Controversy of Cadet Group Photo -- Reactions from West Pointers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
 
Maplerock said:
Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
Click to expand...
I'd wager that depends which flavor of American you ask.
 
scoutpilot said:
So it talked about Sally Ride...
Did it make mention of heavy metal? Suicide? Foreign debts? Homeless vets? AIDS? Crack? Bernie Goetz? Hypodermics on the shore? China under martial law? Rock & roller cola wars?

Man, I can't take it anymore.
Click to expand...
Hey, we didn't start the fire! It's been on and on since the world was young.

"What is "Obscure references to 80's pop songs", Alex?"
 
scoutpilot said:
What a false dilemma. Teaching the history of the Confederacy is important. But it needs to be taught correctly, i.e. that the right of the South to keep slaves was the central cause of secession (as evidenced in numerous declarations of secession). But more to the point, there is no requirement to name American Army bases after general officers who attacked that same Army in order to teach the history of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Changing the names of Army posts named after Confederate generals is like covering our past to pretend we were politically correct. I am pretty sure those posts weren't named after Confederate generals to teach the history. My guess is it's reflection of that time period where folks didn't think too much about naming an Army post after a general with good military accomplishments. I guess Germans don't need to keep Nazi concentration camps to teach the history to Nazi Germany.
 
Maplerock said:
Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
Click to expand...

Maybe we should start by re-naming all Army helicopters named after Native American tribes...:)
 
scoutpilot said:
So it talked about Sally Ride...
Did it make mention of heavy metal? Suicide? Foreign debts? Homeless vets? AIDS? Crack? Bernie Goetz? Hypodermics on the shore? China under martial law? Rock & roller cola wars?

Man, I can't take it anymore.
Click to expand...

I always heard "children of the little mind" and wasn't sure what that was.

Of course, for a long time I wondered why so many people were against "youth in Asia". Read that one out loud.
 
Maplerock said:
Should we rename all governmental buildings, schools, bridges, etc. that feature names of politicians and soldiers instrumental in westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans?
Click to expand...

Sure. Well, not ALL, but why not?
 
MemberLG said:
Changing the names of Army posts named after Confederate generals is like covering our past to pretend we were politically correct. I am pretty sure those posts weren't named after Confederate generals to teach the history. My guess is it's reflection of that time period where folks didn't think too much about naming an Army post after a general with good military accomplishments. I guess Germans don't need to keep Nazi concentration camps to teach the history to Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...
This argument is even worse. Is there a Bundeswehr base named Herman Goerring Kassern? Did they name a ship the Adolf Hitler? By your logic, they should really not have renamed the Reichstag. We wouldn't want to "whitewash" things, now would we?

Don't confuse preserving a site of atrocity to inform future generations with naming a base Auschwitz.

You're right, those American bases were named in a time when folks didn't think too much about the implications...probably because it was still okay for the Klan to lynch a black man without repercussions around that same time.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Sure. Well, not ALL, but why not?
Click to expand...
You've hit on the real heart of the issue, where folks who cling to such bad ideas for the sake of "tradition" always fall flat. Why not? Well....because! Tradition for the sake of...keeping things the same.

I find when folks grouse about having to do something because "we're all just so PC now" the real issue is they know deep down that they're wrong and can't think of a real reason to refute it. So they use the loaded term "political correctness" with a sneer as a way to deflect.
 
Because tradition? Find me someone who hasn't been associated with something someone would object to that's worthy of having something named after him/her. Go back 200 years, even harder.

The truth is, no ones hands are completely clean.

If you can't stand the dirt, name things after trees, unless you can't stand the origin of the name....
 
scoutpilot said:
What a false dilemma. Teaching the history of the Confederacy is important. But it needs to be taught correctly, i.e. that the right of the South to keep slaves was the central cause of secession (as evidenced in numerous declarations of secession). But more to the point, there is no requirement to name American Army bases after general officers who attacked that same Army in order to teach the history of the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
I kind of thought that the economic crisis was an important factor. Also, not just slavery, but the power the federal government had over the states rights (in this case, the states were wrong. But it was an important part of the political culture).
Eli Whitney and the cotton gin also increased the "need" for cheap labor in order for the plantations to survive. Before that, some say that slavery had almost died out on its own.
 
CivilAirPatrolCadet said:
I kind of thought that the economic crisis was an important factor. Also, not just slavery, but the power the federal government had over the states rights (in this case, the states were wrong. But it was an important part of the political culture).
Eli Whitney and the cotton gin also increased the "need" for cheap labor in order for the plantations to survive. Before that, some say that slavery had almost died out on its own.
Click to expand...

It was an important factor too.
 
MemberLG said:
Changing the names of Army posts named after Confederate generals is like covering our past to pretend we were politically correct. I am pretty sure those posts weren't named after Confederate generals to teach the history. My guess is it's reflection of that time period where folks didn't think too much about naming an Army post after a general with good military accomplishments. I guess Germans don't need to keep Nazi concentration camps to teach the history to Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...



I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a wholesale changing of names of military installations, schools, etc. (Maybe Scout is suggesting otherwise.) I'm neither an historian nor a museum curator, so I can't suggest how to teach history. I do think that erasing the names would only hasten the loss of historical memory.

To that end, a 100 years from now Americans should know that the Civil War was an open bloody rebellion over the institution of slavery. Also, those Confederate Generals and civilian leaders, for whom we've named everything from West Point barracks to Bubba Watson's car, led that rebellion. In that sense, LG, I believe we should keep the names so these facts are never forgotten.

Giving the names in the first place is only consistent with the sentiments and the directives of the Commander-in-Chief of the winning side. Lincoln's determination to end the rebellion, by any means possible, was only matched by his determination to bind the wounds. This is a good time to check out Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. We all remember the quote at the end, "With malice towards none, with charity for all...", but the first 80% of it was a cataloguing of why the rebellion needed to be crushed.

So let's remember it all.
 
CivilAirPatrolCadet said:
I kind of thought that the economic crisis was an important factor. Also, not just slavery, but the power the federal government had over the states rights (in this case, the states were wrong. But it was an important part of the political culture).
Eli Whitney and the cotton gin also increased the "need" for cheap labor in order for the plantations to survive. Before that, some say that slavery had almost died out on its own.
Click to expand...
From the SC declaration of seccession...

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.


For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.


This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.


On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

Slaves were absolutely an economic imperative for southern landed gentry to survive in their state of wealth and plenty. If you have not read the articles of secession of the various states, I encourage you to. They leave little doubt.
 
cb7893 said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a wholesale changing of names of military installations, schools, etc. (Maybe Scout is suggesting otherwise.) I'm neither an historian nor a museum curator, so I can't suggest how to teach history. I do think that erasing the names would only hasten the loss of historical memory.

To that end, a 100 years from now Americans should know that the Civil War was an open bloody rebellion over the institution of slavery. Also, those Confederate Generals and civilian leaders, for whom we've named everything from West Point barracks to Bubba Watson's car, led that rebellion. In that sense, LG, I believe we should keep the names so these facts are never forgotten.

Giving the names in the first place is only consistent with the sentiments and the directives of the Commander-in-Chief of the winning side. Lincoln's determination to end the rebellion, by any means possible, was only matched by his determination to bind the wounds. This is a good time to check out Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. We all remember the quote at the end, "With malice towards none, with charity for all...", but the first 80% of it was a cataloguing of why the rebellion needed to be crushed.

So let's remember it all.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that slavery existed long before the mid 1800s in the colonies and in the US.
 
cb7893 said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a wholesale changing of names of military installations, schools, etc. (Maybe Scout is suggesting otherwise.) I'm neither an historian nor a museum curator, so I can't suggest how to teach history. I do think that erasing the names would only hasten the loss of historical memory.

To that end, a 100 years from now Americans should know that the Civil War was an open bloody rebellion over the institution of slavery. Also, those Confederate Generals and civilian leaders, for whom we've named everything from West Point barracks to Bubba Watson's car, led that rebellion. In that sense, LG, I believe we should keep the names so these facts are never forgotten.

Giving the names in the first place is only consistent with the sentiments and the directives of the Commander-in-Chief of the winning side. Lincoln's determination to end the rebellion, by any means possible, was only matched by his determination to bind the wounds. This is a good time to check out Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. We all remember the quote at the end, "With malice towards none, with charity for all...", but the first 80% of it was a cataloguing of why the rebellion needed to be crushed.

So let's remember it all.
Click to expand...
Excellent points...to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his orphan, etc.

I don't think it's feasible or practical to wholly rename everything. But at the same time, I don't think there's a great argument from a logical standpoint to keep the name Hood on a place, when such naming has come to be a great honor in our society.

At the very least, we as intelligent people, must on some level recognize that the choice of names was an expedient attempt to curry favor with a southern population that remained entrenched in abysmal racial values and distrust of the nation for many generations, and was done with an eye toward enlistment numbers. And we have to recognize the hypocrisy of the high-minded "tsk tsk, how dare these colored women identify so publicly with their race" while at the same time still paying great homage to traitors who sought to keep women like them in bondage.

It's probably impractical to change it all, but it's certainly reasonable to recognize the cognitive dissonance and not attempt to explain it a way as "a good history lesson."
 
LineInTheSand said:
Let's not forget that slavery existed long before the mid 1800s in the colonies and in the US.
Click to expand...
...And slavery existed in MANY other countries other than "in the colonies and in the US." It was WRONG, but it wasn't just a US problem.
As far as Scout's "tsk tsk, how dare these colored women identify so publicly with their race" comment... I could not disagree more. Then again, while it seems some here may be a "Hillary for President" type, I'm admittedly a "Hillary for Prison" type, and it's ok to disagree! Just my $.02: IF these young women put their fists up for "black lives matter," IT'S WRONG... then again I think the entire PC movement needs to move to Afghanistan and call us in 6 months...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top