knapplc Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 All right, now this is funny. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 Back in high school, I read this book. I decided to pick it up again and read it in light of current events. It helps to place one self in the shoes of others by trying to understand the walk they are walking. As a young guy in high school, this was an eye opening read for me. It gave me some understanding of the racial divide in this country. Quote In the Deep South of the 1950’s, a color line was etched in blood across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Journalist John Howard Griffin decided to cross that line. Using medication that darkened his skin to deep brown, he exchanged his privileged life as a Southern white man for the disenfranchised world of an unemployed black man. What happened to John Howard Griffin—from the outside and within himself—as he made his way through the segregated Deep South is recorded in this searing work of nonfiction. His audacious, still chillingly relevant eyewitness history is a work about race and humanity every American must read. I found this on youtube - a movie based on the book 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said: Honestly a little surprised it was still allowed up until now. It's the U.S. military. Why would other flags be allowed? 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Honestly a little surprised it was still allowed up until now. It's the U.S. military. Why would other flags be allowed? I got no answer. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 A very good OPED by David Petraeus. Well thought out and presented. Well worth the read. This is something I never thought about before. Having read Civil War history, it never crossed my mind that in honoring Confederate generals by having bases named after them we are also betraying the core values of what we claim our country stands for - liberty and freedom. As Petraeus notes in the OPED, these generals, though conflicted in their loyalties, were traitors to the constitution. He explains the history/reasons behind naming the bases after these generals in his OPED. These generals also were not wearing the USA uniform during the period for which they were honored and also - they lost the war. Petraeus notes that outside of Lee, most of the generals were failures on an actual battlefield. At this time in our country history, if we desire to remove all systemic racism, we must remove these kinds of symbols that provoke racism but also a loyalty to it. We can not move forward with the NEW if we have the OLD hanging around our neck as a reminder (symbolism intended). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/take-confederate-names-off-our-army-bases/612832/ Take the Confederate Names Off Our Army Bases It is time to remove the names of traitors like Benning and Bragg from our country’s most important military installations. June 9, 2020 David Petraeus Retired U.S. Army general and former CIA director Beginning of OPED Quote As I have watched Confederate monuments being removed by state and local governments, and sometimes by the forceful will of the American people, the fact that 10 U.S. Army installations are named for Confederate officers has weighed on me. That number includes the Army’s largest base, one very special to many in uniform: Fort Bragg, in North Carolina. The highway sign for Bragg proclaims it Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces. I had three assignments there during my career. Soldiers stationed at Bragg are rightly proud to serve in its elite units. Some call it “the Center of the Military Universe,” “the Mother Ship,” or even “Hallowed Ground.” But Braxton Bragg—the general for whom the base was named—served in the Confederate States Army. The United States is now wrestling with repeated instances of abusive policing caught on camera, the legacies of systemic racism, the challenges of protecting freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights while thwarting criminals who seek to exploit lawful protests, and debates over symbols glorifying those who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. The way we resolve these issues will define our national identity for this century and beyond. Yesterday afternoon, an Army spokesperson said that Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy is now “open to a bipartisan discussion” on renaming the bases. That’s the right call. Once the names of these bases are stripped of the obscuring power of tradition and folklore, renaming the installations becomes an easy, even obvious, decision. End of OPED: Quote Confederate memorialization is only the most obvious expression of formerly acceptable sentiments now regarded critically by many Americans. Once unreservedly celebrated figures like Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, to name just three, held convictions and behaved in ways we now find deeply troubling. It is indicative of the complexity of the problem that while the stained-glass window honoring Robert E. Lee in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., was removed, that of Wilson, an ardent segregationist, remains (after a healthy debate). But Confederate leaders are different from these other examples not simply in degree, but in kind: Plainly put, Lee, Bragg, and the rest committed treason, however much they may have agonized over it.* The majority of them had worn the uniform of the U.S. Army, and that Army should not brook any celebration of those who betrayed their country. A long-standing maxim for those in uniform is that one should never begin a war without also knowing how to end it. And this is a kind of war—a war of memory. The forts named for Confederate generals were established before the formulation of the rules now codified in Army Regulation 1-33, which sets the criteria for memorializing soldiers. But, as is so often the case when the Army is found to have fallen short of its elemental values, it also possesses the remedy. While the regulation states, “Rememorializing or rededicating actions are strongly discouraged, and seldom appropriate,” it also outlines a clear administrative process to follow when they are. This is the moment to pursue that process. We could probably disqualify the rebel generals on a technicality: After all, none of them were actually in the U.S. Army when they performed the actions for which they were honored. Nonetheless, I would prefer to disqualify them on the grounds that they do not meet the letter or spirit of the regulation’s second criterion: “Memorializations will honor deceased heroes and other deceased distinguished individuals of all races in our society, and will present them as inspirations to their fellow Soldiers, employees, and other citizens.” The magic of the republic to which many of us dedicated our professional lives is that its definition of equality has repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to broaden. And America’s military has often led social change, especially in the area of racial integration. We do not live in a country to which Braxton Bragg, Henry L. Benning, or Robert E. Lee can serve as an inspiration. Acknowledging this fact is imperative. Should it fail to do so, the Army, which prides itself on leading the way in perilous times, will be left to fight a rearguard action against a more inclusive American future, one that fulfills the nation’s founding promise. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts