Trump is all worked up about the sacrilegious idea that we can rename military bases that were named after Confederate military “heroes.”
The Great American Heritage of slavery and official, deliberate, detailed racial persecution and oppression – I think we can rename things as a way to reject that heritage. I think it’s more than slightly disgusting that Donald Trump wants us to cling to that heritage.
In tweets early Wednesday afternoon, Trump argued against changing the names of bases like Fort Bragg, Fort Hood and Fort Benning — all of which are named after Confederate generals. In doing so, though, he referenced the United States’s history of winning.
“These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” Trump said, adding, “Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”
Yehbut Bragg, Hood and Benning were all Confederate generals, and they…lost. So not so much part of a history of Winning then!
Cities and states across the country in recent years have removed Confederate statues, for instance, as well as taken Confederate names off of schools, streets, parks and holidays. NASCAR on Wednesday afternoon announced it would ban Confederate flags at its events.
NASCAR did??? Stone the crows.
If NASCAR can, surely Trump can.
Comments
21 responses to “A History of Winning”
I understand these bases were renamed over the WW1 to WW2 period, so not actually that long a history. Also Bragg? I understand he had one of the loosingist track records of any General ever – on top of the fact he fought for the loosing side.
As one twitter wag said – let them fly Confederate flags, as long as it’s the last flag they flew [picture of white flag].
Fabled? Like Lilliput or Valhalla? Elysian Fields? What.
How about Sherman, Grant, and Mead? Or Patton who he’s so fond of?
How many Union soldiers were monumentally and very powerfully killed by Generals Benning, Bragg, Hood, etc.?
I wonder how many, if any, American military installations have been renamed for other reasons over the years?
Also, why does this pop into my head?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0X77OBJUg
(They Might Be Giants cover of Istanbul {not Constantinople} )
So he thinks it’s great to name military bases after TRAITORS? And LOSERS? Wow. Who would have thought?
.
NASCAR?!!! HOLY CRAP! How long before they back down, or are forced to back down by groups of freedom-lovin’ gun-totin’ good ol’ boys?
Remember? Fine people on both sides.
As far as I know, one of the most successful, winningest generals of the Revolutionary War doesn’t have a fort named after him. Surely there should be a Fort Benedict Arnold somewhere in the US.
Oh, I dunno. Captain Bonespurs won office by promising the citizenry from sea to shining sea that he would make their nation, them, himself, and everyone on down to the humblest dogcatcher in the scrawniest town around “great again.”
So what made the ‘ungreat’? Only one word needed: Vietnam.
So then how about Fort Ho Chi Minh? Could certainly do a lot worse.
Trump is planning to start up his fascist rallies again. The next one will be June 19th–Juneteenth–in Tulsa. For those of you unaware of the details of race relations in the US, Juneteenth is a holiday among Black Americans in which they celebrate the end of slavery. And Tulsa was the site of one of the worst racial massacres in the US 99 years ago.
This isn’t a dogwhistle, it’s a fucking foghorn.
Maybe* Trump just doesn’t have a grasp on American history. As far as he knows, the Civil War was won by America and those generals were American generals, therefore they’re American heroes. Exactly who he thinks America fought in the Civil War is anybody’s guess.
* or maybe he’s just a racist shit who’s heroes were all racist shits.
It’s not just the Confederacy that lost; those particular generals lost. Krugman at https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1270795211623538693
What a Maroon: that was a good one.
AoS, could be that he’s been reading Heather Cox Richardson’s latest, “How the South Won the Civil War”.
(Just kidding; I know that asking Trump to read is like asking a koala to fly; he may make the attempt, but he won’t last long. (But also putting in a plug for HCR’s book.))
What a Maroon, I’ll look out for that book. I’ll guess, though, that it’s about how the South still has a disproportionately large influence over national politics, just as they did prior to the Civil War.
AoS,
It goes further than just that. The key is in her subtitle: “Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America”. Her thesis is that the basic elements* of the system that the South was fighting were extended after the war to the West and then the rest of the country, and that the oligarchy has managed to undo any attempts at a more democratic system. (I’m not doing her justice, though; the book is an easy read but well worth it.)
*Minus outright slavery, of course.
My go-to for the filthy history of the aftermath of slavery is Eric Foner’s history of Reconstruction.
Thanks, WaM, it’s on my to-do list. Regarding the slavery: don’t they call it ‘the penal system’ these days?
Aaagh! Stop recommending books. I’m old and time is finite.
Ophelia,
Thanks for the recommendation.
AoS,
Yep, that’s one element. There’s also the myth of the cowboy as a self-made, freedom-loving (white; cowboys are almost never depicted as black or Latino, even though a large percentage of them were) man that filled the cinema and the airwaves, and that Reagan rode to the White House.
Acolyte, sorry, but that one is really indispensable. Not my fault!
I’m sort of (half-heartedly) with AoS. I think my answer is that I need to retire as soon as possible so I can get all my reading done (and so I can still have some me left to enjoy retirement; the COVID shut-down turned out to be a health initiative for me. My mental health spiral downward has plateaued, thanks to not being in the presence of constant negative messaging, even though I am doing the same work!).