I pledge . . . .

[AllYourBass]

There are ignorant people on both sides of the spectrum. The context of the opinion article has merit, and is a valid concern one can have.

If the point is, "Our warfighters should be unified and focused on warfighting, looking together in the same direction toward the enemy," then I agree with you. These articles conveniently leave out the amount of utter horseshit that non-straight, non-white, non-male individuals deal with based on those aforementioned factors when they try to be a part of that unified force.

The common talking point is, "You give up your identity when you join the military, and we should be focusing on the mission, not on your individual traits." While I fucking agree with that, one would be ignorant to assume that's what's actually happening. A lot of people do want to serve their nation without being reminded about what makes them stick out, but the military is full of people like the commenters below that thread who bar that possibility.

EDIT: I was reading an article about Capt. Amy Bauernschmidt awhile back to learn about her background, and a ton of the comments were, "I don't see what the big deal is, if she's capable, she's capable -- why bring up her gender?" Super common, and naive, talking point.

 

[Jim123]

But how do you make sure the gnome doesn’t drink all the monkey gin each night while you sleep?

You drink it first.

 

[Hair Warrior]

You drink it first.

But how do you drink a gnome?

 

[Mos]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/woke-american-military-danger-us-newt-gingrich
Newt hits it out of the park.

I'm not disagreeing in principle with Gingrich, but again, I ask where is this "revelation" that the task force proposes every member of the service take this pledge? Doesn't say this in the report. Aside from the Washington examiner making this claim, did CNO or his office put out something sepcor? Seems like a lot of consternation over what could be a game of telephone.

 

[TyKing]

If the point is, "Our warfighters should be unified and focused on warfighting, looking together in the same direction toward the enemy," then I agree with you. These articles conveniently leave out the amount of utter horseshit that non-straight, non-white, non-male individuals deal with based on those aforementioned factors when they try to be a part of that unified force.

The common talking point is, "You give up your identity when you join the military, and we should be focusing on the mission, not on your individual traits." While I fucking agree with that, one would be ignorant to assume that's what's actually happening. A lot of people do want to serve their nation without being reminded about what makes them stick out, but the military is full of people like the commenters below that thread who bar that possibility.

EDIT: I was reading an article about Capt. Amy Bauernschmidt awhile back to learn about her background, and a ton of the comments were, "I don't see what the big deal is, if she's capable, she's capable -- why bring up her gender?" Super common, and naive, talking point.

The military is one of the most progressive and inclusion organization to date. History tells us that people have been tearing down barriers in the military for over a 100 years.

Yes there are always going to be people who are ignorant and have a negative perception about people because of the factors you listed before. However, how we as an organization overcome that is through personal accountability and proving oneself through hard work and good character.

The problem with the current agenda of pushing social issues down people's throats and trying to force change, is it focuses more on what differences we have than what we have in common.

A hero of mine is Jesse L. Brown, the first black Naval Aviator. He broke down barriers in Naval Aviation not through trying to force people to adapt woke/inclusive ideals, but through his hard work and dedication to serving his country as a Naval Aviator. Through this he got people to realize that dumb things like the color of your skin, or whatever you want to put in there, does not make or determine who you are. He proved that he was just like his squadron mates, a true American.

I can't stress this enough, we are creating more of a divide with these new agendas, I'm saying this as someone who fits in one of the categories you listed before.

 

[AllYourBass]

Yes there are always going to be people who are ignorant and have a negative perception about people because of the factors you listed before. However, how we as an organization overcome that is through personal accountability and proving oneself through hard work and good character.

The problem with the current agenda of pushing social issues down people's throats and trying to force change, is it focuses more on what differences we have than what we have in common.

Meanwhile, almost three weeks ago, a black Sailor on a destroyer found a noose on his rack. What is the correct way forward for Navy DoD to address this sort of thing? Should that Sailor continue to prove themselves through hard work and good character, to later become somebody else's hero for breaking down barriers? Jesse L. Brown enlisted in 1946 (if Wikipedia is accurate). It's 2021.

I don't disagree that the DoD seems to dedicate a tremendous amount of resources to these topics, but I don't take issue with the allocation of resources. I take issue with the people whose actions force the DoD to respond.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I can only guess at what people's state of mind might have been at the time, but I suspect that most people didn't give it a second thought in the moment. "What's that? Sign a piece of paper that says I wasn't at Hook when I wasn't there? Sure, no problem.

Completely wrong. The witch hunt, assumptions and attacks on integrity/honor pissed off almost every Naval aviation officer. You were considered there and guilty until you proved otherwise. Even the VP guys.

 

[TyKing]

Meanwhile, almost three weeks ago, a black Sailor on a destroyer found a noose on his rack. What is the correct way forward for Navy DoD to address this sort of thing? Should that Sailor continue to prove themselves through hard work and good character, to later become somebody else's hero for breaking down barriers? Jesse L. Brown enlisted in 1946 (if Wikipedia is accurate). It's 2021.

You address the issue head on, which the Navy did. However, social programs aren't going to change people's hearts and minds on the subject. The Navy is doing a good job at giving people opportunity to excel no matter what your background is.

Social issues like racism in the ranks of the Navy don't change over night. Focusing a huge amount of energy on trying to be more inclusive and sensitive to people feeling as a war fighting organization shouldn't be very high on your to do list. Give people the same opportunity and treatment no matter what their background is a good focus point, which I believe the military is doing well at.

I'm not going to sit here and act like I have all the answers, but if someone thinks becoming more woke and making people have safe space talks and having quotas for people and inclusive training is going to fix racism in the Navy, they're foolish.


That ignorant person who put a noose up is probably not going to change his/her mind on black people through inclusive training, however meeting and working with a black person with a hard work ethic and good character will probably make them start to think that their values are foolish and ignorant.

 

[wink]

I can only guess at what people's state of mind might have been at the time, but I suspect that most people didn't give it a second thought in the moment. "What's that? Sign a piece of paper that says I wasn't at Hook when I wasn't there? Sure, no problem. What are they serving at rats? I'm hungry."

Well as you are guessing, I'll respectfully submit, from experience, you are wrong. It is a big Navy, even TACAIR. Some folks may have thought as you imagine, but they were a very small minority.

I have read plenty here about losing faith in senior leaders whether inspired by Fat Leonard, force shaping, fired COs, acquisition, endless promises broken, etc. But post Tailhook was a whole nudder thing. My analogy stands repeating. It was like rounding up every black person in a community after a BLM march went criminal and making them prove or swear they were not at the march. If at the march but not breaking windows, they would be assumed quilty and have their step raise and length of service gift at their jobs withheld until, well, whenever someone felt generous. Very difficult to respect leaders who treat their people in that way and then expect trust, respect and honor be returned.

 

[Brett327]

Well as you are guessing, I'll respectfully submit, from experience, you are wrong. It is a big Navy, even TACAIR. Some folks may have though as you imagine, but they were a very small minority.

I have read plenty here about losing faith in senior leaders whether inspired by Fat Leonard, force shaping, fired COs, acquisition, endless promises broken, etc. But post Tailhook was a whole nudder thing. My analogy stands repeating. It was like rounding up every black person in a community after a BLM march went criminal and making them prove or swear they were not at the march. If at the march but not breaking windows, they would be assumed quilty and have their step raise and length of service gift at their jobs withheld until, well, whenever someone felt generous. Very difficult to respect leaders who treat their people in that way and then expect trust, respect and honor be returned.

I can certainly respect your own experience, and to reemphasize once more, I am not condoning the way that senior leadership handled things at the time, but I still feel like some people are a bit over the top in their reactions to having to sign a piece of paper. Sure, it sucks to have your organization look at you askance, but if I were in that position it wouldn't phase me. Some people choose to react a certain way when things like this happen, others choose to move forward.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Meanwhile, almost three weeks ago, a black Sailor on a destroyer found a noose on his rack. What is the correct way forward for Navy DoD to address this sort of thing? Should that Sailor continue to prove themselves through hard work and good character, to later become somebody else's hero for breaking down barriers? Jesse L. Brown enlisted in 1946 (if Wikipedia is accurate). It's 2021.

I don't disagree that the DoD seems to dedicate a tremendous amount of resources to these topics, but I don't take issue with the allocation of resources. I take issue with the people whose actions force the DoD to respond.

I hope no one is surprised this happened, and if you are you shouldn't be. There are people that are not good people in the US or have misguided views, it is inevitable that some of those people come in the military, what we can do is make it clear that this is not tolerated and when it is found out remove the offender, the majority of people when you tell them that you can't treat a person different because they are a different race than you will say ok and understand and obey, now you have a few that will nod and say ok but will continue to do the wrong thing but having them go through training after training will not change their minds.

We also need to realize that discrimination is not just white to black, it is and can be hispanic to black, black to asian, and etc...... and none of it is ok.

 

[robav8r]

I can only guess at what people's state of mind might have been at the time, but I suspect that most people didn't give it a second thought in the moment. "What's that? Sign a piece of paper that says I wasn't at Hook when I wasn't there? Sure, no problem. What are they serving at rats? I'm hungry." I also suspect that the negative emotions people have created about the whole thing came after much ruminating and listening to people like Rush Limbaugh tell you about how Pat Schroeder was your omnipotent oppressor and that you should all feel sorry for yourselves.

Since some posters in this thread are wielding the term "triggered" as a way of dismissing other people's hurt feelings, I'm left wondering why any of us should care about a largely manufactured affront to the collective reputation of Tailhook aviation so that those same people can pretend to be martyrs.

I am becoming more and more convinced, that the real problem with Naval Aviation, and Navy Leadership writ large, are the attitudes and opinions of people like you. You disparage those that you think aren't as smart as you, aren't as woke as you, aren't as hip as you on every level. You disrespect and try to humiliate those that have served honorably and faithfully, but simply have a differing opinion than you.

You have obviously enjoyed a very successful career in Naval Aviation, but somehow, you have completely missed some of the major tenets that have made our service and platforms so successful throughout the years. You will be a wildly successful professor at a liberal institution of your choosing, i'm sure. Good luck to you Brett . . .

 

[Brett327]

I am becoming more and more convinced, that the real problem with Naval Aviation, and Navy Leadership writ large, are the attitudes and opinions of people like you.

Right back at ya, Sport. I'm frankly glad that dinosaurs like you are gone and I'll continue to work toward a service with a culture that represents all of America, and not just angry, bitter old white guys with a 30 year old chip on their shoulders.

 

[robav8r]

Right back at ya, Sport. I'm frankly glad that dinosaurs like you are gone and I'll continue to work toward a service with a culture that represents all of America, and not just angry, bitter old white guys with a 30 year old chip on their shoulders.

You just proved my point . . . . Thank You !!!
?

 

[Griz882]

EDIT: I was reading an article about Capt. Amy Bauernschmidt awhile back to learn about her background, and a ton of the comments were, "I don't see what the big deal is, if she's capable, she's capable -- why bring up her gender?" Super common, and naive, talking point.

Wait, what? You are going to have to help me here. Why is equality through capability a “naive talking point?” I certainly don’t want to put words in your mouth so feel free to correct me here...but...are you implying we need to live (pardon me, serve) in a world where people’s identities are laid out to justify their success. “Captain @Brett327 a white male considered to have a penis and uses the preferred pronouns “sir” and “captain” has been promoted to Rear Admiral.” On the opposite side, are we to use the same metrics to identify failure? “Commander Jane Smith, a black female with LGBTQ interesctionalities who uses the the preferred pronouns “hyr” and “tey” (real gender words) has been relieved of command for lack of confidence?”

In short, why isn’t the accomplishment through hard work good enough? That is if I understand you correctly.