Why is it bad to rename things…

Jarod said:
I do not believe they should be torn down, but they should not be celebrated.

There is a difference between erasing history and celebrating bad acts, or people who fought against the USA.

We have the holocaust museum in D.C. and no democrat suggests it should be torn down.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Back to the US statues; IMO, it's better to have surrounded the statues with context in the form of other exhibits and statues to teach "where we were and where we are now". Instead, the destruction of the statues erased history leaving only green grass behind. Since the situation is controversial, it's unlikely the statues will replaced by anything.

This is why I believe divisive actions like destroying statues is more destructive than building "context" around them.

How long before the MAGAts seek to cut funding to the Holocaust and other "DEI" museums? Hate begets hate. Destruction and erasing history is hateful.

Since you keep wanting to refight the Civil War, let's not forget who invaded whom. Your view is like Putin's in "taking back" Ukraine. Congrats. You are siding with those who believe "Might makes Right", Jarod.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Back to the US statues; IMO, it's better to have surrounded the statues with context in the form of other exhibits and statues to teach "where we were and where we are now". Instead, the destruction of the statues erased history leaving only green grass behind. Since the situation is controversial, it's unlikely the statues will replaced by anything.

This is why I believe divisive actions like destroying statues is more destructive than building "context" around them.

How long before the MAGAts seek to cut funding to the Holocaust and other "DEI" museums? Hate begets hate. Destruction and erasing history is hateful.

Since you keep wanting to refight the Civil War, let's not forget who invaded whom. Your view is like Putin's in "taking back" Ukraine. Congrats. You are siding with those who believe "Might makes Right", Jarod.
Click to expand...
The United States did not invade the United States, impossible. They sent troops to a federal fourt
 
Jarod said:
Like Ft. Benning, named after a man who committed treason.
Click to expand...

This one could be renamed. I really don't have heartburn with that. As it is, the name is traditional. At the time of its naming, it was common to use past American--to include ex-Confederate--military leaders for those names. As for "treason," not really. Confederate leaders renounced their allegiance to the US and essentially became foreign citizens. They did openly revolt against and then go to war against the US. That's really no different than Texans who were citizens of Mexico revolting against that nation and forming the Republic of Texas.

In that regard, there's no reason to have used their names on any US military base, and at the time it was done mainly because some base was in the South and using an ex-Confederate name meant not drawing possible scorn and issues with the local population at large. I can get that. Renaming them now is just an act of political correctness of the sort the Left loves to pull.
Jarod said:
Or Mt. McKinley, to honor the native name?
Click to expand...
The US government named it Mt. McKinley. The natives can call it whatever they want. I see no reason to give it a native American name.

Names of places change over time in many cases as their occupants and owners change. I see no reason to change the name of something just because political correctness demands it. In fact, I'd say woke political correctness demanding a name change is a good reason to tell those demanding it to fuck off.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
This one could be renamed. I really don't have heartburn with that. As it is, the name is traditional. At the time of its naming, it was common to use past American--to include ex-Confederate--military leaders for those names. As for "treason," not really. Confederate leaders renounced their allegiance to the US and essentially became foreign citizens. They did openly revolt against and then go to war against the US. That's really no different than Texans who were citizens of Mexico revolting against that nation and forming the Republic of Texas.

In that regard, there's no reason to have used their names on any US military base, and at the time it was done mainly because some base was in the South and using an ex-Confederate name meant not drawing possible scorn and issues with the local population at large. I can get that. Renaming them now is just an act of political correctness of the sort the Left loves to pull.

The US government named it Mt. McKinley. The natives can call it whatever they want. I see no reason to give it a native American name.

Names of places change over time in many cases as their occupants and owners change. I see no reason to change the name of something just because political correctness demands it. In fact, I'd say woke political correctness demanding a name change is a good reason to tell those demanding it to fuck off.
Click to expand...
I’m with you about renaming things, unless the local people really want it I don’t care. Like the Gulf of Mexico and the battleship named after Harvey milk
 
Jarod said:
The United States did not invade the United States, impossible. They sent troops to a federal fourt
Click to expand...
Actually, between Lincoln's election and inauguration, people and leaders in the Southern states that would form the Confederacy, began almost immediately to take over federal arsenals, forts, and other locations often by force. Buchannan sat on his hands and did next to nothing to stop that. Federal troops within those states were often disarmed and sent back to the North at that point. In other cases, like at say, Fort Pickens (near Pensacola FL), Confederate forces proved unable to take the fort from US Army defenders and initially agreed to a truce. That lasted until Ft. Sumner was bombarded when the fort was heavily reinforced by sea and remained in federal hands throughout the Civil War.
 
Jarod said:
I’m with you about renaming things, unless the local people really want it I don’t care. Like the Gulf of Mexico and the battleship named after Harvey milk
Click to expand...
I think naming ships after useless politicians is a mistake. Carriers should not be named for Presidents or other political figures. Naming a ship after Harvey Milk was idiocy. That was just political correctness run amok.
 
Robert E' Lee said "I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who engendered to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered." That was his argument against Confederate statues.
You would be blind not to see that Trump and the right are trying to fuel exactly those kinds of feelings. Strife and conflict are the mainstay of Trump and his leaders. Hate and the left being enemies are what they are stoking. It is not accidental. The brains way above Trump ,understand what they are doing. Trump is a low grade buffoon. The people who are running him are implementing a grand and dangerous plan to change America in the most basic ways, We will have a plutocracy, a military one, if they are successful.
Trump has no idea who those Confederates are. He is just doing as told.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Maybe it's because you are a Brazilian who doesn't understand what it means to swear an oath to the Constitution?

Intelligent, educated and rational people know that being against a draft-dodging, oath-breaking, adulterous pedophile is not the same as siding with the fucking Democrats. I understand why anti-American Brazilians don't understand this point.
Click to expand...

Not siding with the Democrats is just one of your major character flaws.
You actually think that you matter as a free agent.
I'd be curious to know how that's supposed to work.

Any American voter who didn't vote for Harris helped Trump win, plain and simple,
and is thus hideously stained for life and beyond.
Decent people instinctively know that.

I swore an oath to the Constitution as well, you know,
and I kept it to the letter, even knowing how ludicrously flawed that the Constitution is.
It gave us the most shamefully inefficient form of government on the face of this planet,
AND a government that allowed Pigshit to happen.

Back then, I did it strictly for my family's reputation--my father, son, and I ALL served--
and none of us would have sworn to an oath that we didn't mean to keep.

We know what character means.
It's a genetic capability that everybody obviously doesn't have.
 
Jarod said:
Like the Gulf of Mexico?

By the way, the president has no authority to change the names of geographical features.
Click to expand...
Actually he does. The Secretary of the Interior can rename 'stuff.' During the Biden mal-administration, Deb Haaland the clueless and hated by her own tribe, SoI, renamed hundreds of geographic locations on the basis the names were "derogatory" or "hurtful."

www.forbes.com

Can Trump Rename The Gulf Of Mexico? Yes And No.

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order demanding the body of water that runs along the United State’s Southeast Coast be renamed to the Gulf of America.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

apnews.com

The White House says it's a 'fact' that the Gulf of Mexico has been renamed. Is that right?

For more than four centuries, the body of water stretching from Florida through Texas and into Mexico has been known as the Gulf of Mexico.
apnews.com apnews.com

www.pbs.org

Can Trump change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to 'Gulf of America'?

His intention to rename the body of water was made in his inaugural address, but he had initially brought it up earlier this month during a news conference.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Now, Mexico is free to keep it "Gulf of Mexico" if they want, but it doesn't change Trump can order geographic locations renamed in official US documents.
 
Jarod said:
The United States did not invade the United States, impossible. They sent troops to a federal fourt
Click to expand...
You're free to believe revisionist history. By labeling all the secessionist states as traitors, you're simply doing Trump's job for him by dividing the nation over 160 years after the war ended.

Anyone who knows how to read a map can tell who invaded whom:

CWStory1.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They did openly revolt against and then go to war against the US.
Click to expand...
The American revolutionaries committed treason against the UK. So I do not demand the UK honor them. If the Confederacy had been able to continue, they would be justified in honoring the traitors to America, but I see no reason for us to honor those traitors.

And if one day we decide Timothy McVeigh's treason was honorable, then we can honor him.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You're free to believe revisionist history. By labeling all the secessionist states as traitors, you're simply doing Trump's job for him by dividing the nation over 160 years after the war ended.

Anyone who knows how to read a map can tell who invaded whom:

CWStory1.jpg
Click to expand...
You can’t invade your own nation.

That’s called an attempted revolution.
 
Jarod said:
A civil war is an unsuccessful revolution.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. Revolution is what Trump wanted on 1/6; to overthrow the existing government. The American Civil War was simply a secession; states wanting to rule themselves. They didn't want to overthrow the government in Washington, DC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top