New York Times Op-Ed on US Military White Supremacy

| May 26, 2020

Just in time for Memorial Day 2020, the self-purported Newspaper of Record, The New York Times, publishes an opinion piece on the supposed “celebration of white supremacy” in the US military. The evidence? All the installations in the South named after military leaders of the Confederacy. All those “racist traitors” according to the piece. I’d post a link but the op-ed is of course behind the NYT pay wall, and I refuse to donate. The pushback was swift.

Pentagon blasts NYT op-ed claiming US military ‘celebrates’ white supremacy

By: LAURA WIDENER
A top Pentagon official blasted the New York Times late Sunday for the newspapers’ publishing an op-ed piece attacking the U.S. military for supporting white supremacy via bases named for Confederate generals.

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman slammed The Times late Sunday night, saying in a tweet, “On a solemn day for remembering those that have given their lives for our country fighting against tyranny and subjugation, the NYT has more than a million possible stories of the ultimate sacrifice by American patriots that they could tell. But they don’t.”

“Instead they chose to attack the US military — the most diverse meritocracy in the country and the most powerful force for good in world history. We have many stories of valor still waiting to be told this Memorial Day weekend,” he added.

The Times’ piece published Saturday, titled “Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?” took aim at Fort Benning, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, and other Confederate military leaders, labeling them “racist traitors.”

“It is time to rename bases for American heroes — not racist traitors,” the article said.

Sen. Ted Cruz also slammed The Times’ piece on Sunday, tweeting, “On this Memorial Day, we give thanks to the heroic men & women who bravely fought and gave their lives to protect the NYT’s right to call the military Klansmen.”

Read the entire article here: American Military News

Our friend Joey Jones expresses his opinion on Fox: Shame on the NYT

Category: "Teh Stoopid", Dick Stepping, Media

Comments (114)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Slow Joe says:

    Time for Iron Maiden – The Clansman.

    https://youtu.be/JPIZKbyqINI

    • ninja says:

      Slow Joe:

      Scratching my head as to why you reference the Iron Maiden song since it has nothing to do what AW1Ed posted.

      Here is background information on “The Clansman”:

      https://www.ironmaiden-bg.com/web/index.php/virtual-songs-en/2410-the-clansman-song-info-en

      “The Clansman’ is clearly inspired by the 1995 movie Braveheart starring and directed by Mel Gibson. Another film about the History of Scotland was also released the same year, namely Rob Roy, and Steve said it was an inspiration for the song as well. But, whereas William Wallace was a true hero of Scotland and contributed massively in the struggle against the English, Rob Roy although considered a hero too by many was nothing more than a crook, a thief and a double-agent, who never really did anything in the fight for the freedom of his country.”

      “The song describes the struggle of the Scottish clans to free themselves of English oppression, and the ill-intentioned people who tried to see some analogies with the Ku-Klux-Klan in the lyrics are sorely mistaken. This is a song about freedom and resistance against an oppressor, and there is no hint of racism in it whatsoever and those who think there is are urged to re-read the lyrics! The chorus itself is especially reminiscent of William Wallace’s final dying cry “Freedom!” in the movie (in reality, considering that the poor man had just had his bowels removed, it would have been nothing more than a whisper, if anything).”

      • The Other Whitey says:

        I think Joe might be saying that the professional dickheads at NYT would likely knee-jerk to assume that the song is somehow celebrating the KKK based on its title without bothering to do even the most basic research about it (or notice that it’s not spelled with a K). If that’s what he’s saying, he has a very good point. Just look at NYT’s completely asinine “1619 Project” to get an idea of how much they actually research anything beyond their chosen preconceptions.

        • Hack Stone says:

          Just take a look at how many people having a problem telling the difference between The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and The Knights of Columbus (K of C). Hack’s Council has had members physically and verbally assaulted by the Fraternal Challenged.

      • Slow Joe says:

        Well, I was trying to snare a seagull and I end up snaring a ninja…

        And Iron Maiden is awesome.

  2. ninja says:

    Here is the link to the article:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/opinion/sunday/army-base-names-confederacy-racism.html

    I was able to read the entire article without paying $$$.

  3. rgr769 says:

    The New Yawk Slimes is Pravda on steroids. Calling that rag the newspaper of record is a cruel joke. It is prog propaganda even in its purported news
    stories.

  4. FuzeVT says:

    Unfortunately, there are still many people for which if it isn’t in the NYT/CNN/et al., is isn’t real. So until the mainstream media starts saying it is a joke, people won’t see that forest for the trees. Sure people outside that bubble see it, but what would it take to burst that bubble? Most of the MSM loses money for the parent company anyway, yes? It’s continued as a money losing venture for the public “service” (people chanting in background, “The greater good”). What would it take to influence the huge libs that support all of this?

  5. ninja says:

    AW1Ed:

    Request permission to post the New York Toilet Paper Times article in case others have problems opening the link I provided above and are inerested in reading it.

    The article is long.

    Thank You.

  6. Poetrooper says:

    I’m currently reading one of the lesser known novels by a famous Southern writer. In it, the protagonist, a reporter/playwright from the Old South who’s working in New York City reflects on his neurotic Yankee girlfriend and her like-minded friends, all of whom hate Southerners, that their hatred is based entirely on their gross ignorance of the South and American history.

    In my long life as a Southerner who spent far too much time on business travel to New York and other northern enclaves, that is certainly my experience. Their concept of the “right” kind of South is South Florida.

    • David says:

      True story: on the phone this weekend with a lady from New Hampsha who coincidentally is a retired Navy officer. I mentioned that in small Southern towns we have all the usual social variations, like gays etc. but they are generally tolerated like anywhere else as long as they act normally and don’t make a big deal. For example, our town paper is owned by a lesbian couple… and no one seems to care. The NH was blown away! Did not fit in with her preconceptions of anywhere south of Boston, total contradiction to what she learned, etc. The bigotry everyone complains of is not geographically limited.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      My own family were either post-Civil War German immigrants on one side, or Potato Famine Irish immigrants on the other. The meandering paths that eventually led them all to San Diego all stayed north of the Mason-Dixon Line (except for a few who went to Texas). The ancestors who fought in the War Between the States all wore blue.

      In spite of that, I was never taught that the South was evil (at least not at home, anyway, which is where I learned the most about history). It was tough for me as a kid to wrap my head around the idea that it wasn’t a clear-cut black&white issue. I learned things of which a lot of kids these days are sadly ignorant. Things like the fact that there were northern slave states, southern abolitionists, race riots and mass lynching of blacks in New York, that kind of thing. I learned that there were good people on both sides—not perfect people, but good people with flaws just like anyone else. If you actually learn the story of Robert E. Lee, instead of just the juvenile “South=bad” crap, you get a picture of a conflicted man in a shitty situation who tried his best, according to his culture, education, etc. (you know, CONTEXT) to do the right thing. He may have chosen wrong, but he was no less a good man for it. And you also need to look at what he did for the remainder of his life after the war. To quote my Dad’s favorite piece of Cowboy Wisdom: “If you’re gonna take the measure of a man, best make sure it’s the full measure.”

      There were also some genuinely bad guys involved. Bedford Forrest, though his later involvement with the KKK is exaggerated (he was not the sole founder, and he eventually disowned them), was still a piece of shit who should have hanged for the Fort Pillow Massacre. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a cavalry genius, but he still should burn in Hell.

      The war was more complicated in its causes than most. It was and wasn’t about slavery. Emancipation didn’t happen for two years (and cost Lincoln a lot both politically and in civil unrest), and only applied to those states “in active rebellion,” so slaves in northern slaves states and southern states occupied by the Union Army were just shit outta luck. The secessionists were not entirely without merit in their constitutional arguments regarding states’ rights, but they were wrong to secede. The institution of slavery wasn’t really dying; it *had* been, until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, and suddenly cotton, which had previously been barely worth the trouble, suddenly became THE cash crop for a new kind of agriculture for which lots of no-pay, unskilled labor (i.e. slaves) was economical viable. At the same time, slavery was becoming increasingly unpopular outside the cotton industry and abolitionist southerners were making gains. The inclusion of slavery in the Confederate constitution was pushed by the cotton growers, who were happy to co-opt any and all other complaints in favor of secession. The average Johnny Reb didn’t much give a shit about some rich asshole’s ability to own humans as property; he generally joined up either out of idealism for states’ rights, or because his home (as in the specific place where he was born and raised) was at war and he felt obligated to fight for it (as was the case with General Lee). A surprising number of Confederate soldiers even favored abolition. And there were quite a few slave owners wearing blue!

      • Slow Joe says:

        The way I see the Civil War, is as a war between the Democrats in control of the South and the abolitionist Republican Party in control of the North.

        Elections have consequences, and Democrats have a very long history of refusing to acknowledge defeat at the polls.

        Now, if Lincoln had picked as VP that guy, Andrew Johnson…

      • SFC D says:

        TOW, you’re muddying the historical waters with facts again. Very well stated facts!

  7. ninja says:

    The “Author” of the New York Toilet Paper Times is “The Editorial Board”:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html

    When one opens the link, one will see names and faces. Don’t know if those individuals make up “The Editorial Board”.

    “The New York Times editorial board is made up of opinion journalists who rely on research, debate and individual expertise to reach a shared view of important issues. The board does not speak for the newsroom or The Times as a whole. Rather, amid the contending individual voices of Times Opinion, it aims to provide a consistent, independent view of the world based on time-tested institutional values. The board argues for a world that is both free and fair, believing that societies must struggle to reconcile these values in order to succeed. It has long supported a liberal order of nations in which freedom and progress advance through democracy and capitalism. But it has also sought to guard against the excesses of those systems by promoting honest governance, civil rights, equality of opportunity, a healthy planet and a good life for society’s most vulnerable members. Since its founding in 1896, the board has, above all, championed what Adolph Ochs called “the free exercise of a sound conscience,” believing that the fearless exchange of information and ideas is the surest means of resisting tyranny and realizing human potential.”

    • Hack Stone says:

      They did a heck of a job covering up Joseph Stalin’s genocide in The Ukraine during the 1930’s. They were even awarded a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage. What’s the death of 30,000,000 million Ukraine peasants when you are promoting the New World Order?

      • Hack Stone says:

        30,000,000 million? Just what the heck is going on with post? Maybe he has been hijacked by a deposed Nigerian prince who is used to using letters and numbers when describing quantities. Hack Stone Publishing is embarrassed for the error.

  8. 26Limabeans says:

    My DI in Basic was Sergeant Williams.
    Giant black guy that held supremacy over me in
    everything I did. Was it black supremacy?
    Hell no and the fact that he was black never came up.
    We were too busy being turned into soldiers to care what
    color that son of bitch was. Thank you SGT Williams.
    You made a good soldier out of me.

    • MI Ranger says:

      Funny SSG Williams greeted me as the Cattle Car pulled up to our “Starship” at Ft. Benning! He opened the back door, which we did not know was there, and proceeded to help extricate myself from the vehicle. He was a little hard to understand, but you figured out his meaning quickly!

  9. Hondo says:

    The old “Grey Lady” lost its objectivity and credibility decades ago when their Soviet correspondent actively helped Stalin hide his Голодомо́р в Украї́ні in the Ukraine.

    For all I care she can kiss my butt. Figuratively speaking, of course.

  10. ninja says:

    The New York Toilet Paper Times Article:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/opinion/sunday/army-base-names-confederacy-racism.html

    “Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy? It Is Time To Rename Bases For American Heroes — Not Racist Traitors.”

    “The white supremacist who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., five years ago dispensed with the fiction that the Confederate battle flag was an innocuous symbol of “Southern pride.” A murderer’s manifesto describing the killings as the start of a race war — combined with photos of the killer brandishing a pistol and a rebel flag — made it impossible to ignore the connection between Confederate ideology and a blood-drenched tradition of racial terrorism that dates back to the mid-19th century in the American South.”

    “Outrage over the Charleston massacre forced South Carolina to finally remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds — where it had flown for more than half a century — and led major retailers to drop merchandise bearing Confederate insignia. The National Cathedral in Washington showed how pervasive this iconography had become when it dismantled an elaborate set of stained-glass windows depicting the Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in saintly poses. As the cathedral dean put it, there was no excuse for the nation’s most visible church to celebrate a cause whose primary reason for being was the preservation and extension of slavery in America.”

    “Institutions that could once have wrapped themselves in Confederacy ideology without consequence were put on notice that public sentiment had shifted. The commandant of the United States Marine Corps tacitly deferred to this new reality last month by banning public display of the Confederate flag at Marine installations. Gen. David H. Berger pointed out in a letter to his fellow Marines that the flag was being pushed out because it had “the power to inflame feelings of division” in a military organization that relies on unity to do its work.”

    “The commandant avoided references to racism or white supremacy, suggesting that it was still justifiable for people of good will to view the Confederate banner as a harmless expression of regional pride. Nevertheless, innocent intentions cannot obscure the truth that secessionists embarked on the Civil War to guarantee the rights of some human beings to own others, or the fact that the Confederate banner represents the same white supremacist values as — and is often displayed in tandem with — the Nazi swastika.”

    “This same toxic legacy clings to the 10 United States military installations across the South that were named for Confederate Army officers during the first half of the 20th century. Apologists often describe the names as a necessary gesture of reconciliation in the wake of the Civil War. In truth, the namings reflect a federal embrace of white supremacy that found its most poisonous expression in military installations where black servicemen were deliberately placed under the command of white Southerners — who were said to better “understand” Negroes — and confined to substandard housing, segregated transportation systems and even “colored only” seating in movie houses.”

    “As the official Defense Department history of this period now acknowledges, the federal embrace of the Jim Crow system undermined the country’s readiness for war and destroyed morale, introducing black recruits to a brand of hard-core racism many had not experienced in civilian life. As the military opened more and more such bases across the country, the history notes, it “actually spread federally sponsored segregation into areas where it had never before existed with the force of law.” In other words, the base names were part of a broad federal sellout to white supremacy that poisoned the whole of the United States.”

    “Celebrating a War Criminal: The officials who named a military base in Virginia for a profoundly dishonorable Confederate general, George Pickett, must have been willfully blind to a voluminous record demonstrating his unworthiness. In addition to being accused of cowardice at the pivotal battle at Gettysburg, the incompetent, self-regarding Pickett faced a war crimes investigation for the executions of 22 Union soldiers at Kinston, N.C., near the end of the war. When a Union general reminded Pickett that federal policy mandated retaliation for extralegal killings of Union soldiers, the Confederate general responded by crowing about the killings and threatening to hang 10 U.S. Army prisoners for every Confederate prisoner who might be marched to the gallows.”

    “A military panel investigating the Kinston killings wrote unsparingly of Pickett’s command: “It is the opinion of board,” the panel wrote, “these men have violated the rules of war and every principle of humanity, and are guilty of crimes too heinous to be excused by the Government of the United States.” Pickett fled to Canada to avoid possible prosecution. He might well have been hauled back in manacles had the U.S. Army commander, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, not short-circuited the investigation. As the journalist and Civil War historian Gerard A. Patterson writes, Grant’s decision to save Pickett, with whom he had served in the Mexican-American war, was a classic act of old-boy cronyism. Even if Pickett’s crimes were set aside, his ineptitude in combat should have ruled him out of consideration when federal authorities were naming military installations.”

    “By the time the federal government sought out military training facilities in the South in preparation for war abroad, the school of mythology known as the Lost Cause movement — forged by groups like The United Daughters of the Confederacy — had rewritten Civil War history. This telling valorized the Ku Klux Klan; cast even the most execrable Confederate officers as saints; and portrayed slavery as an idyll featuring loving masters who doted on happy black retainers.”

    “The Lost Cause era also ushered in a reign of racial terror during which African-Americans were stripped of basic rights and murdered in public for reasons such as competing with whites in business, seeking the vote or even failing to give way on the sidewalk. Adolf Hitler himself took notice, praising the United States as the near epitome of the racist state. The Nazi movement normalized its agenda in Germany by pointing out that “racist policies and practices” had been successfully applied in the Southern United States.”

    “The federal government embraced pillars of the white supremacist movement when it named military bases in the South. Consider, for example, Fort Benning, Ga., which honors a Confederate general, Henry Lewis Benning, who devoted himself to the premise that African-Americans were not really human and could never be trusted with full citizenship.”

    “Benning was widely influential in Southern politics and served on the Supreme Court of Georgia before turning his attentions to the cause of secession. In a now famous speech in 1861, he told secession conventioneers in Virginia that his native state of Georgia had left the union for one reason — to “prevent the abolition of her slavery.” Benning’s statements strongly resemble that of present-day white supremacists — and reference the race war theme put forward by the young racist who murdered nine African-Americans in Charleston five years ago.”

    “Benning warned, for example, that the abolition of slavery would one day lead to the horror of “black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything.” This, he opined, would place white womanhood at the mercy of African-Americans with the same rights as white people. “We will be completely exterminated,” he said, “and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back into a wilderness.”

    “By naming yet another Georgia base for a Confederate general, John Brown Gordon, the federal government venerated a man who was a leader of the Georgia Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War and who may have taken on a broader role in the terrorist organization when its first national leader — a former Confederate general, Nathan Bedford Forrest — suffered declining health. As a politician, Gordon championed the late-19th-century campaign that stripped African-American Southerners of the citizenship rights they had briefly held during the period just after the Civil War known as Reconstruction.”

    “Among the other Confederate officers honored at Southern military bases are merely undistinguished or flatly incompetent commanders like the irascible Gen. Braxton Bragg — “the most hated man of the Confederacy,” one biographer calls him. Bragg was known for pettiness and cruelty, along with the battlefield failures that eventually led to his being relieved of command.”

    “A Deal With White Supremacy: The Charleston dead were scarcely cold when an Army spokesman declared that there was no need to expunge Confederate base names because the names were merely “historic’’ and “represent individuals, not causes or ideologies.”

    “The first problem with this argument is that, as individuals, these men were traitors. 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 second difficulty is that the base names were agreed upon as part of broader accommodation in which the military embraced stringent segregation so as not to offend Southerners by treating African-Americans as equals. The names represent not only oppression before and during the Civil War, but also state-sponsored bigotry after it.”

    “Black recruits who volunteered to die for their country were mainly shut out of combat units, commanded by white Southerners who often resented being assigned to colored units. In some contexts, black servicemen were treated worse than prisoners of war. The actress and singer Lena Horne, for example, flew into a rage during World War II when she arrived at a military camp to entertain only to find that the best seats — in the “white” section of the audience — had been reserved for German P.O.W.s.”

    “The racist conventions applied on Southern military bases were exported to bases in the North and West as well. When commanders sought to police the leisure time conduct of black soldiers, those conventions spilled over into surrounding towns that had never known Jim Crow. At the height of World War II, for example, Southern white officers at a base not far from Philadelphia reacted in vintage Deep South style when they saw black soldiers dating white women. One officer decreed that “any association between the colored soldiers and white women, whether voluntary or not, would be considered rape” — an offense that had long been subject to the death penalty under military law.”

    “The Army surgeon general blew a kiss to racists in 1941 when he justified the Red Cross policy of segregating the wartime blood bank by donor race — even though there was no scientific reason for doing so. The point was to assure white recipients that they would receive only “white” plasma. African-American newspapers quickly pointed out that a black doctor, Dr. Charles Drew, who directed the first Red Cross blood bank, had pioneered the techniques that made large-scale blood plasma storage possible.”

    “President Harry Truman desegregated the armed services through executive order in 1948, declaring that “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.”

    “Fifteen years later, a young African-American Army officer named Colin Powell marveled at the contrast between the fairness and opportunity he experienced at Fort Benning, Ga., and the racist treatment he suffered at off-base restaurants that refused to serve him. In his memoir “My American Journey,” Mr. Powell describes the racially integrated bases of the segregated 1960s-era South as “healthy cells in an otherwise sick body.” Nevertheless, for the first half of the 20th century, the U.S. military contributed mightily to the very “sickness” Mr. Powell condemns.”

    “Military installations that celebrate white supremacist traitors have loomed steadily larger in the civic landscape since the country began closing smaller bases and consolidating its forces on larger ones. Bases named for men who sought to destroy the Union in the name of racial injustice are an insult to the ideals servicemen and women are sworn to uphold — and an embarrassing artifact of the time when the military itself embraced anti-American values. It is long past time for those bases to be renamed.”

    • ninja says:

      BTW, this is how the article ends:

      “The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.”

      So far, there are 1,522 comments on the article.

    • just lurkin says:

      Control F=”Woodrow Wilson” zero results.

      It’s funny how the NYT ignores the role of the President who was both a leader of the Progressive political movement and a staunch segregationist and who also led the nation when most (if not all) of these bases were established.

      It’s almost as though they emphasize certain aspects of a story while ignoring others based on how they think it might reflect on certain political movements.

    • Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH B Woodman says:

      “It Is Time To Rename Bases For American Heroes — Not Racist Traitors.”
      Be interesting to read who their idea of “American Heroes” is-vs-what the rest of the country thinks American Heroes is.
      that list may be lost somewhere in the middle of all that drivel, but I don’t have time to read it and lose what few functional brain cells I have remaining.

  11. Hack Stone says:

    May Hack Stone suggest a possible champion of racial tolerance that should be considered to have a military installation named after them? Short list should include Robert K. Byrd, friend and mentor of Hillary Clinton,

  12. Comm Center Rat says:

    Like my father before me
    I will work the land
    And like my brother above me
    Who took a rebel stand
    He was just eighteen, proud and brave
    But a Yankee laid him in his grave
    And I swear by the mud below my feet
    You can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat

    ~ The Band, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down (1969)

    RIP Levon Helm

    • Hondo says:

      RIP also Richard Manuel and Rick Danko. Only Garth Hudson and Robbie Robertson are still with us.

    • ninja says:

      CCR:

      LOVE that song.

      Love it, Love it, LOVE IT.

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        The Original Video from what I could find; Enjoy!

        • 5th/77th FA says:

          Here’s another story of the War in Song, featuring a bunch of Folks including Waylon Jennings and Jessie Colter. Beware on some of them, it gets dusty. If you’ve never heard this one, it is well worth the 45 minutes it runs.

          “Bring the 12 pounders!”

          • Poetrooper says:

            KOB (I think that’s a bit more dignified than Ex’s Gun Bunny–heh)

            Young, gorgeous Miz Poe and I once had the very good fortune to catch Waylon playing a small bar venue back in the mid-70’s: the original Hog’s Breath Saloon in Destin.

            That was an absolutely incredible experience watching that man, drunk and stoned, putting on such a helluva performance about a dozen feet away from our table for a small, intimate audience just as whacked out as the band was.

            One for the memory books…

            • 5th/77th FA says:

              Brother Poe, you can call me anything but late for supper. I have dim memories of getting in that same condition as Waylon, with Waylon…and Jessie. He was a great guy, laid back (til some idiot might try to piss him off) and, as you pointed out, one hell of a musician. And Jessie…a real class act. I fell deeply in lust with her. Good times!

              We did a program of sorts using that album as the narrative with people acting out the parts without speaking. Threw it together at the last minute, with no rehearsal, it came off pretty good. Always thought it would make a good motion picture.

  13. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    The Nooh Yawk Slimes continues to exhibit just what a liberal propaganda rag it truly is.

  14. CDR_D says:

    If most of those who served in that war could accept each other as reunited countrymen, one has to question why the latter day twerps at the NYT feel it so necessary to pick at a century and a half year old scab. Maybe it’s because their “1619 Project” flopped so badly.

    It should be noted that most Confederates were amnestied, and many went on to serve the country with honor:

    After the war, there were four former Confederate generals who served as generals in the U.S. Army during the Spanish-American War. They were Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, Gen. Joseph Wheeler, Gen. Thomas Rosser and Gen. Matthew C. Butler.

    After the war, 15 Confederate Officers served as U.S. ambassadors or ministers to foreign countries. James Longstreet was minister to Turkey, and the “Gray Ghost”, John Mosby was US Commissioner to Hong Kong.

    Eighteen former Confederate soldiers served as college presidents including R.E.Lee.

    Gen. E. Porter Alexander was appointed by President Grover Cleveland to arbitrate and supervise the surveying of the boundary of the Panama Canal.

    Three former Confederate generals served as U.S. Commissioners of Railroads, one of the most important posts in the United States government in the post-war (westward expansion) period. They were: Gen. Joseph Johnston, Gen. James Longstreet and Gen. Wade Hampton.

    After the war, seven former Confederate officers served as the adjutant general of their states.

    Three former Confederate soldiers — Col. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, SGM Horace H. Lurton and Lt. Edward D. White — were appointed justices of the United States Supreme Court. White served as Chief Justice.

    These a just a few.

    If the US Govt considered these men irreconcilable traitors, they sure had an odd way of showing it.

  15. SFC D says:

    The Army promotes white supremacy. Interesting. So, NYT, explain to me how, in 24 years of service, nearly all of my PSG’s were black or hispanic. Over half of my CSM’s were black, and most of them female. Roughly half of my PL’s were black. There was no shortage of black or other non-white officers at the filed-grade level. Is Signal more diverse than other branches?

    • Ret_25X says:

      no, less…

    • 26Limabeans says:

      Never really gave it much thought while serving in Germany
      and then Viet of the Nam. If anything it was the local
      Germans and Vietnamese that seemed out of place for a
      Boston white boy.
      The guys I served with though didn’t seem to be different
      than me no matter their race, religion or choice of beer.
      We were soldiers first. Civilians don’t understand that.

      • timactual says:

        My experience differs. In my experience there was often a consciousness of race in the background, which occasionally broke into the open. No white supremacy except for a few individuals, who usually kept quiet about their beliefs, but there seemed to be an unspoken undercurrent of tension in both races. Can’t say I really blame the black guys for having a bit of an attitude back then (~ ’68)

        • SFC D says:

          I had a real winner as a PSG in 1990, we’ll just call him SFC Homer because he was a dead ringer for Homer Simpson, just not as smart. One day, he has us all in formation and announces “It has been brought to my attention that we have a racial problem in our platoon”. We’re all looking at each other with WTF written all over our faces, when SGT T, a large black man resembling Charles Barkley speaks up, and says “SFC Homer, look around. We have black, we have white, 3 kinds of Hispanics and 2 native Americans from different tribes. If we had a couple of Asians, we’d be perfect”. Homer dismissed the platoon and retreated.

        • 26Limabeans says:

          Yeah, there were some “Black Power” guys in Nam
          but they were unhappy no matter what and the
          “normal” black guys avoided them to the point of
          shunning. I remember a black guy from Albany NY
          telling them to fuck off and take their bullshit
          outside the wire to Charlie…he don’t care what
          color you are.
          Probably every unit had them but it went nowhere
          and the news media could not make it grow even though
          they gave it a good try.

    • rgr769 says:

      In my first infantry rifle company, every platoon sgt. was black. They were all excellent or above average NCO’s. I learned a great deal from the two who were my PSG’s and also from our 1SG.

  16. Ret_25X says:

    I have no axe to grind wrt base names, but I would submit that we may have better soldiers to name forts after now.

    I have never understood why we have a Fort Gordon, but no Fort Bradley or Fort Patton, Gavin, etc…and if Fort Gordon is going to be the home of Signal and Cyber, why not name it after early pioneers of both like Greeley or Brainard?

    I also don’t get the lack of of a Fort Greene or Fort LaFayette…

    It might be time to reconsider base names…not for the reasons the NYT gives, but because current CONUS base names mean nothing to the modern soldier.

    • just lurkin says:

      Bragg, Polk, Hood and Pickett were all terrible commanders and changing the names of the forts to honor someone more competent is not a bad idea, but even “Uncle Billy” Sherman-outstanding General officer and American hero-would not pass muster in today’s political climate based on how he dealt with the natives after the war. I don’t trust our overly politicized bureaucracy to honor actual American heroes if we were to start renaming bases today.

    • ninja says:

      Ret_25X:

      Thank You for sharing your thoughts.

      You commented:

      “It might be time to reconsider names…”

      My comment:

      “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

      😉😎

      • Ret_25X says:

        I think it is broken. I have no connection to any of them.

        Fort Hood and Fort Gordon are the best examples. The home of III Armored Corps should be appropriately named after one of the “fathers” of armored combat like Patton, Abrams, or Rose.

        Fort Gordon should be named after one of the “fathers” of the Signal Corps like Greeley or Brainard.

        Fort Bragg should be named after one of the “fathers” of airborne operations like Gavin or McAuliffe.

        It isn’t disrespecting the past, it’s admitting that the Civil War has little relevance to our Army in any material way.

        When considering Bragg, Hood, Polk, Barksdale, Gordon, etc, I am not confronted with a pantheon of great leaders, but a collection of amusing failures.

        It’s time to move on from our fascination with Civil War personalities and look instead to the men and women who actually made the modern military the lethal and professional force it is today…

        Like Gen Starry, Gen Wickham, Gen Sullivan, Gen Reimer, Gen Bradley, Patton, Hodges, Rose, etc, etc.

        • ninja says:

          Ret_25X:

          Thank You again for sharing.

          If you think about it, another Generation may think that WWI/WWII and Cold War General Officers are Dinasours and may want to rename US Army Posts after General Officers of OEF/OIF as well as any Future Operations we may engaged in.

          Am betting if you ask a “Modern Day” Soldier who Starry or Reimer or Sullivan or Wickham are, they most likely will say “Who?”

          I am proud of being “fascinated” with The War Between The States “Personalities”, especially those General Officers, both North and South, who graduated from West Point.

          Thank You again for sharing your perspectives.

          BTW, always wonder if some folks are objected in being buried at Arlington. After all, Arlington once was own by Bobby Lee….

          ifitaintbrokedontfixit

          😉😎

          • OWB says:

            Actually, he married into the family that owned it. The Custis family, iirc.

            • The Other Whitey says:

              George W.P. Custis bequeathed Arlington Farm to his daughter and grandchildren, and named his son-in-law, LTC Robert E. Lee, executor of his estate. So Lee did own it for a few years, and it was that ownership from whence it was seized by the federal government and made Arlington National Cemetery. Lee was understandably less than thrilled at the seizure, but approved of the land’s new use.

              Another fun fact, George Washington Parke Custis, father-in-law of General Lee, was the grandson of George Washington.

              • Cameron says:

                One interesting fact about Arlington National Cemetery is that Lee’s son (I believe) sued the federal government for illegally seizing the land and actually won the case with the court agreeing that the seizure was unlawful.

                • 5th/77th FA says:

                  You are correct Cameron. His son (REL Jr IIRC) did sue and was semi compensated by the Feds. Also, IIRC, can look it up, the Federal General who had FIRST occupied the home, purposely buried the dead in the front of the home and stated he did so to make it where the Lee’s would not want to live there later. Originally there was a number of Confederates buried alongside the Union dead, most of them got re-interred later.

          • Slow Joe says:

            *raises hand*

            I know who Wickham is.

            He is the dude in Pride of Prejudice that tries to fast rope Keira Knightley, but turns out to be a shitbag.

          • Ret_25X says:

            I’m OK with changing base names now and then…hell, I’m OK with closing some and opening new ones now and then…that would sure fix the politicization of the bases.

        • Poetrooper says:

          Ret_25X, have you given any consideration to the costly can of worms you’re suggesting be opened here?

          First, you would be establishing the horrible precedent of each generation renaming posts to honor THEIR contemporary heroes, a never-ending process.

          Second, you would subject military budgets to endless, manpower-consuming administrative costs that could be much better directed at REAL problems.

          Third, a constant renaming process based on current political whims would create endless confusion which is already bad enough among know-nothing civilians, politicians, bureaucrats and media. Hell, under your concept even the troops would be confused.

          Last, you’re giving the frickin’ libs, most of whom never served, just what they want.

          Let sleeping dogs lie, old soldier…

          • ninja says:

            Poe:

            Were you in my brain today?

            (Had the same thoughts…please see my comments).

            Hope the US Army/Department of Defense stand fast and NOT give in to politics, i.e. renaming Army Installations.

            DoD has enough problems with Uniform changes and Military grooming standards…😉😎

          • Ret_25X says:

            To be clear, I am not advocating changing anything at this point.

            Any changes now would have the appearance of being in response to the Skree Brigade of moron SJWs.

            However, as for money…I do not factor that at all. The Army wastes more money before 9am on internet tomfoolery than this would cost.

            All of that said, The naming of an installation is not given to us by an angry deity written on stone tablets and carried to us by a prophet.

            I consider some army posts to be inappropriately named because those they are named for were not outstanding examples of military leadership or success. Not because of the Civil War. Men like Bragg and Hood are great examples of that.

        • SFC D says:

          I’d be ok with the name changes as long as Wade Wilson and Steve Rogers each got a post. And maybe Terry Lee.

          • The Other Whitey says:

            Don’t forget Frank Castle!

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            How about some MOH recipients?

            How about that bunch of pilots who were amazing warriors in the sky, but weren’t “white guys” from the South?

            How about naming one Army “fort” for a wardog?

        • 26Limabeans says:

          D. Brainard Holmes?

          Proud to have been employed by him.

  17. Stacy0311 says:

    White supremacist? Seriously? Do these clowns have any idea how bad a Klan hood clashes with multicam? As if…

    BTW, while the New York Slimes was doing their usual bit to denigrate the military on Memorial Day, I (along with 35 of my soldiers) were conducting an exercise to prep a unit for deployment.

  18. Deckie says:

    Funny… where was the NYT when Ray Mabus chose to name naval vessels after pedophiles and folks who openly put down the US Navy? Not one “journalist” from that “newspaper” spoke up about how many countless MOH recipients names have yet to be seen on a gray hull.

    Pathetic. And disgusting.

    • Just An Old Dog says:

      They named a ship for Harvey Milk, a homosexual sex addict who was so wanton that two of his partners committed suicide because he dallied around so much.

  19. David says:

    It’s funny how they always hang their hat on Dylan Roof and that he used a ANVa flag as his totem or whatever… Would seem to me a false logic to assume that because he decided to appropriate it that it was the go-to totem for all white racists. Like a hangman’s noose, used to hang more non-blacks than blacks through our history, has somehow become a WAYCISS! symbol. Not denying that racist folk have used both – but just because someone has or uses one doesn’t reciprocally mean they embrace racism.

    • Just An Old Dog says:

      The Former Confederacy has been used by liberals as a lightning rod to attract hatred for racism.
      The rest of the country gladly points their fingers and acts like racism never existed outside of Dixie.
      The biggest lie was that the North entered the Civil War to end slavery.
      They went to war to preserve the Union. As the war progressed the abolishment of Slavery happened to punish the Slave Holding elites and sap the South of labor.

      • Fyrfighter says:

        Did that POS Roof drive a Ford? If so, does that mean that Ford is racist? Seems like the same level of “logic”..
        Liberalism, as always, is a mental disorder

  20. E4 Mafia '83-'87 says:

    I did 5 minutes of research (5 minutes more than the Times), and you can see many were opened as the US entered WWI & WWII. They were named for local heroes even though they fought in the CSA. They were not naming forts/camps/air bases in the South after Sherman, Sheridan, Grant, or Hancock. I’m going to guess that Democrat politicians (you know the party of slavery, sedition, and segregation) was in favor of those installations being named as such. Renaming is a discussion you can have at another time, but calling Memorial Day a “White Supremacist” holiday sullies the memory of all the non-white Americans that gave their lives to defend this nation. The Times is and always will be bird cage liner in my opinion.

    • ArmyATC says:

      What the cretins at the NYT fail to realize is that very few military installations are named after Confederates. In Georgia alone there are/were Forts Stewart, named after Revolutionary War hero Daniel Stewart, and McPherson – now closed- named after Union MG James McPherson who was killed during the Battle of Atlanta. But imagine the heads that would explode if Benning was renamed Ft. Sherman.

  21. 5th/77th FA says:

    Ok, my BP has subsided from its high when I FIRST read this article, a good while back now. Thanks to our (we have the very best) ninja for posting the article where we could all read it. And Thanks to all who have posted their comments on this subject. All made very good points, for both sides of the discussion. Particular Thanks to CDR_D for his pointing out the loyalty to a Re-United States of former Confederates. It has to be said that in 1860, no matter your politics, most people had a bigger loyalty to their state than for the Country per se. And this was true for future members of the Confederate Army AND the Union Army. Thus the forming of units by state. In BOTH Armies. That war was the most tragic and the most avoidable point in our history and was started, aided and abetted by politicians, yellow journalists and self serving business people alike.

    Maybe the NYT needs to look a little closer to home for New York’s role in the slave trade over all and racism in general. Do a story on the New York businessmen who financed the slave ships. Or the cotton mills that the Southern Cotton was shipped to. How about the financing of the purchase of slaves. Or the selling of slaves on the New York Stock Exchange. Or better yet, let us look into the New York draft riots of July 1863 when the town was ablaze, Blacks were hung from the lampposts and the Black Children’s Orphanage was set afire.

    The politicians and the news media are doing the same thing now as they were doing in 1860. Trying to divide the people and distracting them from what their ultimate goal is. Maintaining their grip on power.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      You left out child labor in England, going on at the same time, Gun Bunny. Children were working in the mine pits in southwestern England and at the steel mills in Sheffield, never mind the spinning mills and textiles mills, starting in the late 18th century, and on up through the 19th century. It was the reason Dickens wrote “David Copperfield” in the first place.
      Children in the USA were also exploited, 1 in 5 being the percentage who were working in the more dangerous jobs, e.g., textile mills, right up through the early 1900s.
      Maybe that should be addressed by the spoiled brats writing stupid editorials at the NYSlimes. I love how widely they display their ignorance of real history by ignoring such things, don’t you?

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        Yessum, Roger all that. I’m making a concentrated effort to stay out of ‘Eds woodshed and kinda stay within rock throwing distance of the thread subject flagpole. Keeping my focus on Noo Yawk city happenings. They had their damn fair share of kiddy sweatshops too, young’uns 8, 10, 12, years old in the sewing plants. Remember the one that had all the doors locked and the fire broke out and killed so many? That kinda stuff went on, documented, well into the 60s/70s and truth be known, prolly still happening. And we won’t even talk about all of the sex slavery going on. Grrrr!

  22. SFC (R) Blizz says:

    I agree with most of what everyone is saying, however it is time to re-think the names of our Army Posts. To many great Generals and MOH holders that could be used. The bottom line is that these generals fought against the United States in defense of slavery. Naming the posts might have seemed necessary in the 30s and 40s to garner support from influential southern democrats. 75 years later, not so much. How about we start with Fort Cashe since we can’t seem to get this guy awarded the MOH.

  23. ninja says:

    The other factor that comes into play in renaming Army Posts is the cost, i.e. MONEY,i.e. replacing signs.

    And what about the street signs named after The War Between The States General Officers? Are those streets/highways/boulevards/ drives/avenues gonna be renamed as well?

    And who is gonna pay for it?

    Poor timing on New York Toilet Paper Times on publishing their opinion, especially during the Beer Virus Economic crisis.

    I doubt very seriously those folks out there who have lost their jobs or income or struggling to make ends meet while raising a family curretly give a rat’s behind on changing the name of Army Installations.

    New York Toilet Paper Times Editorial Board = Too Much Time On Their Hands While Raking In A Nice Source of Income.

    Get A Life!

    😉😎

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Ninja,
      Please don’t refer to it as the “beer virus”.. Corona is by no means beer, at least not to anyone that appreciates good beer. It’s nothing more than a piss poor copy of Coors Light (speaking of piss)…If you have to add lime to it to make it palatable, it is NOT beer…
      Besides, Bat Soup Flu has a much better ring to it…

  24. Martinjmpr says:

    I can totally understand not wanting to go down the rabbit hole of renaming bases based on our current views of figures that lived more than a century ago – once you start, where do you stop?

    In my home state of Colorado the biggest Army installation is named after famed Indian scout Kit Carson. I haven’t (yet) heard of anyone calling for the post to have its name changed because of the atrocities committed by US Army soldiers against the Native Americans, but if the push to rename installations that were previously named after Confederate generals is successful, how long before that begins?

    On the other hand, John Hood and Braxton Bragg were objectively terrible generals and I can’t be the only one who finds it a little embarrassing that literally the two biggest posts in the US Army are named after generals who didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory (to put it mildly.)

    So I have to say I’m somewhat on both sides of this issue. Whatever your opinion on the civil war, the fact is that naming posts after Confederate generals absolutely WAS done to appease the “old South” politicians.

    And it’s not like the Army doesn’t have a list of soldiers who are much more deserving of recognition than losers like Bragg and Hood.

  25. Martinjmpr says:

    As a side note: What installations were named after soldiers who were NOT generals?

    I’m trying to rack my brain here (will probably have to resort to my Google machine) but the only ones off the top of my head or Fort Lewis (Named after Meriwether Lewis of the Lewis and Clark expedition, who was a captain) and Kit Carson who I don’t think was ever “officially” a member of the Army but was an Indian Scout who worked for the Army – in modern parlance, a “government contractor.”

    But I’m sure there are more than that.

    • Mason says:

      Luke AFB immediately comes to mind. Volk Field, Edwards AFB, Shaw AFB, and several others on the USAF side.

    • Poetrooper says:

      Kit Carson was officially a colonel.

    • Devtun says:

      Fort Bliss was named after Mexican War vet, LTC William Bliss. Many mistakenly believe the Fort was named after former Army CoS GEN Tasker H. Bliss.

  26. martinjmpr says:

    EDIT: So apparently Carson was in the Army and was also at some point a General leading troops in the Civil War so he falls off the list of installations named after non-Generals.

    Of the “major” installations the only ones I can find are Forts Leavenworth (Named after a COL) and Fort Bliss (named after a LTC.) A few Army installations are named after their locations (Fort Monmouth, Fort Huachuca, West Point) but the vast majority seem to be the names of generals.

    Note: Not going to look at installations outside CONUS because I know the rules for naming those are a little looser (since they tend to be more “temporary” installations than the big Stateside posts.) Camp Casey in Korea was named for a Major who was killed in a plane crash and Camp Red Cloud was named after a Sergeant who received the MoH during the Korean war.

  27. Martinjmpr says:

    Still, it does seem odd, doesn’t it, that there is no Fort Bradley, Fort Eisenhower, Fort Patton, Fort Gavin, or Fort McArthur, doesn’t it?

    In fact, are there ANY WWII Generals who got a CONUS post named after them besides LTG Wainwright? (Side question: Is it ironic or is it fitting that Wainwright, the highest ranking US POW of the war, was captured in the tropics of the Philippines but has a post named after him in Alaska?)

    • Hondo says:

      Ahem:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_MacArthur

      It was named after Arthur MacArthur. Perhaps you’ve heard of his son, Douglas? (smile)

      It’s no longer active. Portions were transferred to the city of Los Angeles in 1975; the last part transferred to the USAF in 1982 and is now part of Los Angeles AFB.

      Regarding CONUS installations named after WWII generals: Fort McNair in DC is named after LTG Leslie McNair, who was KIA in France in 1944.

      • ninja says:

        If one goes to this link, one can find “Camps” that are currently active for National Guard and OCONUS units.

        https://militarybases.com/army/

        One can read how the Camps got their names.

        Two examples are Camp Blanding, Florida, named after a World War 1 Veteran General Officer and Camp Atterberry, named after another World War 1 Veteran General Officer.

        There are more.

        If one wants to change the names of Army Installations, then that ROE should apply to ALL Military Bases and not just those with Confederacy names.

        Because after all, if the rule only applies to Confederate Officers, then IMHO, that is discrimination.

        Game On.

        Be careful what you wish for. ROE may change from naming Military Installations after ANYONE, not just those who served in the Military.

        Yep, I can see it now. Fort Obama. Fort Pelopsi. Fort Cuomo. Fort Schumer. Fort Nadler. Camp Schiff. Camp Biden. Camp Waters.

        Laugh if you wish. Look what happened in Germany, Russia, Vietnam, Korea…

        • ArmyATC says:

          I cannot even begin to fathom a Ft. Harvey Milk or Jane Fonda AFB. How about a Camp Hank Johnson? I suppose that would be alright as long as they didn’t put too many Marines on one end. Wouldn’t want it tipping over and capsizing.

          • ninja says:

            ArmyATC:

            😂🤣😅😆!!!

            😂🤣😅😆!!!

            Heaven help us if we have a Jane Fonda Air Force Base.

            Oh, the Horrors, I tell you…the Horrors!

            😉

            Bet Ole Jane is having a Hissy Fit right now since she can’t protest in DC because of the Social Distancing and Mask Rule.

            😎

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            The mask requirement would certainly improve things re: her….

            How about I petition the government to name a military base after one of my cats? What’s wrong with Fort Michael the Magnificent?

            • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

              I say we name it after one of my feline owners, hello Fort Bonkers!!!

      • Martinjmpr says:

        Well, I feel dumb for not remembering Fort McNair since my dad worked there in the 1960’s (he was a DA civilian working for the Military History Department which was headquartered at McNair.)

        Still, McNair was never a “major” military installation of the likes of Hood, Bragg, Campbell, etc.

  28. Green Thumb says:

    My old unit had Confederate streamers on our guidon.

    We still recognize their campaign credit.

  29. USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

    Apparently, the author of this opinion piece in the “Marine Corps Slimes” believes the same thing:

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/09/the-marine-corps-always-faithful-to-white-men/

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I read that whiny editorial and it is hogwash. I never went to a school that was NOT integrated and NONE of the black kids acted as if they were uneducated or spoke sloppy slang and/or poor English. Apparently, we had better instructors in all grades including college curricula than anything available now.
      Hogwash!

    • Green Thumb says:

      Thomas Hobbs is a very weak individual.

  30. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    When was the last time that the NYT had an Senior Executive/Owner that was African American? Asian-American? Hispanic?

    I thought so…

    • The Stranger says:

      I yield to no one in my dislike for the New York Times, but in reference to your comment: the largest shareholder of the paper is one Carlos Slim (original family name Salim) a Mexican citizen of Lebanese descent and one of the richest men in the world. It’s still a rag that prints bullshit, but, hey, they got that diversity thing working for them!🤣

      • Slow Joe says:

        Yeah, but is he a white Mexican or a “real” Mexican?

        • The Stranger says:

          Take a look at the portraits of the Mexican Presidents. You will find that they all look remarkably Caucasian with one very notable exception: Benito Juarez, who was a full-blooded Zapotec Indian. “White” Mexicans are who you often find in positions of authority and privilege in that country. It is still a racist and classist society in many ways. As far as Mr. Salim, he’s an “Arab” Mexican; there’s a sizable diaspora from the Middle East in Mexico, particularly from Lebanon, the majority of which were/are Maronite Christians (Catholics). This wave of migration is thought to be the reason that we have the “Tacos al Pastor”, which is cooked on a rotisserie in a similar manner to schwarma.

  31. Mike B USAF Retired says:

    Not to be a smart ass, but school names are being changed, now they want base names changed! What’s next, change the names of towns, cities, states etc.

    Where do we draw the line, when does it stop, it doesn’t, they’ll find something else to bitch about…..

    I’ll shut up now and go back to my corner.

    • Mason says:

      It’s just like the forced renaming of all the Native themed clubs and mascots. Systematically removing them from public awareness and disappearing them.

      I’d like to think there isn’t ill intent in all this, but it’s hard not to see the total removal of heritage and cultural pride as beneficial.

  32. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Are they objecting to bases named after

    democrats?

    They are deflecting attention from the depredations of their faction.

  33. OWB says:

    Ya gotta love the fact that most of the folks screaming about “white privilege” and such are themselves white. And grew up with a good degree of unearned privilege themselves. They seem to grant themselves some sort of superiority over the rest of us because of whatever it was, along with arrogance, that was handed to them.

    What they don’t seem to understand is that they have no moral superiority to anyone. Not whites, not blacks, not anyone. The accident of their gene pool and circumstances of birth give them no special right to dictate to the rest of us, of all races.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Oh, it’s all hogwash, OWB. There is nothing genuine about it.

      It is done because of some self-inflicted phony guilt trip they were taught to carry around with them. It’s like they’re trying to “make up” somehow for not being part of the protesters from the 1960s, or something like that.

      It’s baloney and we all know it.