Some politicians seek to appease rioters by renaming U.S. Army Forts after the race that rioted most recently. Ft. Hood was named for the one-armed Confederate General who lost the battle of Atlanta and fled toward Charleston, S.C. with Sherman in hot pursuit. Hood was a tough guy though not a professional soldier at all- he had replaced the ineffective General Bragg who was relieved from those concluding defensive battles on the S.W. front. I have a few suggestions for more suitable names for those two forts.
The preferred alternative for Ft. Hood is Ft. Benavidez. The S.W. is becoming largely Hispanic and naming a fort for the excellent soldier awarded a medal of honor would be inspirational for many enlistees who would admire the former Green Beret with one of the more glorious records that is second to none. There are more possibilities for the tanker base such as Ft. George Patton, Ft. Crazy-Horse, Ft. Taxes and Fort Tubman.
Renaming a fort is tough business. It is like making a choice of running mate that former Vice President Joe Biden is facing. So let’s consider Ft. Bragg’s possible new names carefully.
Ft. Eisenhower works best in my opinion. Honorable mentions go to Ft. Bobby Fischer, Ft. Bowie, Ft. Fitness, Fort Armstrong and Fort Pac-man.
Keeping U.S. military facilities named for those white men of the confederacy defending human slavery is bad P.R. for white men. As a minority on the planet white men don’t need to shoot themselves in the foot voter speaking, associating themselves with symbols of oppression and inhumanity.
If white men are to have a good place in the future national and world societies amid a majority of non-whites on Earth they need to be the best examples themselves of the philosophy of the founders. That is, equal justice, equal rights, an egalitarian distribution of wealth, freedom from tyranny and today, a recovering world ecosphere should to be regarded by the people of the world as good works of white American men that benefit everyone. Strong national border security for a secure electorate can only exist with strong popular support from all of a nation’s citizens that recognize their own valuable personal interests and those of the ecosphere being reinforced by a stable population with secure borders.
If white men choose to be known as slick capitalist oppressors without true allegiance to national borders and ideals or respect for the citizens of the nation so much as viewing them as utilitarian objects for exploitable labor it is likely their interests will decline amid a restive populous. Since 10% of Americans will soon own 90% of the national income white men of the 90% would be rather daft chumps as well. White men instead should be known for personifying the best democrat ideals of all human beings (that does not mean the most libertine or decadent). While all men and women should have the ideals of the founders in their hearts regardless of race, it is evident that the retardant failure of an advantaged class of white men with regressive social views are particularly harmful to their own race that aren’t in the 10% or 1%.
Changing the names of a couple of forts given confederate labels that have outlived their usefulness should be a trivial matter for President Trump. Democrat party opposition will attack the President with vague demands of allegiance on voters for support of marginally productive policies the President disdains such as environmentalism. President Trump doesn’t want to alienate select southern voters, yet the number of confederate racist cranks are far fewer than independents that support equal justice across the south.
Not everyone in the world believes or wants an aristocracy of plutocrats, elite communists, aloof oppressive imperials and media that control and own most wealth while the 90% have just a minority of national or global income, making life bad for all, minimizing efficiency of human potential, and leading periodically to economic disaster and/or war for various reasons not the least of which is the massive majority are regarded as trashy subjects of the rich that can be pacified with media, dope and occasional riots. So carefully choosing a populist name, one that supports the ideals of the 90% rather than the 10% could be useful. The 1% are globalists; their interests differ quite a bit from democratic, economically egalitarian, free enterprise oriented, limited capital concentration, ecologically responsible nationalists.