I agree, rename them all! :menace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/misplaced-honor.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&
QuoteMisplaced Honor
By JAMIE MALANOWSKI
Published: May 25, 2013
IN the complex and not entirely complete process of reconciliation after the Civil War, honoring the dead with markers, tributes and ceremonies has played a crucial role. Some of these gestures, like Memorial Day, have been very successful. The practice of decorating the graves arose in many towns, north and south, some even before the war had ended. This humble idea quickly spread throughout the country, and the recognition of common loss helped reconcile North and South.
A series revisits America's most perilous period — using diaries, images and historical assessments to follow the Civil War as it unfolded.
But other gestures had a more a political edge. Equivalence of experience was stretched to impute an equivalence of legitimacy. The idea that "now, we are all Americans" served to whitewash the actions of the rebels. The most egregious example of this was the naming of United States Army bases after Confederate generals.
Today there are at least 10 of them. Yes — the United States Army maintains bases named after generals who led soldiers who fought and killed United States Army soldiers; indeed, who may have killed such soldiers themselves.
Only a couple of the officers are famous. Fort Lee, in Virginia, is of course named for Robert E. Lee, a man widely respected for his integrity and his military skills. Yet, as the documentarian Ken Burns has noted, he was responsible for the deaths of more Army soldiers than Hitler and Tojo. John Bell Hood, for whom Fort Hood, Tex., is named, led a hard-fighting brigade known for ferocious straight-on assaults. During these attacks, Hood lost the use of an arm at Gettysburg and a leg at Chickamauga, but he delivered victories, at least for a while. Later, when the gallant but tactically inflexible Hood launched such assaults at Nashville and Franklin, Tenn., his armies were smashed.
Fort Benning in Georgia is named for Henry Benning, a State Supreme Court associate justice who became one of Lee's more effective subordinates. Before the war, this ardent secessionist inflamed fears of abolition, which he predicted would inevitably lead to black governors, juries, legislatures and more. "Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?" Benning wrote. "We will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth, and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination."
Another installation in Georgia, Fort Gordon, is named for John B. Gordon, one of Lee's most dependable commanders in the latter part of the war. Before Fort Sumter, Gordon, a lawyer, defended slavery as "the hand-maid of civil liberty." After the war, he became a United States senator, fought Reconstruction, and is generally thought to have headed the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia. He "may not have condoned the violence employed by Klan members," says his biographer, Ralph Lowell Eckert, "but he did not question or oppose it when he felt it was justified."
Not all the honorees were even good generals; many were mediocrities or worse. Braxton Bragg, for whom Fort Bragg in North Carolina is named, was irascible, ineffective, argumentative with subordinates and superiors alike, and probably would have been replaced before inflicting half the damage that he caused had he and President Jefferson Davis not been close friends. Fort Polk in Louisiana is named after Rev. Leonidas Polk, who abandoned his military career after West Point for the clergy. He became an Episcopal bishop, owned a large plantation and several hundred slaves, and joined the Confederate Army when the war began. His frequently disastrous service ended when he was split open by a cannonball. Fort Pickett in Virginia is named after the flamboyant George Pickett, whose division was famously decimated at Gettysburg. Pickett was accused of war crimes for ordering the execution of 22 Union prisoners; his defense was that they had all deserted from the Confederate Army, and he was not tried.
Other Confederate namesakes include Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, Fort Rucker in Alabama and Camp Beauregard in Louisiana. All these installations date from the buildups during the world wars, and naming them in honor of a local military figure was a simple choice. But that was a time when the Army was segregated and our views about race more ignorant. Now African-Americans make up about a fifth of the military. The idea that today we ask any of these soldiers to serve at a place named for a defender of a racist slavocracy is deplorable; the thought that today we ask any American soldier to serve at a base named for someone who killed United States Army troops is beyond absurd. Would we have a Fort Rommel? A Camp Cornwallis?
Changing the names of these bases would not mean that we can't still respect the service of those Confederate leaders; nor would it mean that we are imposing our notions of morality on people of a long-distant era. What it would mean is that we're upholding our own convictions. It's time to rename these bases. Surely we can find, in the 150 years since the Civil War, 10 soldiers whose exemplary service not only upheld our most important values, but was actually performed in the defense of the United States.
I concur. Honoring Confederate generals have no place in today's Army, and has to be cleared away by the hand of God like the Jews of old.
And while they're at at: rename New Orleans as New Butler, and ATL as Sherman International Airport.
Did they all formally resign from the US Army? Just checking.
It is easy to get rid of names, but hard to agree on what should replace them. Beware that the new names may be worse :contract:
tralala... Ft Sherman, Ft Sheridan, Ft Lincoln, Ft Grant (every confederate state needs a Ft Grant), Ft Meade....
When I think of it the proper response to the Republican goal of naming something in every state after Reagan is to name something in every state after the most loyal Republican of all time, Grant.
OR you can just say that they are now named after other people with the same name. Gordon would be Chinese Gordon, Benning could be Annette (fuck spelling) etc etc. Problem solved.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2013, 03:25:05 AM
OR you can just say that they are now named after other people with the same name. Gordon would be Chinese Gordon, Benning could be Annette (fuck spelling) etc etc. Problem solved.
Ft. King, Ft. Jackson, Ft. Shabaaz, Ft. Sharpton, Ft. Obama ?
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 03:26:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2013, 03:25:05 AM
OR you can just say that they are now named after other people with the same name. Gordon would be Chinese Gordon, Benning could be Annette (fuck spelling) etc etc. Problem solved.
Ft. King, Ft. Jackson, Ft. Shabaaz, Ft. Sharpton, Ft. Obama ?
:hmm: What's the pattern?
but, on the topic of non-treasonous legitimate and even honourable opponents.
what about a Ft Pontiac or a Ft Tecumseh or a Ft Geronimo?
Ft. Michael, Ft. Randy, Ft. Jermaine, Ft. Tito, Ft. Marlon.
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:09:58 AM
but, on the topic of non-treasonous legitimate and even honourable opponents.
what about a Ft Pontiac or a Ft Tecumseh or a Ft Geronimo?
Man, the Native American lobby still has kittens over military hardware referencing their tribal names. You don't want to give them a place to demonstrate permanently.
What a joke of an article.
Many of the men at those bases are the descendants of the men who "killed United States soldiers"; why shouldn't the bases be named after the men who led their ancestors? Perhaps you can argue about the suitability of some of the names, but the principle (that the names of such people can be used) shouldn't be touched.
Would you say the same if citizens of the United States of Native American descent started a campaign to get Fort Custer and the rest of the bases named for "Indian Fighters" changed?
-
--
---
And as an aside, I thought Bragg's reputation as a general had been largely rehabilitated over the last few years?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 05:28:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:09:58 AM
but, on the topic of non-treasonous legitimate and even honourable opponents.
what about a Ft Pontiac or a Ft Tecumseh or a Ft Geronimo?
Man, the Native American lobby still has kittens over military hardware referencing their tribal names. You don't want to give them a place to demonstrate permanently.
and sports franchies and cars...
they are going to have to get over this.. Indian names are cool. Get over it.
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:35:37 AM
and sports franchies and cars...
Those aren't federal entities.
Quotethey are going to have to get over this.. Indian names are cool. Get over it.
Well, they won't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 05:42:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:35:37 AM
and sports franchies and cars...
Those aren't federal entities.
Quotethey are going to have to get over this.. Indian names are cool. Get over it.
Well, they won't.
You don't see scandinavian american protesting outside Vikings Stadium (unless they are from wisconsin). You don't see us complaining about the S-3 Viking?
Bitching about past wrongs done to your ancestors as if they had been done to you is just pathetic and self destructive.
Completely unrelated yet strangely irrelevant.
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:46:39 AM
Bitching about past wrongs done to your ancestors as if they had been done to you is just pathetic and self destructive.
:lol: It's still being done to them. Go visit a reservation sometime. They all don't have casinos. America's poorest 1% live there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 05:50:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:46:39 AM
Bitching about past wrongs done to your ancestors as if they had been done to you is just pathetic and self destructive.
:lol: It's still being done to them. Go visit a reservation sometime. They all don't have casinos. America's poorest 1% live there.
Who's doing what to them? Are they forced to live on the reservations?
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:52:22 AM
Who's doing what to them? Are they forced to live on the reservations?
:lol: No, I suppose they can walk.
You can lead an Indian to firewater but you won't have to make him drink.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 05:55:05 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:52:22 AM
Who's doing what to them? Are they forced to live on the reservations?
:lol: No, I suppose they can walk.
Or take the bus?
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:56:51 AM
Or take the bus?
If there is one. That's not always the case.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 05:57:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 05:56:51 AM
Or take the bus?
If there is one. That's not always the case.
Are there a significant number of American Indians living on reservations with no public transport?
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 06:00:17 AM
Are there a significant number of American Indians living on reservations with no public transport?
Yeah, like 99%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 06:03:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 06:00:17 AM
Are there a significant number of American Indians living on reservations with no public transport?
Yeah, like 99%.
Source?
My gut feeling tells me that more than 1% of indian reservations have greyhound.
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 06:05:17 AM
Source?
My gut feeling tells me that more than 1% of indian reservations have greyhound.
Yeah, you can diddle around with the statistics here (http://cryfortheindians.ytmnd.com/).
The Indians are just another kind of rural poor. Their situation isn't special at all.
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 07:39:18 AM
The Indians are just another kind of rural poor. Their situation isn't special at all.
Never mind the lack of employment opportunities, but at least rural poor have the ability to actually own property. Indian reservations do not allow for property rights.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 07:39:18 AM
The Indians are just another kind of rural poor. Their situation isn't special at all.
Never mind the lack of employment opportunities, but at least rural poor have the ability to actually own property. Indian reservations do not allow for property rights.
What?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 07:39:18 AM
The Indians are just another kind of rural poor. Their situation isn't special at all.
Never mind the lack of employment opportunities, but at least rural poor have the ability to actually own property. Indian reservations do not allow for property rights.
The rural poor don't own a lot of property. That's why they're poor. They don't have tons of employment opportunities either, because they're rural. Cities drive employment in the US, and so it's not surprising that a group that is, for various reasons, stuck outside of them would be rather poor. But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2013, 08:00:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 07:39:18 AM
The Indians are just another kind of rural poor. Their situation isn't special at all.
Never mind the lack of employment opportunities, but at least rural poor have the ability to actually own property. Indian reservations do not allow for property rights.
What?
They don't hold individual property rights. Otherwise, the reservations would have been sold piecemeal to white speculators decades ago.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2013, 08:00:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 07:39:18 AM
The Indians are just another kind of rural poor. Their situation isn't special at all.
Never mind the lack of employment opportunities, but at least rural poor have the ability to actually own property. Indian reservations do not allow for property rights.
What?
It's trust land, based on communal property.
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Naturally, the only person less qualified to discuss Native American poverty than fascist Euronigger filth like Viking is a Canadian.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:18:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Naturally, the only person less qualified to discuss Native American poverty than fascist Euronigger filth like Viking is a Canadian.
Me and Legbiter are the only true aborigines here.
But I just observe here that it's not whitey that's oppressing the injun, it's the injun himself. But if he doesn't want to be oppressed by the injun the injun can move to a place where there are property rights.
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 08:35:33 AM
But I just observe here that it's not whitey that's oppressing the injun, it's the injun himself. But if he doesn't want to be oppressed by the injun the injun can move to a place where there are property rights.
Save the revisionism for the whole Jew thing over there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:47:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 08:35:33 AM
But I just observe here that it's not whitey that's oppressing the injun, it's the injun himself. But if he doesn't want to be oppressed by the injun the injun can move to a place where there are property rights.
Save the revisionism for the whole Jew thing over there.
Save me that pathetic red herring.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 09:03:53 AM
Save me that pathetic red herring.
RACISS
Ad Hom
give me a straw man and you'll have the logical fallacy trifecta.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 09:08:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 06, 2013, 09:03:53 AM
Save me that pathetic red herring.
RACISS
Ad Hom
You're the one that had to go the red route, you insensitive bastard.
I don't think that is a Straw Man. I'm actually not sure what that is... I don't think I understand what you are saying. I mean, I understand each of the words and how those words get used, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Why go from the A-List fallacy of the Straw Man to the C-List fallacy of mere obfuscation.
I'll let somebody else explain the joke to you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:18:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Naturally, the only person less qualified to discuss Native American poverty than fascist Euronigger filth like Viking is a Canadian.
Isn't it true though that there is a sizable contingent of Native Americans who don't want to leave their reservations?
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:18:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Naturally, the only person less qualified to discuss Native American poverty than fascist Euronigger filth like Viking is a Canadian.
Isn't it true though that there is a sizable contingent of Native Americans who don't want to leave their reservations?
Wasnt there a big discussion on here about the indians and "Teh Res" a while back?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 08:01:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:18:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Naturally, the only person less qualified to discuss Native American poverty than fascist Euronigger filth like Viking is a Canadian.
Isn't it true though that there is a sizable contingent of Native Americans who don't want to leave their reservations?
Wasnt there a big discussion on here about the indians and "Teh Res" a while back?
Yep, I remember it.
Reservations are great and all, it's just that they're mostly located in the worst places to support strong economic activity.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:53:26 PM
Isn't it true though that there is a sizable contingent of Native Americans who don't want to leave their reservations?
Sure, there are substantial internal issues those nations face regarding their identity and autonomy that doesn't exist in the only other American demographic that was never assimilated properly--The Black Man--but that doesn't make their economic plight OK, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:18:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 AM
But at the same time, you can't convince them to leave the reservations and go somewhere decent because the band leadership benefits from the system and fights hard to convince their people that the reason that they're poor is a conspiracy.
Naturally, the only person less qualified to discuss Native American poverty than fascist Euronigger filth like Viking is a Canadian.
Indeed. Understanding the problem isn't the American way. Maybe if you give them all handguns and chant 'USA!', the problem will go away on its own.
You don't know shit about shit, city-slicker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2013, 08:24:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:53:26 PM
Isn't it true though that there is a sizable contingent of Native Americans who don't want to leave their reservations?
Sure, there are substantial internal issues those nations face regarding their identity and autonomy that doesn't exist in the only other American demographic that was never assimilated properly--The Black Man--but that doesn't make their economic plight OK, either.
You're right but it is hard to gain political support when continue to self-segregate. Your natural allies aren't going to join on that cause.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
You're right but it is hard to gain political support when continue to self-segregate. Your natural allies aren't going to join on that cause.
While the AIM movement was inspired by the civil rights movement, they weren't exactly embraced by their "natural allies"; unfortunately, one of the weaknesses of the civil rights movement was the sense of proprietorship by the African American community.
And as far as self-segregation is concerned, it goes both ways: they are recognized as separate nations.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2013, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
You're right but it is hard to gain political support when continue to self-segregate. Your natural allies aren't going to join on that cause.
While the AIM movement was inspired by the civil rights movement, they weren't exactly embraced by their "natural allies"; unfortunately, one of the weaknesses of the civil rights movement was the sense of proprietorship by the African American community.
And as far as self-segregation is concerned, it goes both ways: they are recognized as separate nations.
Big magic didnt work
Save it, Custer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2013, 09:20:58 PM
Save it, Custer.
Fort Sitting Bull, Camp Taunto, NAS Geronimo
Change Fort Erwin (NTC) to Camp Trail of Tears
:P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2013, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 08:50:49 PM
You're right but it is hard to gain political support when continue to self-segregate. Your natural allies aren't going to join on that cause.
While the AIM movement was inspired by the civil rights movement, they weren't exactly embraced by their "natural allies"; unfortunately, one of the weaknesses of the civil rights movement was the sense of proprietorship by the African American community.
And as far as self-segregation is concerned, it goes both ways: they are recognized as separate nations.
Yeah none of that really contradicts what I said given that we're now in 2013.
To get back the original post, somewhere in Missouri there should be a Camp ButlerBanksMcDowellFremontHalleck named after the retard camps from Victory Games ACW.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 11:37:48 PM
Yeah none of that really contradicts what I said given that we're now in 2013.
So take your number and get in line with the rest of the "Blame the Injuns for their shit lot in life", please.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 09:04:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 11:37:48 PM
Yeah none of that really contradicts what I said given that we're now in 2013.
So take your number and get in line with the rest of the "Blame the Injuns for their shit lot in life", please.
But I'm not. As with all things it is more complicated than a simple blame game.
Quote from: Agelastus on June 06, 2013, 05:34:37 AM
What a joke of an article.
Many of the men at those bases are the descendants of the men who "killed United States soldiers"; why shouldn't the bases be named after the men who led their ancestors? Perhaps you can argue about the suitability of some of the names, but the principle (that the names of such people can be used) shouldn't be touched.
Would you say the same if citizens of the United States of Native American descent started a campaign to get Fort Custer and the rest of the bases named for "Indian Fighters" changed?
-
--
---
And as an aside, I thought Bragg's reputation as a general had been largely rehabilitated over the last few years?
Yeah, it is true that some of the soldiers had ancestors that fought under those guys. It is also true that some of the soldiers had ancestors that considered them rebels and fought against them. But most importantly, I think, the fighting was over keeping some of the ancestors of current soldiers as slaves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2013, 09:17:32 PM
And as far as self-segregation is concerned, it goes both ways: they are recognized as separate nations.
I had always wondered what kept Indians from leaving the reservation and moving to where there is work. Now I know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2013, 11:40:53 AM
I had always wondered what kept Indians from leaving the reservation and moving to where there is work. Now I know.
Now serving #32.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 11:44:13 AM
Now serving #32.
31. Being recognized as a separate nation is a powerful discentive to leave the reservation. Anyone who's not a bigot can see that.
But yet they're expected to leave the reservation and moving to where there is work if they don't want to remain poor, and if they don't, they can just suck it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 11:50:36 AM
But yet they're expected to leave the reservation and moving to where there is work if they don't want to remain poor, and if they don't, they can just suck it.
People who think that way just need to consider the effect of being recognized as a separate nation.
It wouldn't matter to you and the rest of the bootstrappers whether they were in the ghetto or on a reservation; the poor are expected to suck it up, or just suck on it.
The poor in West Baltimore are of greater concern than the poor of Ghana. Maybe the Indians should assimilate :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
It wouldn't matter to you and the rest of the bootstrappers whether they were in the ghetto or on a reservation; the poor are expected to suck it up, or just suck on it.
Was Grab On lying when he suggested that Indians could leave the reservations to improve their lives? :unsure:
Just a variation on a theme. It's the poor's responsibility to get unpoor with you guys.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 12:38:59 PM
Just a variation on a theme. It's the poor's responsibility to get unpoor with you guys.
So, ideally what would you see done? Lots of infrastructure money pumped into these poor locales? Indians given different more profitable lands?
A Socialist will never accept the idea of personal responsibility. Even in Sweden where there simply is no excuse for being a failure Socialists still cry for more money/effort/attention to poors.
And on that note from Teh Brains, I'm out of here.
We can fling pooh in much more interesting threads.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 01:02:47 PM
And on that note from Teh Brains, I'm out of here.
We can fling pooh in much more interesting threads.
Oh so there's nothing you'd do then?
What I'm not going to do is bang my head against your collective walls.
do they pull you back in michael
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 01:13:28 PM
What I'm not going to do is bang my head against your collective walls.
Finish your thought. We are guilty of incorrect thinking. Grab On and I are asking you to enlighten us, to teach us correct thinking.
So Seedy, Phil Sheridan- hero or bigot?
Why does Seedy have so much contempt for minorities?
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2013, 11:50:14 PM
Why does Seedy have so much contempt for minorities?
He just wants the good ol' days where white folk helped the poor coloreds who couldn't do nothing for themselves, if they had even known how.
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2013, 11:57:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2013, 11:50:14 PM
Why does Seedy have so much contempt for minorities?
He just wants the good ol' days where white folk helped the poor coloreds who couldn't do nothing for themselves, if they had even known how.
I thought that was the purpose of Obamacare. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 12:23:29 PM
It wouldn't matter to you and the rest of the bootstrappers whether they were in the ghetto or on a reservation; the poor are expected to suck it up, or just suck on it.
I sometimes wonder what country you live in.
Because in the USA, the poor are very much not expected to suck it up, and in fact are given tremendous amounts of help.
Much of which has been rather successful, in the being "poor" today sure isn't much like being "poor" even 50 years ago.
I don't get this bizarro world concept of the poor who get no help - which poor would that be?
Quote from: Agelastus on June 06, 2013, 05:34:37 AM
And as an aside, I thought Bragg's reputation as a general had been largely rehabilitated over the last few years?
Because he lost with such pizzaz? I mean anybody who fails to beat a truly horrendous general like Don Carlos Buell cannot be anything special.
I found the Hood apologism hilarous. Whatever you might think of his brillaint tactical skills of 'CHARGE!!!!1111' you cannot rehabilitate his performance in Atlanta and in the invasion of Tennessee. He was one of the Union's best assets.
The Army should sell the names for sponsorships. Fort Avis Rent-a-Car.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 10, 2013, 01:10:24 PM
The Army should sell the names for sponsorships. Fort Avis Rent-a-Car.
Then we're at risk of the inevitable sordid public debate over whether to allow Fort Huawei, Mercedes Benz Naval Air Station, and Camp Toyota.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 10, 2013, 04:00:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 10, 2013, 01:10:24 PM
The Army should sell the names for sponsorships. Fort Avis Rent-a-Car.
Then we're at risk of the inevitable sordid public debate over whether to allow Fort Huawei, Mercedes Benz Naval Air Station, and Camp Toyota.
I don't see the problem. Apart from the former, we're protecting the rest of those anyway.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 10, 2013, 04:00:34 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 10, 2013, 01:10:24 PM
The Army should sell the names for sponsorships. Fort Avis Rent-a-Car.
Then we're at risk of the inevitable sordid public debate over whether to allow Fort Huawei, Mercedes Benz Naval Air Station, and Camp Toyota.
And the PR disasters related to the headline
"Yesterday a Soldier based out of Ft. MicroSoft was found guilty of murdering 5 innocent civilians in the Afghan village of Achmachost."
I always thought the lionizing of traitors was strange. I mean, we don't have an Alfred Rosenberg highschool.
EDIT: It seems his name was actually Julius Rosenberg. Whatever.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
I always thought the lionizing of traitors was strange. I mean, we don't have an Alfred Rosenberg highschool.
EDIT: It seems his name was actually Julius Rosenberg. Whatever.
Read your country's history. You'll understand better in time.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
I always thought the lionizing of traitors was strange. I mean, we don't have an Alfred Rosenberg highschool.
EDIT: It seems his name was actually Julius Rosenberg. Whatever.
We do have a state and national capital named after George Washington however. :yawn:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 12, 2013, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
I always thought the lionizing of traitors was strange. I mean, we don't have an Alfred Rosenberg highschool.
EDIT: It seems his name was actually Julius Rosenberg. Whatever.
We do have a state and national capital named after George Washington however. :yawn:
It's not treason when you win :contract:
I think every base in Virginia should be named after George Thomas.
There should be a fort in Miami named after Philip Michael Thomas.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
So Seedy, Phil Sheridan- hero or bigot?
He burned the Shenandoah, thereby already securing his place in Heaven.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2013, 06:06:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
So Seedy, Phil Sheridan- hero or bigot?
He burned the Shenandoah, thereby already securing his place in Heaven.
He killed J.E.B. Stewart. thereby already securing his place in History.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2013, 06:06:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 08, 2013, 02:36:20 PM
So Seedy, Phil Sheridan- hero or bigot?
He burned the Shenandoah, thereby already securing his place in Heaven.
Ahh so Great White Champion for the Red Man is just talk :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 13, 2013, 08:37:21 AM
Ahh so Great White Champion for the Red Man is just talk :P
Not much we can do about the 19th century.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 13, 2013, 09:01:50 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 13, 2013, 08:37:21 AM
Ahh so Great White Champion for the Red Man is just talk :P
Not much we can do about the 19th century.
Why is fighting against the slaveholding apache and comanche somehow less good than fighting against the slaveholding virginians and slaveholding carolinians?