NY Times Editor wants American soil forts names changed.... (1 Viewer)

P

pugio

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
665
I guess one of their liberal editors had nothing better to do today and wants all American forts with Confederate names changed (Ft. Hood, Ft. Gordon, etc.) He/she says that since African-Americans make up 57% of the Armed Forces, it's an affront to their history....
 
Two things sprung to mind reading that. 1, How many serving soldiers know (or care) who their base is named after? 2, Weren't the States he mentioned a part of the Confederacy, so what he actually would like is the equivalent of a barracks in Germany named after General Patton?

Martin
 
A quick look at a the history of these Confederate named forts has them being built for WW I and II in the cases of Fort Jackson and Fort Hood. The naming may have been done as a courtesy to the states where they were located. I have read a few sources (buttassination Vacation by Sarah Vowel for example) that there was an effort around the time of the Spanish American War to get beyond the Civil War and unite the United States by recognizing Confederate heroes as fellow Americans.

In the cases of flags and statues, those could be moved to more appropriate venues such as museums. In the case of a renaming a fort, the expense would be too much. As all Americans volunteering for the armed services have to accept regimentation, accepting the name of a fort would be part of that. I do not see any evidence that African-Americans would not enlist just because of a fort's name.
 
Scott said:
..... I do not see any evidence that African-Americans would not enlist just because of a fort's name.
Click to expand...
Most just want to be stationed close to their home. Besides troops often have somewhat colorful names for forts other than the official
name. Fort Hood was The A-hole of the World.
 
Martin Tabony said:
Two things sprung to mind reading that. 1, How many serving soldiers know (or care) who their base is named after? 2, Weren't the States he mentioned a part of the Confederacy, so what he actually would like is the equivalent of a barracks in Germany named after General Patton?

Martin
Click to expand...
Two great points. Also, forts are located in "states" and as such, should pay some deference to the history of the places where they are located. The forts complained about happen to be located in states where those generals were born and for which they fought. Nothing about the race of the soldiers that happen to be located there from time to time changes that simple fact. There are many reasons for chosing to join the military or not but the name of some fort where you many be based is not likely to be high on any ones list and if it is, the military probably isn't the right career move for that person. For all the things I didn't like about the service, the base naming conventions were certainly not one of them; I didn't even mind passing through Fort Meade.:rolleyes2:
 
BLReed said:
Most just want to be stationed close to their home. Besides troops often have somewhat colorful names for forts other than the official
name. Fort Hood was The A-hole of the World.
Click to expand...

And appropriately so based on my personal experience{sm4}
 
Camp Rommel as he states in not such a bad idea- Rommel was an honorable man who disobeyed Hitler's orders to protect civilians, and tried to kill Hitler.
 
a provocative article......remember the Confederacy wanted to leave the United States and set up their own country. Some of the generals were both incompetent, slavery proponents and racists so the idea of naming a United States military base after them does cause some consternation.
The NY Times for your information has won more independent journalist awards than any other newspaper in the world! Liberal, yes but their investigative reporting over the years has done a lot of good for our society.
 
Napoleon1er said:
Denying history has no place in the USA.
Click to expand...

Its not denying history but seeking the truth in history. Sometimes history is painful to subsequent generations who want to sterilize the past. We have plenty to be proud of but recognizing the wrongs helps us learn to be better.
 
Here we go again. Another bonehead with a typewriter dispenses his drivel about, once again, wanting to hide/change the history of this country simply because it MIGHT hurt someone's feelings. The PC monster rears it's ugly head, scolds us for our past and we must roll over and accept it. What a bunch garbage. -- Al
 
People seem to raise a PC argument when it goes against something they hold dear, even though there may be no justification for it any longer.

Recently Memphis changed the name of Bedford Forrest Park to a name still under consideration. This is similar to what is being advocated in the NYT piece and same outcry. However, is there any justification for keeping the name of a park for a man who was a slave trader and under whose watch the massacre of black troops took place at Fort Pillow. In my opinion, no. That is hardly PC.

I guess it all depends whose ox is being gored.
 
nysoldiers said:
......The NY Times for your information has won more independent journalist awards than any other newspaper in the world!........
Click to expand...

Yes, it is kind of like patting yourself on the back. Google "Pulitzer Prize bias."
 
jazzeum said:
People seem to raise a PC argument when it goes against something they hold dear, even though there may be no justification for it any longer.

Recently Memphis changed the name of Bedford Forrest Park to a name still under consideration. This is similar to what is being advocated in the NYT piece and same outcry. However, is there any justification for keeping the name of a park for a man who was a slave trader and under whose watch the massacre of black troops took place at Fort Pillow. In my opinion, no. That is hardly PC.

I guess it all depends whose ox is being gored.
Click to expand...

When I think about Memphis I would like to think about Elvis Presley not the Ku Klux Klan. So I think changing that name is good.
 
jazzeum said:
People seem to raise a PC argument when it goes against something they hold dear, even though there may be no justification for it any longer.

Recently Memphis changed the name of Bedford Forrest Park to a name still under consideration. This is similar to what is being advocated in the NYT piece and same outcry. However, is there any justification for keeping the name of a park for a man who was a slave trader and under whose watch the massacre of black troops took place at Fort Pillow. In my opinion, no. That is hardly PC.

I guess it all depends whose ox is being gored.
Click to expand...
Brad, quite right about that ox.:wink2: To me it is just a matter of leaving the past be. I get real tired of all this back and forth about trying to hide history from 150 years ago. -- Al
 
lancer said:
Brad, quite right about that ox.:wink2: To me it is just a matter of leaving the past be. I get real tired of all this back and forth about trying to hide history from 150 years ago. -- Al
Click to expand...

Things change over time. Some of the old names become remembered for the wrong reasons or not remembered at all as the person named turns out to be not historically important. Others, like Lee, become even more revered in time.

But can you imagine the nonsense that will take place in selecting a new PC name {eek3} I'm all for changing a name for a good reason, as long as I get to pick the new name. {sm3}^&grin^&grin

Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top