Always on the front lines b/c they were the the strongest, the bravest and the fiercest warriors Patton had.
Posted on 05/25/2020 8:32:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The New York Times editorial board published a column this weekend that asked readers to consider, "Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?" At the crux of their argument, the board, self-described as "a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values," says that military bases in the southern states bearing the names of Confederate leaders should be renamed.
"It is time to rename bases for American heroes — not racist traitors," the article promises readers as its thesis. To support the argument, the writers compare the history of the Confederacy to modern day white supremacy and draw on the 2015 massacre in South Carolina as proof to support that claim. Dylann Roof, who killed nine people attending church in Charleston in the name of wanting to begin a race war, was convicted of multiple hate crimes and murder. He is currently awaiting execution for his heinous acts.
The Times specifically calls out 10 military bases in the south that bear the names of Confederate leaders as being problematic totems of white supremacy. Among them is Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which was named for General Braxton Bragg, long considered by historians of the south to have been a disastrous leader during the Civil War.
"Apologists often describe the names as a necessary gesture of reconciliation in the wake of the Civil War," the board writes. "In truth, the namings reflect a federal embrace of white supremacy that found its most poisonous expression in military installations."
Fort Bragg, however, even with a name that the Times considers to be a “federal embrace of white supremacy” is currently the largest military instillation in the world with over 50,000 active duty personnel. It is the home to a diverse population of military families and is home to the United States Army Special Operations Command. There is no record available that shows a correlation to Braxton Bragg’s name and race-driven crimes in the United States.
The editorial board of the Grey Lady then revises history entirely by characterizing the whole cause of the south in the Civil War as being driven by white supremacy and a desire to "keep black people in chains." Referring to leaders of the Confederacy as "traitors" on multiple occasions, the board dismisses any defense which claims the base designations are historic marks that represent only the individuals, not ideologies.
"The first problem with this argument is that, as individuals, these men were traitors," the board wrote. "These rebel officers, who were willing to destroy the United States to keep black people in chains, are synonymous with the racist ideology that drove them to treason."
The base naming, the column concludes, was an effort to placate the south after the war and embrace the era of Jim Crow laws. What the editorial board did not discover through "expertise, research, and debate," however, was that not long after the Civil War, the United States was at war with Spain. Bitterness from the bloody fighting between the north and the south during the Civil War caused national concern that conflict with Spain and subsequent foreign affairs would not be successful without a united front.
Allowing the U.S. military bases to bear names of southern leaders was seen as an olive branch to the south, still reeling from the loss of the war and the blood-soaked battlefields in their backyards. It was never meant to condone racial prejudice, which was still very prominent in northern and southern states at that time.
Though all historians not blinded by modern-day political ideology agree that the causes of the Civil War included many more factors than a desire to keep slaves, the revisionist history presented in this editorial also dismisses the deaths of nearly 300,000 Confederate husbands, fathers, and sons still buried in national cemeteries and in American family plots across the country. Whether or not their descendants agree with why they chose to fight more than 150 years ago, those soldiers and are still regarded as patriots who fought bravely by many Americans today. The great majority of the Confederate Army were not, in fact, slave owners.
This editorial claims that the southern military bases being named for Confederates motivates murderers to commit atrocious acts of violence in the name of white supremacy. Nowhere in their screed, however, do they present statistics that show a direct correlation between bases with Confederate names and violent crimes against black Americans.
The New York Times chose Memorial Day weekend to make their case to rename military bases, not to honor fallen fighters for American freedom. Naming long deceased military leaders as inspirations for horrific hate crimes perpetuated by violent psychopaths is without factual base or plausibility and serves only as a way to further the political divide between the urban elite and the American south.
The tradition of Memorial Day in the United States began as "Decoration Day" in the years just after the Civil War. Mothers and wives placed wreaths and flowers on the graves of soldiers throughout the southern and northern states, grieving for the American loss of life on both sides. The graves of the Confederate dead still bear the names of their descendants now living not just in the south, but throughout the United States. With or without permission of the New York Times editorial board, their sacrifice will continue to be memorialized on this solemn day.
So, it’s back to business as usual for The NYT, eh?
What do our domestic enemies have planned for July 4?
It’s amazing how liberalism’s malignant effect on our society works: They sit around trying to think up what the next thing to be pissed off about is. Then you’re a hater if you disagree with whatever they’ve come up with, and we’re all supposed to run around with our hair is in fire until they lose attention is drawn to the next thing they think of. Sad but true that these morons drive the agenda in this country
Always on the front lines b/c they were the the strongest, the bravest and the fiercest warriors Patton had.
The NYT is filled with racists of every race. What they all have in common is hatred of the white race.
Dylann Roof is a fine example of racism. When that felon doper was cleared by the FBI check to purchase his gun he murdered a room of God’s people.
The church immediately forgave him and was as heroic as that Amish community that forgave the school shooter there. Things were going well until the virulent racist Barack Obama started fanning the flames. Instead of holding up the church as an example, he made it a race divide. Soon other hucksters like Nimrata (Nicki) Haley joined in. This was followed with flag bans, building name changes, and the tearing down of statuary.
Obama’s racism turned a tragedy that could have united Americans, into a divide centered on revolutionary race and socialism.
How about those who give credence to anything the Slimes writes form their own union and go their separate way (or join Canada). No hard feelings, but the rest of us don’t particularly want to associate with you.
The United States Military is the most powerful force on the planet. Largely White, just like America. Suck it lefty homos.
looks like Columbia needs a new name.
There is no part of America that the NYT doesn’t hate.
Pissing all over it, in print at least.
Another war on holidays. Disgraceful Communist ploy.
The timing is very suspicious and not one of these ingrates who despise this country and those who gave their lives to defend it, not one of these ingrates ever suggests that maybe it is time to drop Robert Byrd’s name from anything. That famous Democrat was a recruiter for the KKK and continued using the N-word defending his use of it by saying “there are white niggers too”.
Of course the new york times is doing so. It is full of anti-white racists.
JoMa
Interesting to watch people today more consumed civil war hate than people from that era. After the war Grant, Lee, Sherman, Nathan Bedford Forrest etc... went out of their way to offer the hand of reconciliation.
There were various reunions at battlefields, including Gettysburg, where veterans from both sides met and shoot hand and had giant picnics.
Now we are treated to have some NYU millennial chick SJW. or some chubby race studies graduate, more outraged about the men of the civil war than people who lived through it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.