By Japan Probe is reporting that some Japanese celebrities are upset that US bases on Okinawa are named after US servicemembers that fought in World War II and killed Japanese soldiers:
The host, journalist Akira Ikegami, explains that the base is named after an American Marine. He reminds the audience that American Marines played a major role in the battle to capture Okinawa from the Japanese, so their bases in Okinawa have been named after war heroes who died in action after “killing many Japanese soldiers.”
The celebrity panelists react with shock. How could the Americans be so insensitive? Even Ikegami agrees that the Americans should probably think more about Japanese people’s feelings. One comedian wonders if the people living nearby Camp Schwab could include some descendants of the very soldiers killed by PFC Schwab. [Japan Probe]
You can read more at the link, but Japan Probe makes a good point that the Okinawans don’t have fond memories of the Imperial Japanese military either so the names of the camps are irrelevant to them.
10:41 am on May 12th, 2010 1
I can kinda sorta understand their point. But what do the expect us to do, name installations after Japanese service members??
12:45 pm on May 12th, 2010 2
A few things these 'celebrities' overlook, probably because they have never served in the military, is that military people can still appreciate and respect the deeds their honorable opposition. Those bases are generally named after someone who sacrificed or did something extraordinary against great odds. I suspect that even pre-war Japanese warriors understood and appreciated that.
I don't think any of them could ever be accused of having committing war crimes against the Japanese.
If someone suggested naming an Opposition Forces training center in the U.S. after Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, or Manfred Richthofen, The Red Baron, I don't know that too many American military people would complain. They were honorable warriors.
12:52 pm on May 12th, 2010 3
So…
I guess Camp J. Robert Oppenheimer is completely off the table?
1:35 pm on May 12th, 2010 4
When does Camp Robert E. Lee open?
1:38 pm on May 12th, 2010 5
Well, it depends who you ask. It's a known fact that the Japanese soldiers used the Okinawans as human shield. As a result, a large percentage of them were killed by both Japanese and American soldiers (over 100 000 civilian casualties).
There's also…
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/01/world/3-dead-ma…
"One comedian wonders if the people living nearby Camp Schwab could include some descendants of the very soldiers killed by PFC Schwab. "
Descendants of the locals who were forced into service as gunpoint by the Japanese soldiers? Probably.
But, if the majority of locals who survived the battle want the name to be changed, then it should.
1:40 pm on May 12th, 2010 6
I have always wondered why US Forts, especially in the US South have been named after, in some cases lackluster, Confederate Generals. I mean really what is up with naming US bases after traitors?
Begin flaming.
2:41 pm on May 12th, 2010 7
The majority of the locals who survived the war have nothing to do with the naming of bases. If you look hard enough you can always find some super offended group that demands actions from a government as if they have any legal status to do so and despite the very bad precedent for caving in to special interest groups.
This reminds me of a road that an Asian American saw called "Jap Road" in Texas if memory is correct. He started an angry mob movement to remove the name. Apparently the road led to a rice farm run by Japanese Families that were well respected in the area and the road was named in their honor over 100 years ago, well before "Jap" was considered derogatory. It also turns out the asian American was not of Japanese decendentry and those who were didn't have a problem with the name.
Hey Japan, Win the next war and you can name the bases whatever you want. It's good to see that Japanese actors are just as vapid as ours are.
7:42 pm on May 12th, 2010 8
Then change the names to those of sailors who died at Pearl Harbor.
8:42 pm on May 12th, 2010 9
1917: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_%28Virginia…
8:53 pm on May 12th, 2010 10
"The majority of the locals who survived the war have nothing to do with the naming of bases."
Ultimately, no…But it could be good public relations if the majority is offended by it–but, I was making the suggesting under the assumption that they aren't offended.
9:11 pm on May 12th, 2010 11
Sais-tu parler français? Avec un pseudonyme comme ça, t'es mieux sinon t'aura bien l'air bien hypocrite.
9:14 pm on May 12th, 2010 12
Juste une petite correction…Supprimez le deuxième "bien".
9:16 pm on May 12th, 2010 13
That would be a sure way to make the Japanese develop their own nuclear weapons.
9:19 pm on May 12th, 2010 14
They named a base after a car?
Be offended if you want, but I Googled "general lee" and these are the pictures that came up:
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=general+…
9:38 pm on May 12th, 2010 15
Why would I be offended? I used to watch the "Dukes of Hazzard". Love me some Daisy.
10:34 pm on May 12th, 2010 16
I'm sure the English thought the same of America's founding fathers. Flam hot enough for you? If you call yourself an American you are decended from traitors, otherwise known as American Patriots.
One man's trator is another man's Patriot. Warmer?
At least your Traitors didn't invade the North and burn entire towns to the ground, as was done To the South. Do you really want to go into the theft of land and homes that followed the war, by the great "united" states. Sherman's March mean anything to you? Too bad we don't use the same tactics today.
Your defamation of The Confederate Leadership is note worthy. They were instructed at the same schools as those fighting with the North. Classmates.
The Japanese and German military Leaders are not referred to in the same disparaging manner as those from the Confederacy. The South was never reintagrated into the Union and disparaging remarks such as yours are still used. There is a culture gap that those such as yourself still reinforce. Then you fail to understand why it is there.
America rebuilt Germany after the war. America rebuilt Japan after the war. The South was not rebuilt by America after the war. But that's OK. The South was fleeced instead. (at least it wasn't ignored, right)
I await your insults—-
10:35 pm on May 12th, 2010 17
I LOVE that idea
1:43 am on May 13th, 2010 18
I meant to write "suggestion", not "suggesting". Man, what's with the terrible typos today?
1:50 am on May 13th, 2010 19
Yeah, cut-off shorts are often called "Daisy Dukes" for a good reason.
2:25 am on May 13th, 2010 20
brilliant!
8:44 am on May 13th, 2010 21
In a word…no. I can't think of any example outside of civil war confederate generals where a U.S. military base was named after an enemy soldier.
8:49 am on May 13th, 2010 22
I understood your point Teadrinker. However there is a never ending supply of offended people in every community. I would like to see some polling on the Okinawans that are offendend. I think they actually don't want the bases at all and will use any issue to exploit. I suspect they would be equally unhappy for any bases named after Japanese Generals from WWII, they are not fond of the Japanese.
However, the placement of the bases is a Japan to US aggreement and something Japan needs to deal with. If you want our support for your defense but won't give up any land for our support then eventually you will be on your own which is why even the current anti-american base government has backed off it's kick the yankee devils out campaign.
It might be bad policy to offend the locals but it is even worse to cater to a group that has no legal authority to negotiate. Japan is a democracy last I checked, if there is an overwhelming majority opionion then take it to the GOJ.
9:39 am on May 13th, 2010 23
Outstanding suggestion or we could name them after survivors of the Battan Death March.
9:41 am on May 13th, 2010 24
I used to love that show. She certainly put me at the position of attention.
11:32 am on May 13th, 2010 25
No, I do not speak, write or read French. That has not stopped me from seeing the absurdity that is often life.
For Retired GI, ho hum, yet another straw man defense of the “gallant” South. And the point I raised was never addressed. Lincoln and Johnson did so much that they are never given credit for to bring the nation back together. That is our greatest legacy from the tragedy of the Civil War.
11:56 am on May 13th, 2010 26
Just tell the Japanese that you guys will name the base after a Korean name that the Japanese will gladly accept whatever name you have been considering.
12:22 pm on May 13th, 2010 27
The real tragedy of the Civil War is the wrong side won.
12:23 pm on May 13th, 2010 28
Dokto Naval Station?
12:27 pm on May 13th, 2010 29
The issue is about the naming of U.S. leased installations in foreign countries. There just aren't any foreign country leased military installations in the U.S., as far as I know.
There are, however, countless installations leased in the U.S. under names like Toyota and Honda. So maybe someone should look into what roles and contributions those namesake founders had in the war.
12:30 pm on May 13th, 2010 30
Texas is trying to start another secession movement. Go for it.
12:35 pm on May 13th, 2010 31
And just for balance, we can change the name to the USN installation at Chinhae to the Takeshima Naval Station!
12:37 pm on May 13th, 2010 32
12:56 pm on May 13th, 2010 33
Well, Honda had nothing to do with WWII since it was founded in 1948. Interestingly enough, it was created by a commoner auto mechanic.
4:52 pm on May 13th, 2010 34
How about Tojo Airbase?
We could call it "The Razor," as in "we're going to the BX over at the Razor, wanna ride?"
The possibilities are as endless as they are tasteless, except maybe to Chickenhead.
Lt Gen. Yoshio Tachibana Memorial Dining Facility
Mamoru Shigemitsu School of the Americas
This could catch on worldwide.
Goering Field
Himmler Kaserne
Hussein Barracks
Osama Bin Laden Flight Training Center
5:16 pm on May 13th, 2010 35
And the winner of the most F'd up posting for 2010 to date goes to Chris In Dallas. I never saw that one coming, usually Tom has it all wrapped up by the end of 1 Jan.
Cue the States' rights BS debate…
5:34 pm on May 13th, 2010 36
Shirō Ishii Medical Center
Tomoyuki Yamashita and Prince Chichibu Joint Logistics Cnter
Yoshitake Kawane Transportation Depot
Hong Sa-ik Barracks
Prince Asaka Yaushito Women's Advocacy Center
11:25 pm on May 13th, 2010 37
I totally agree with the celebrities. To name the bases after GI's who killed Japanese soldiers is very insensitive. The camps should just be given numbers like Camp Pearl Harbor #1, Camp Pearl Harbor #2, etc. Or maybe commemorative names Like Camp Bataan Death March, or Camp Rape of Nanking. See, it wouldn't be that hard to make allowances for their "sensitivities".
11:39 pm on May 13th, 2010 38
You didn't raise a point. You simply flamed.
HAMILTON, if you didn't see that coming, where have you been. Nothing F'd up about it. Statemenat of his belief! Nothing more and nothing less. With your dispariging comment, you come closer to sounding like TOM.
CHRIS IN DALLAS speaks for many Americans that were forced to rejoin a country that they had left three years earlier. But on this issue your are clearly out of touch and sounding very "TOMish".
I read that you do not believe in (States Rights). That true? So you believe in the "collective" then. All the little states should STFU and fall in line. Do as they are told by the Feds. That's what you believe HAMILTON? If that is what you believe than you prove CHRIS IN DALLAS to be correct. The wrong side won.
I am very happy I do not live in your world.
11:43 pm on May 13th, 2010 39
I like you DRAGONFLY.
I really REALLY like you 
2:07 am on May 14th, 2010 40
The Union's argument was that while sovereign territories could voluntarily join The US but once they were in those same territories, now states could not exercise their sovereignty to voluntarily leave The US. That argument really doesn't make any sense. Don't give me any bravo sierra that the war of northern aggression was fought over slavery. President Lincoln himself said that he would accept slavery if the south stayed in the Union. Lincoln also made a number of remarks about Black people that if said today would brand the person as 'racist'. The main reason for the war was tariffs and other unfair treatment of the southern states. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, fraudulent caused the admission of West Virginia to the Union, & stood by when General Sherman raped the south. Today he would be considered a war criminal. Just research reconstruction.
5:49 am on May 14th, 2010 41
Retired GI…
This is why I think little of most people.
I said the EXACT same thing as Dragonfly… yet none of you low-brows get it. I have to spell it out in the most simplistic terms to communicate with most drones… primarily because most of the drones don't know much beyond Dancing With the Stars, FOX News and/or Hope and Change nonsense.
This is one reason I isolate myself in my compound in Korea and only communicate via e-mail with a select group of smart people…
…although once the alcohol flows, everyone is invited and I have no expectations beyond concern for booze and pusssy.
Let's let all the simpletons in on the big-boy jokes.
"Shirō Ishii Medical Center"
Shirō Ishii – microbiologist and the lieutenant general of Unit 731, a biological warfare unit of the Imperial Japanese Army responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel… like all the stuff doctors take an oath not to do.
"Tomoyuki Yamashita and Prince Chichibu Joint Logistics Cnter"
…masters of logistics… but of the type where all your shiit becomes my shiit in a bunker in a Philippine jungle… and all you are left with is the wrong end of a bayonet in the guts to keep from talking about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamashita%27s_gold
"Yoshitake Kawane Transportation Depot"
He was in charge of "transporting" POWs up Bataan… although Masanobu Tsuji was more directly involved… shoulda used his name but I deemed it too obscure.
"Hong Sa-ik Barracks"
The top-ranking ethnic Korean in the Japanese army, he commanded the POW camps in the PI. Executed for war crimes in '46… 'cause, well, at the end of the Bataan Death March, he was the hospitality director, so to speak. He was an amazing and capable guy, though.
"Prince Asaka Yaushito Women’s Advocacy Center"
In charge of the Rape of Nanking. What else needs to be said?
I'll try to make more pop culture references in the future.
6:38 am on May 14th, 2010 42
CH—on most days I get what your saying, and I understand the frustration. Often those perhaps with better or greater education fail to understand my simple comments. (two Masters Degree types)
I knew what the "meaning" of your suggested names MUST be. But if they were of such a manner that I would have to look them up, they where far beyond the average Joe or Jap.
The average POP STAR TYPE must be able to understand the meaning without going to google. Look at the picture—which one of those airheads would understand those names?
All three of them look like they would need an instructional manual to understand what to do with their junk once the clothes came off.
Use military of football references with me. I'm your typical American Neanderthal. My upper level of Pop culture ends with Cher.
I even read Sonny's BOOK!!
6:50 am on May 14th, 2010 43
Thanks for your comment TOM LANGLEY. At least someone other than me understands.
Yes, I am aware of the comments Lincoln made. The saddest thing that happened to the South was his Murder. Reconstruction would have been much improved, had he lived.
General Sherman was/is a war criminal.
1:06 pm on May 14th, 2010 44
I guess I get no love at all…
2:34 am on May 17th, 2010 45
You know what is ironic. Ft. Irwin in California has a statue of a fox. It is also of course in the desert. I know the name is spelled differently. But it kind of makes you ponder…
3:13 am on May 17th, 2010 46
To anyone who would disparage the South you should truly read your history. In the question of Generalship, the Confederates had briilliant officers. Considering they held out for so long ill equipped, outnumbered often, the defeat was inevitable. That being said many Union Generals were replaced time and time again. They lacked the tactical mastery that several Confederate officers exuded. That is not to say that all Union officers were all dullards. I am just pointing out that you must give credit where credit is due. The South still provides a large percentage of our recruits today. The remarks about the southern society then and now are woefully unfounded in bigoted remarks from ignorant people who often have never been south of the Mason Dixon line. If this does not apply to you then please disregard. If you are one of the stone throwers then you should take this as constructive criticism.
3:36 am on May 17th, 2010 47
88MM,
If the Civil War was fought primarily over states' rights, it seems that the South shall, in fact, rise again…
…starting in Montana.
This is a good, good thing.
3:39 am on May 17th, 2010 48
I would like to add that I know all about the Rape of Nanking. I studied it in my history course. But reading something or knowing historical facts only makes someone an Encyclopedia nothing more. Being learned is not the same thing as being intelligent. Not everyone can afford a first rate education. The average person may be ignorant that does not make them unintelligent. Unless you have contributed significantly towards the betterment of man then perhaps you should not judge people as if they are inferior to you. Food for thought.
7:39 am on May 17th, 2010 49
10:46 am on May 17th, 2010 50
I think it was a terrible error to name bases after Confereates. They levied war on the United States, that is, they were traitors. It would also be a terrible error to name a base after a German who fought, however honorably, in the service of the National Socialist Third Reich.
10:53 am on May 17th, 2010 51
No dummy its named after WW1 general. No irony there. The idea that you can seperate the soldier from the cause is bizzare. Especially senior career officers like the "fox". There isnt much grey area in being a Nazis, or an Al-qaeda member no matter how much history aprreciates your military tactical skills.
11:14 am on May 17th, 2010 52
Erwin Rommel was no NAZI. I will also remind the poster that m,any "former NAZI's" were responsible for Americas lead in the Nuclear and Space race. I'd rather have a beer with a NAZI, with all their faults over an Islamist, who has no redeeming value. Unless you like f@cking little boys.
11:18 am on May 17th, 2010 53
well said? That is simply ridiculous. How anyone can attempt to defend the south actions during the civil war is flat dumb or just impervious to facts expecially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. The south attempted to secede from an established nation and takes its resources with it. All for the right to preserve its econmic intstituions most notably the enslavement of men, women, and children of African decent!! And the argument is they fought gallantly despite their supply lines, and being out numbered! Really!? Any explanation of the confederate side that is not prefaced with "they were completely wrong about not wanting to free their slaves," is a losing argument in the book of common sense and common decency.
12:00 pm on May 17th, 2010 54
And most Islamic Fundamentalist arent affliated with Al-Qaeda that doest make the war they wage any less deplorable. He fought a war on behalf of the Third Reich under some misguided notion of Nationalism. Having a beer with a Nazis? :shock And everbody thinks Tom says the most ridiculous things on this blog.
1:36 pm on May 17th, 2010 55
Ohhh! A lot a hate coming from you.
The Confederate States of America did not attempt to secede. It DID secede.
I seem to remember some other group of Traitors that proclamed their independance from the Mother country. Oh wait. They're not "traitors". They won. I do believe that England was also "an established nation".
As for the argument of enslavement of others, you might want to check The Confederate States of America's Constitution.
You might also want to check out the numbers of blacks that were freed by those that bought them. It is also interesting to note how those freed and given land went on to buy their own slaves, of the same race.
You might also want to check out the free africans that came over. And bought slaves. Start in New Orleans.
You might also want to check out those that fought FOR The Confederate States of America. With weapons. After all, their country also had been invaded by the United States of America.
But it is not (Politically Correct) to honor these black Soldiers. They fought for the losing side, after all.
In closing, All Soldiers fight gallantly. Win or lose. Soldiers fight, first and foremost for each other. When their country is invaded, they fight for their Homes. To protect their women and children from the invaders. (see Shermans March)
To attempt to disparage them is to be just a hatefull individual.
Far worse than "dumb".
Do not believe for a second that I'm attempting to "reason" with you or get you to see the obvious. I'd never waste my time in such a manner.
Simply presenting the truth of the matter, which is verifiable with proper "research". Few do. For those that might, remember, this is the age of Political Correctness! You will have to look deeper than you wish.
As you demonstrate so very well, there are those that would refuse to acknowledge the truth if it sat in their lap. Not to mention the deep desire to insult any who do not follow the popular narrative.
Do some research next time before you engage the keyboard. You're a P.C. beginner on this subject.
1:57 pm on May 17th, 2010 56
I'm trying hard to keep up with him!
9:51 pm on May 17th, 2010 57
Side notes alone do not make a narrative. The idea that some free blacks owned slaves in the confederate states hardly changes the narrative of the Civil War. Or that blacks were fighting in droves for the confederate states is nonsense. It is more like slaves were escaping to the North in droves despite the threats of being murdered or brutalized if captured. The Union was able to establish Brigade after Brigade with black soldiers. There is nothing of that such documented in the confederate states. I am sure the Confederate states didn’t secede to preserve the economic system because it was beneficial to blacks.
Secession and colonial rebellion is hardly the same thing. That is just something you have to learn for yourself. Comparing the American Revolution to Confederate Secession is completely misguided there are simply no parallels.
The only thing you are not completely off about is the concept of all soldiers fight gallantly. I would have to say I was slightly wrong how I put it before. I agree when we are in battle all politics go out the window when the first shot rings past your ear, and you are indeed just fighting for your life and the life your brother next to you. However, the reason your country/organization finds itself in that war does matters. This topic right here takes me back to my ethics of War classes, and is way too complex to discuss in blog.
Oh yea, I didn’t mean to insult anyone its all good fun!
11:32 pm on May 17th, 2010 58
To the point of "the union was able to establish brigade after brigade of black soldiers". An escaped slave would find himself with little but the clothes on his back. Very easy to except the "offer" of three hots and a cot, to follow their new white master.
Why would a Yankee want to die when "they" could bleed just as well.
"Droves" is another very general term.
As I stated before, it is a waste of time to attempt to convince those that are set on the Politically Correct narrative.
Documentation for anything that doesn't support the Politically Correct Narrative will be difficult to locate. But it is there.
11:51 pm on May 17th, 2010 59
Maj America, you stated that there was no parallel to the Colonial secession or to the Confederate secession. I must respectfully disagree. In both cases the majority of the citizens believed that they were suffering under the yoke of an oppressive government and wanted to be an independent nation. To say that the war was fought to free the slaves is not correct, President Lincoln said that he would accept slavery if the south would stay in the Union. He also made a number of comments about Black people that today would be considered 'racist'. Please answer this question sir: If a sovereign territory can elect to join the Union then why can't the same territory elect to leave the Union, like a divorce?
5:17 am on May 20th, 2010 60
Makes sence to me TL. I would love to hear MA's answer myself.
2:31 pm on May 20th, 2010 61
ok ok..Slavery was a single issue. A major one, but not the only one. Depending how you view the subjugation of a people it was the most important issue. But I digress, there were other issues that included state vs. national rights, and should the state have power over itself without having to follow laws or mandates from the national government. Got that.
The issue of succession. I thought Lincoln addressed that part of the war in the Gettysburg Address as well as anybody ever has.. But I'll try. Basically Democracy relies on a complete prohibition of secession. A democratic nation assumes a democratic singular unit of political decision making which is a constant of making decisions that govern a specific land. If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democracy. So, by the very act of joining a democracy and been given the right to participate you have essentially forfeited the option of secession. This is the major difference between the American Rev. and the civil war. As a colony America had no representation, and had very weak an ineffective outlet for resolving grivences. That wasnt the case for the South, but I do agree there were other parellels that I did not acknowledge in my previous post.
4:28 pm on May 20th, 2010 62
I know its not named after Erwin Rommel. I just found it to be an irony. I guess you did not get that. I did not think I was being subtle.
4:41 pm on May 20th, 2010 63
I would know nothing of Civil War or of the treatment of slaves by the South and by the Northern states. I have not studied Jefersonian and Jacksonian America. I am not a History major at the University of Georgia. I know nothing at all. I am as MAJ America so eloquently put it a "dummy." I am nothing more than an uneducated redneck with invalid points of view, opinions, convictions, and beliefs. Because I am from the South and have pride in my heritage, much like the pride in the service I have rendered to my country in a time of war, it clearly means my silence is warranted by men as great, learned, and enlightened as those like MAJ America. I humbly retract my opposition in the presence of greatness!
6:26 pm on May 20th, 2010 64
Dummy isnt a very elequent word, but still one of better words!
it is effective in getting a point across but at the same time not really insulting anyone. or at least thats what I thought. hahaha
If I recall actually your civil war points were quite good, and if I called them dumb apologies. Just disagree thats it. I dont feel like reading back but I am pretty sure the post that you got the "dummy for the day" designation was your Ft.Irwin and Irwin Rommel connection. I might be wrong I have been wrong before. but back in the late 90's.
6:44 pm on May 20th, 2010 65
I still don't see the irony. Maybe I am the dummy.haha
11:33 pm on May 20th, 2010 66
Wrong again M.A. I am shocked to hear you refer the (United "States" of America) as a singular unit. It isn't.
The "State" is the singular unit. As the name implies, (The United States — OF — America).
The States came together for a common purpose. The Civil War was about the Federal Government imposing IT'S will over the States will. Those like minded states decided to form their own "union". Referred to as a confederacy. Thus the name of the country; The Confederate States of America.
As was pointed out above by Tom, Lincoln agreed to allow slavery if those States would Remain in the Union. Not good enough. Why? *(you still haven't read what the "constitution" of the Confederacy had to say about slavery)*
A good research project for you perhaps. Rather than blindly following the Politically Correct Narrative that you have been programed with.
Learn more or follow blindly. Makes no difference to me. I'll never know anyway.
1:40 am on May 21st, 2010 67
The singular unit I was refering to is the singular application of goverment. Deomcracy.
G.I,
I think you are desperately in need of a new narrative instead of the backwards one you are holding onto so tightly. Why do you continue to tell me to read the Confederate Constitution in regards to slavery? I read it several times actually way back when. Have you read it? I don't think you have. The confederate constitution makes clear the legal protection of owning slaves. "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" This means owning slaves OK! Read some of Stephen's speeches the confederacy was hell bent on continuing slavery in perpetuity. With that basic fact I cannot understand anybody ever looking favorably on the cause of the confederacy except for holding on to some ilogical narrative that goes against the laws of nature,morality, and common decency.
Unlike those who now try to whitewash their cause now, the men of civil war era had no doubt whatsoever about what provoked the Civil War and what formed the central organizing principle of the Confederate States of America: SLAVERY!
I am not saying is necessary to go back and condemn the men of conderacy as evil, because they dealt with the world as they propelled into it. I also do no think any of us can claim that we would do a superior job if put in their places into the same set of circumstances. I actually believe it is absolutely necessary to honor their own explanations for why they did what they did, and to acknowledge that the cause for which they fought was evil. Had they succeeded, the United States of America would not exist as it is today, and the forced servitude of millions of black Americans would have continued for generations. To deal otherwise is to distort history.
10:23 am on May 21st, 2010 68
You may also be interested in; Robert E. Lee quotes on slavery.
Also, while I didn't take the time to see who labeled the Confederate Generals as sub-standard, just a note about General Braxton Bragg. West Point class of 1837 and 5th in his class.
To address your point, Slavery would NOT have continued for Generations. Too many in the South could not afford Slaves, which without the war would have lead to their freedom over time, but certainly not "generation". It was too distasteful to far too many.
But cooler heads did not prevail. The distruction of the C.S.A. was a near certainty at the beginning. As was the deaths, both in combat and murder of hundreds of thousands on both sides.
Again, your emotions and the Politically Correct narrative that you have been feed, get the better of you. The central organizing principle of the C.S.A. was not slavery.
We know this because Lincoln stated that the C.S.A. could keep it's slaves if it would remain as a part of the Union.
If what you wish to believe as true, were the truth, there would have been no civil war.
11:18 am on May 21st, 2010 69
It looks like none of us are going to have a meeting of the minds on the Confederate issue but one point that Maj America made amazed me. He stated "Basically Democracy relies on a complete prohibition of secession". We are actually a Republic (say the pledge of allegiance) which is a type of democratic government is not the same but that is a discussion for another time. After the USSR fell Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the rest of the component republics became more Democratic (certainly they weren't perfect but they were more Democratic than before) they decided to leave the USSR DEMOCRATICALLY. A better example would be the peaceful break up of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic & Slovakia. The world didn't end & life continued. I agree that secession shouldn't be done for trivial reasons but the disputes between N & S had been going on for decades. While the examples I gave involve ethnic disputes there was a huge cultural gap between N & S.
11:28 am on May 21st, 2010 70
I believe that Retired GI is correct that slavery would have ended on its own for the reasons stated. Also with industrialization & the development & deployment(I guess I was in the Army for too long to use that word) of the cotton gin, spinning jenny, water-frame, & the spinning mule which really made slaves unnecessary. Everybody today agrees that slavery was an odious institution but in those days that was not a universally held view. When we look at that time in history we have to realize that we are looking at it from a 21st century not a 19th century worldview.
4:16 pm on May 23rd, 2010 71
The North had slavery. In fact the Northern society often brutalized their slaves more savagely than the South. Thiis may have had to do in part to the agricultural need of the Southern economy. Whereas Northern slaves were more for a display of wealth than in the South which although only wealthy Southerners could afford slaves (in most cases) the utility of slavery held sway perhaps over the whip more than it did in the North. The North by and large did not like blacks due to the fact that freed and runaway slaves competed with the working class. In the South the landed gentry tried to reconcile the poor whites with them by using slogans like "At least your better than a Ni****." However this tool was extremely limited as slaves competed with free whites and allowed limited upward mobility. Therefore many whites in Southern society were duped into alliance with the wealthy. Not only that but many poor whites identified with slaves on a very personal level as they shared a common bond of discontent at the rich. I get this information from the more than few slave narratives I read and wrote research papers on. The North was just as culpable as the South. They were just as hypocritical as many southerners were. Yes slavery is evil. However coming from a different time with different morals in which for the longest time slaves were not seen the same as white humans you have to keep that into perspective. Even science told European Anglicans that Africans were savage and needed to be guided into civility. Being told this all your life would inevitably lead the shaping of your morals and ethics into reflecting that. However many slave owners began to question this rationale. I am referring to the South in particular. However it was not as simple as just letting the slaves go. The economy and welfare of both slave and master was tied in a very tight and complicated knot of co-dependence. Often slaves had no skills and there truly was genuine concern over their welfare. This is not a condoning of slavery. I do agree that at its very core it is an evil institution. But I am just saying you have to look at things with a perspective coming from before emancipation. Not everyone was enlightened by absoloutist morality just as many are not today. In any case it is not as black and white in terms of right and wrong as we would like to view it today. In any case don't blame the South blame the Dutch as it happend to be they who started that foul practice into the commercial monstrosity it became.
9:57 pm on May 23rd, 2010 72
88mm,
Good read. You make a ton of good points, and even gave me a few things to reflect on.
2:20 am on May 30th, 2010 73
So if the Chinese ask to build a base called camp Peng Dehuai in California, you would not be angry?
11:07 am on May 30th, 2010 74
There are already foreign military installations in the US and I could care less because they are in the best interests of both countries. Ever been to Ft. Bliss or Holloman AFB where the German Air Force's Air Defense and flight training schools are located? Ever been to Luke AFB where the Singapore flight training school is located? Need I go on?
1:20 pm on May 30th, 2010 75
Yeah, but I don't think it's named Goering Field. Not that I would care.
1:21 pm on May 30th, 2010 76
again Rei displays a complete lack of logic. The Chinese are not allies of the US and do not have common interests that would permit a base in the US. Despite your hatred for all things American, Japan and Korea (Germany etc) all have common defense interests. When those interests are overpowered by a vocal anti-american minority we will leave amicably like in the PI.
And most likely you will ask us to come back just like the PI. A school teacher who doesn't read books, amazing. No wonder you got canned.