Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
This is a tough one for me. To me what’s important is when they were named. In the 1960’s it was common to name things after confederate generals due to the civil rights movement. The democrats wanted to name everything after confederates.
Things or statues from the late 1800 to early 1900 I have less of an issue with. Those were to honor the past and supported by all.
The intent is what’s important to me.
As a veteran of the Army, I disliked that many of bases were named after shitty generals.
As an army veteran, I have always found the naming of military facilities for shitty racist losers to be blatant pandering and a poor consolation prize to the wounded sensibilities of 'the lost cause' etc
There was nothing noble about any of that shit, it was 100% about slavery and to be fair, more or less the entire country had been implicitly or explicitly involved in the practice from colonial times.
So perhaps the consolation prizes and TYFYS-ism of it all was warranted for a period. But that period is well over by now.