that far.

You are recommending erasing history.

BS post.

 

[Tigerace117]

In what way is erasing history NOT erasing history?

Does it not create any curiosity in you whatever to know why the fort named Benning was named Benning?

If you erase that bit of history, then ALL of the other bits of history that led to that naming are also erased. You can't view any particular event or idea in history AND UNDERSTAND IT without the pre and post to set it in context.

There were causes leading to the naming and causes leading to those causes and ad infinitum to the beginning of time if you care to track them back that far.

You are recommending erasing history.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that changing the name of Fort Benning means no one will know who Benning was?

Again, do you think nobody knows who Hitler was because there aren’t any statues celebrating him?!

 

[Fishking]

Panel tasked with relabeling Army bases' Confederate names gets revamp with diverse members

The Biden administration has replaced last-minute Trump appointees with a diverse panel.

www.axios.com

Such name changes are long overdue. I personally could never accept that we honored treasonous CSA Americans and smeared the US military in doing so.

I used to be against the renaming of military bases because I've just become so accustomed to them, it's just how it's always been (the Army way). I changed my mind on this not too long ago and talking with some of my buddies and we figured Ft. Hood could be changed to Ft. Benavidez, for Texas native MSG Roy Benavidez.

His speech starts at 05:15

 

[watsup]

In what way is erasing history NOT erasing history?

Does it not create any curiosity in you whatever to know why the fort named Benning was named Benning?

If you erase that bit of history, then ALL of the other bits of history that led to that naming are also erased. You can't view any particular event or idea in history AND UNDERSTAND IT without the pre and post to set it in context.

There were causes leading to the naming and causes leading to those causes and ad infinitum to the beginning of time if you care to track them back that far.

You are recommending erasing history.

And you are simply repeating basically the very same post every time no matter what sort of feedback you get from others. That’s a very lazy way of “debate”. And besides that, it’s a fait accompli at this point, so whine all you want, it won’t make any difference.

 

[watsup]

Your response is simplistic, ignorant, myopic and prejudiced.

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

I used to be against the renaming of military bases because I've just become so accustomed to them, it's just how it's always been (the Army way). I changed my mind on this not too long ago and talking with some of my buddies and we figured Ft. Hood could be changed to Ft. Benavidez, for Texas native MSG Roy Benavidez.

His speech starts at 05:15

There are plenty of heroes from WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan from both the officer and enlisted ranks. They deserve the honor.

 

[watsup]

In what way is erasing history NOT erasing history?

Does it not create any curiosity in you whatever to know why the fort named Benning was named Benning?

If you erase that bit of history, then ALL of the other bits of history that led to that naming are also erased. You can't view any particular event or idea in history AND UNDERSTAND IT without the pre and post to set it in context.

There were causes leading to the naming and causes leading to those causes and ad infinitum to the beginning of time if you care to track them back that far.

You are recommending erasing history.

“Historians say in the wake of President Lincoln’s election, Benning became one of Georgia’s most vocal proponents of secession........”

MILITARY MATTERS: Will Fort Benning be renamed because of Confederate connection?

On the heels of nationwide protests against racial injustice following the death of George Floyd, U.S. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy is reportedly open to renaming military bases named after Confederate generals, which includes Fort Benning.

www.wtvm.com

So you want the Army base named after a person who was a “most vocal proponent of secession”. In other words, a turncoat who chose to fight AGAINST the United States of America. Does that make any sense at all?????

 

[dave8383]

I used to be against the renaming of military bases because I've just become so accustomed to them, it's just how it's always been (the Army way). I changed my mind on this not too long ago and talking with some of my buddies and we figured Ft. Hood could be changed to Ft. Benavidez, for Texas native MSG Roy Benavidez.

His speech starts at 05:15

Great speech/story.

Ft. Benavidez

 

[code1211]

That is certainly why the Confederacy went to war and was well known among the populace of the Confederacy and many certainly did. The Confederacy's whole reason to exist and go to war very publicly was slavery and white supremacy.

There were Whermacht soldiers who didn't go to war to kill Jews either and there were American soldiers with anti-Semitic views too.

Confederate Generals' names were applied, obviously, AFTER the Civil War.

Andrew Johnson was the President of the United States in the years immediately following the Civil War and was a virulent racist vetoing any bill intended to help "Freedmen".

The line dividing those who was holier from who were not were not drawn along the Mason-Dixon Line.

In passing, Lincoln garnered about 55% of the vote in the 1864 election. McClellan, running on the platform to make peace and recognize the Confederacy, permanently institutionalizing slavery, garnered 45% of the Northern State's votes.

The folks who were killed or wounded in the Civil War amounted to a number so large that it touched almost every other person in the country. Naming the forts was not simply to honor any soldiers who fought.

It was to help to unite the whole country back into one union.

The conclusion of Lincoln's Second Inaugural address:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.[7] "
—Abraham Lincoln

 

[code1211]

It is the cause they were fighting for. Arguing “gee, maybe every individual confederate soldier wasn’t devoted to that cause” doesn’t change the fact that they were explicitly fighting to protect slavery.

Unlike the Confederates, the Union wasn’t fighting to protect slavery.

But 45% of the folks in northern states who voted in 1864 for McClellan were voting for the guy that promised sue for peace and permanently institutionalize slavery in the Southern States.

The 55% of voting public in the North in 1865 voted for Lincoln who had the virulent racist Andrew Johnson as his VP Candidate. Johnson vetoed all bills aimed at helping "Freedmen" after assuming the office of the POTUS.

The divisions politically were obviously pretty grave before, during and after the war. Following the war, the FIRST war of the modern era to employ a strategy of Total War, the wounds left were deep and lasting.

Lincoln's second Inaugural Address concluded with these words:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.[7] "
—Abraham Lincoln

 

[Rogue Valley]

Confederate Generals' names were applied, obviously, AFTER the Civil War.

Doesn't matter if the Army bases were named yesterday.

It's wrong to tarnish the US military by naming military bases after treasonous slave-traders.

I'm so glad that is going to change.

 

[code1211]

I think we'll continue to be aware of the mistake of slavery.

Slavery, while an atrocity and a crime against a humanity, can hardly be termed to have been a mistake. It was an intentional and deliberate debasement of the human spirit and the innate freedoms of man for profit.

Slavery is literally the embodiment of "Might makes Right". The real life complete subjugation of human being by human beings. It's been going on for the history of mankind.

The naming of the forts for the people after whom they were named was one step in a process that evolved over time to the point of each, individual naming and that is still evolving today if the news reports are factual.

If you remove any stone from the arch, the arch collapses. Start erasing events from history and the history does not make sense. Or burning books or Witches or Saints.

The national divisions before, during and after the Civil War resulted in the deaths of 100's of 1000's, entire cities, a way of life and who know what else.

Being "aware of... slavery" is only a sliver of the consideration.

 

[dave8383]

Honest to god, how ridiculous.

 

[code1211]

It doesn't make much difference. It's pretty much a fait accompli now. The commission will recommend removing the names of the generals and soldiers of an ENEMY NATION from Army bases. The okay question will be who they will be renamed after.

And the Democrat-Socialist erasing of history proceeds.

 

[code1211]

I would say those distinctions belong to your response.

My position is that history is important and that studying it helps to inform future decisions.

Your position is that hate should be employed to create some sort of dystopian night mare to conform to whatever it is that you dream up.

It is difficult for me to imagine any moves that depart from the wishes of Lincoln to a greater degree than you desires.

The conclusion of Lincoln's second inaugural address:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.[7] "
—Abraham Lincoln

 

[code1211]

BS post.

Erasing history is the best way I can think of to not learn from history.

Accepting the existence of ignorance is one thing. Desiring to be immersed in it is entirely different.

 

[vegas giants]

A question is not a falsehood. By definition, it cannot be a falsehood. The answer, like the one you provided, can be deceptive, distracting or misleading.

The aftermath of a Civil War is different than the aftermath of a war with a foreign adversary.

Lincoln never lost sight of the FACT that the secessionist states were not a foreign country.

He in fact reprimanded a General who announced that the Confederates had been chased from our land. Lincoln reminded him that it was ALL our land.

The answer to your question is one of politics both then and now.

Selecting the name THEN was probably done by Democrats seeking favor from voters. Removing the names now is probably being done by Democrats seeking favor from voters.

NOTHING about this has any connection whatever to anything intrinsically good or bad. It was and is politics.

That said, the controversy today is intended by those driving the issue to divide the population and create hate.

Lincoln was wrong

 

[vegas giants]

Erasing history is the best way I can think of to not learn from history.

Accepting the existence of ignorance is one thing. Desiring to be immersed in it is entirely different.

We should not honor traitors to America

 

[code1211]

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that changing the name of Fort Benning means no one will know who Benning was?

Again, do you think nobody knows who Hitler was because there aren’t any statues celebrating him?!

Well! This is good! You are on the very edge of asking, "Why?"

WHY was this Fort named Benning? Did it simply poof into existence? Was there a process during which it evolved? This question opens a door to a process of investigation that COULD lead to better understanding.

Any three year old might ask that "WHY" question among all of the other "WHY" question they might ask.

Who was Benning? Why was he important? Why did the local folks love him? Why did the military folks revere him? Why was his name applied? Why use the name of a Confederate?

Simply erasing history is not the way to inform anyone of anything except that small minded morons hate and that they have gained power to spread their hate.

Study history. It informs on how to avoid mistakes of the past.

 

[vegas giants]

Well! This is good! You are on the very edge of asking, "Why?"

WHY was this Fort named Benning? Did it simply poof into existence? Was there a process during which it evolved? This question opens a door to a process of investigation that COULD lead to better understanding.

Any three year old might ask that "WHY" question among all of the other "WHY" question they might ask.

Who was Benning? Why was he important? Why did the local folks love him? Why did the military folks revere him? Why was his name applied? Why use the name of a Confederate?

Simply erasing history is not the way to inform anyone of anything except that small minded morons hate and that they have gained power to spread their hate.

Study history. It informs on how to avoid mistakes of the past.

The same could be said for a monument to Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber

 

[code1211]

And you are simply repeating basically the very same post every time no matter what sort of feedback you get from others. That’s a very lazy way of “debate”. And besides that, it’s a fait accompli at this point, so whine all you want, it won’t make any difference.

I keep repeating the question because you are not answering the question.

Your suggestion seems to carry with it malice,
no charity whatever,
sloppy aversion to firm adherence to any firm principles of a moral rightness,
no intention to heal wounds,
direct punishments to those injured,
no care given to the survivors and
no care for the just and lasting peace after the war sought by Lincoln.

In other words, you erase history so you needn't learn a thing from it. Lazy and ignorant approach using vengeance driven by hate.

The conclusion of Lincoln's second inaugural Address:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.[7]
—Abraham Lincoln