I pledge . . . .

[Hair Warrior]

Our Navy is stronger by finding a use and a place for people of diverse backgrounds who are willing to adopt the warrior ethos that’s required to be lethal in their warfare domain while also being fair and ethical.

That said, this proposed pledge on “intersectional identities” is redundant to existing oaths-of-office/ sailor’s creed, is a prescription pill in search of a diagnosis, and is becoming a distraction from some major long-standing operational challenges and stress facfors the Navy was already facing.

 

[robav8r]

Our Navy is stronger by finding a use and a place for people of diverse backgrounds who are willing to adopt the warrior ethos that’s required to be lethal in their warfare domain while also being fair and ethical.

That said, this proposed pledge on “intersectional identities” is redundant to existing oaths-of-office/ sailor’s creed, is a prescription pill in search of a diagnosis, and is becoming a distraction from some major long-standing operational challenges and stress facfors the Navy was already facing.

In the history of warfare throughout the ages, there has NEVER been a place for "fair and ethical, diverse individuals." You were either on the team, or you were shot (beheaded, burned, you get the idea . . . ) in the head. Morgan Freeman said it best about Black History month: "why do we only get one month?" We have got to get away from this idea that "everyone is special and unique" and focus on what JFK said about service to country over self.

 

[Hair Warrior]

In the history of warfare throughout the ages, there has NEVER been a place for "fair and ethical, diverse individuals." You were either on the team, or you were shot (beheaded, burned, you get the idea . . . ) in the head. Morgan Freeman said it best about Black History month: "why do we only get one month?" We have got to get away from this idea that "everyone is special and unique" and focus on what JFK said about service to country over self.

What?

“Fair” - as in, you should be promoted in the military based on your performance merits, not your race, color, sex, religion, etc.

“Ethical” - as in, we adhere to LOAC, UCMJ, and ofher established norms or boundaries of conduct.

I added those qualifiers to “lethal” because lethality without those things is just Stalin, Sinaloa, Ghengis Khan, or the Khmer Rouge.

 

[zab1001]

My Patch Monkey https://mypatchmonkey.com/ Heads up, there is also a Patch Monkey. Not the same. They do great work. Even got a hand written note from the owner thanking me for the business and commenting on the collection of Naval Aviation and LE patches I had done. I photographed the coasters I did because they were fairly ratty and you can see how they came out. They are mounted on nearly a quarter inch of black hard rubber type material, beveled, and a fuzzy Velcro loop like material on the bottom. My only complaint is that I'd prefer they not stand quite so tall. But it is clear they are well preserved, and functional if you wish.
View attachment 29930View attachment 29932

Thanks man, I’m going to check it out.

 

[AllYourBass]

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.

Mmm, I think I probably didn't provide the context for the articles I was reading. The particular context were a slew of articles like these that specifically highlight the achievement of Capt. Bauernschmidt being the first female CVN CO. A fairly common response in the comments sections of these articles (just peruse any of them) is that the articles shouldn't be focusing on gender. I think this line of thinking minimizes the unique challenges somebody in a minority faces rising up to that station that I obviously don't need to detail here.

If I'm muddying up my point too much (Bulleit Rye gets a vote), I guess I'd exaggerate the point with this example: If somebody were physically disabled and managed to work their way into an elite athletic competition, it would be silly for people to respond to congratulants by retorting, "I don't know why everybody's making such a big deal out of this...if they've got the chops, they've got the chops, same as anybody else." Obviously that person has overcome a very observable obstacle to their goal, and to pretend that accomplishment isn't significant minimizes the importance of the achievement.

Of note, this argument doesn't hold much weight to an individual who doesn't believe somebody with a disability faces any more or fewer challenges than any other athlete. I'd say the same about an individual who doesn't believe that, for example, females or other minorities seeking to serve in the Armed Forces have faced (on average) any more challenges than white males. That's a difference in perspective that probably can't be reconciled.

To be clear, I don't think Capt. Bauernschmidt should continually have to wear that tag throughout the remainder of her career. I'd say the same about Vice President Kamala Harris, who we're all abundantly clear by now is the first black/Asian/female VP. The instance of those stations being assumed by those two people at this point in history was rightfully newsworthy and worthy of discussion at the time.

 

[wink]

@Brett327 I don't know where you run into these people that are angry and bitter over what happened 30 years ago. Some may be out there. I might be if my promotion was held up and my name dragged through the mud. But that didn't happen to me. If you're basing the angry and bitter on the posts in this thread, then I don't know what you're reading.

Is it bitter to acknowledge major failures in process and leadership even if 30 years ago? Do we not learn from the past? How are we to avoid both the Tailhook violations and the post Tailhook reactions in the future if we don't remember and talk about it? I am sure you want to work towards a better all inclusive Navy. I hope you recognize that means no more witch hunt or cowardly senior leaders willing to disrespect an entire community of officers.

Oh, and the bitter white guy thing is not helpful. To keep it on point, minority officers were not spared and were just as offended as others.

 

[Sam I am]

Here's a novel thought: one thread...just one...where the usual suspects don't reduced it to name calling.

Please.

 

[Brett327]

@Brett327 I don't know where you run into these people that are angry and bitter over what happened 30 years ago.

My post wasn't aimed at you, or anyone in particular. It's clear from the discussion in this thread that that constituency is out there. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Griz882]

Mmm, I think I probably didn't provide the context for the articles I was reading. The particular context were a slew of articles like these that specifically highlight the achievement of Capt. Bauernschmidt being the first female CVN CO. A fairly common response in the comments sections of these articles (just peruse any of them) is that the articles shouldn't be focusing on gender. I think this line of thinking minimizes the unique challenges somebody in a minority faces rising up to that station that I obviously don't need to detail here.

If I'm muddying up my point too much (Bulleit Rye gets a vote), I guess I'd exaggerate the point with this example: If somebody were physically disabled and managed to work their way into an elite athletic competition, it would be silly for people to respond to congratulants by retorting, "I don't know why everybody's making such a big deal out of this...if they've got the chops, they've got the chops, same as anybody else." Obviously that person has overcome a very observable obstacle to their goal, and to pretend that accomplishment isn't significant minimizes the importance of the achievement.

Of note, this argument doesn't hold much weight to an individual who doesn't believe somebody with a disability faces any more or fewer challenges than any other athlete. I'd say the same about an individual who doesn't believe that, for example, females or other minorities seeking to serve in the Armed Forces have faced (on average) any more challenges than white males. That's a difference in perspective that probably can't be reconciled.

To be clear, I don't think Capt. Bauernschmidt should continually have to wear that tag throughout the remainder of her career. I'd say the same about Vice President Kamala Harris, who we're all abundantly clear by now is the first black/Asian/female VP. The instance of those stations being assumed by those two people at this point in history was rightfully newsworthy and worthy of discussion at the time.

Thanks for the clarification. Makes more sense now. In most ways I am a MLK Jr. kind of thinker who believes equality is not measured by skin tone, or religion, or how you use your sex organs - old fashioned, I know. Equality under the law and equality in access were the social goals I expect us to reach. As an academic I think critical race theory and intersectionality are entirely idiotic (and endlessly dangerous) social theories. It seems the entire goal isn't to advance society toward a better place but to divide it by continually revisiting old wounds that are at best imaginary, at worse, a brake on ever reaching real equality. That Capt. Bauernschmidt accomplished what she has is because she is an exceptional person...full stop. If we must revisit past horrors (which we are kind of doing here with Tailhook) then what we need to remember is that she is walking down a path blazed for her by a full two generations of exceptional women and is a path-finder herself. Progress.

 

[johnboyA6E]

I’ll use this opportunity to pivot, and say the Selective Service System needs to go away - or encompass everyone aged 18-55 who resides in the US regardless of sex, color, ability, or citizenship status. If you want to live here, you’re draft-able. I say we fight the next world war with everyone we’ve got available. (And expand the draft-able jobs to be far more than just the military.)

this discussion is timely. there is a case that has been winding its way through the courts since 2013, where someone sued because he was required to register for draft but women were not. the case bounced around due to issues of standing, ended up in Texas federal court, and they ruled in his favor. then case went to federal appeals court, and it was overturned last fall. there is a Supreme Court precedent from 1981, stating that the male only selective service in not unconstitutional. but things have changes a lot since then, and women can service in any combat role.

the case is now on its way to the Supreme Court.

i think the easy decision is to say that women should be eligible and required to register for the draft. the harder questions come next; do you draft them into combat roles? or do you say "there are plenty of non-combat roles that need to be staffed, they can do those jobs". if you do that, what about all the males who are drafted who also don't want a combat job? do you give them the option too?

seems to me, you can't have it both ways. we are either all equal or we are not.

 

[Griz882]

My words...

I would like to clarify something I said above about “revisiting old wounds that are at best imaginary...” I do not mean to imply that the legacy and terrors of slavery and Jim Crow aren’t real and haven’t had a long-term impact on black American’s. That history is real and must never be forgotten. What I mean to say is that the ardent need of critical race theorists for some kind of “reckoning” is impossible. There is no amount of money and no apology that can erase any part of the past that someone does not like. Carrying a grudge is not healthy...carrying one that has nothing to do with the living is even worse. So, in my humble opinion, we either decide to move forward, seeking equality, from here or we just stop and call each other names. My take is that the better path is to move on.

 

[taxi1]

There is no amount of money and no apology that can erase any part of the past that someone does not like.

I'm picturing a bunch of people saying, "But you could at least try."

Slaves generated huge value with their work, and were treated and traded like livestock, with a going price in the 1850s of around $1000 each. I'm pretty sure they never saw a penny of the selling price. What would $1000 in 1850 dollars be worth now?

Contemplate this...what would be the disaster in deciding to pay every slave's ancestor some sort of inheritance for the value generated by their toils? Along with a formal apology from the government? $10K?

We've never come close to anything like this.

 

[Griz882]

I'm picturing a bunch of people saying, "But you could at least try."

Slaves generated huge value with their work, and were treated and traded like livestock, with a going price in the 1850s of around $1000 each. I'm pretty sure they never saw a penny of the selling price. What would $1000 in 1850 dollars be worth now?

Contemplate this...what would be the disaster in deciding to pay every slave's ancestor some sort of inheritance for the value generated by their toils? Along with a formal apology from the government? $10K?

We've never come close to anything like this.

I think the more important question would be...What would be the point?

The US has officially apologized for slavery.

The time for reparations is over, there are no former slaves still alive.

As for the dollar amount how will that be distributed? Will generational slaves get the full amount while those freed prior to the Civil War get less for each year of generational freedom? Will it “end” the woe and “pay attention to me” aspect of critical race theory? (I’ll answer that one...no.) Can the families of Union soldiers killed in fighting to end slavery get a tax break? Will blacks who owned slaves (a small but real number) be disqualified from getting payment (or maybe own more)? Then, when those checks are distributed how much do we pay varying American Indians? Then we go through the same questions (allies vs enemies, slave owning deductions,...). After that how much should we pay the LGBTQ people for...what ever?

Personally, with the exception of the last few months I feel the US has made substantial gains in genuine equality in my lifetime. However, there are a set of people who need to see the bad to feel good. They will find racism in every nook and cranny no matter what you give them. They will find inequity in every action and every design no matter how much you say “sorry.” People like that are leading the charge (for now) but there is no high ground. You can not erase the past. No dollar amount, no apology, no reset, no act can erase the past. We can learn from it and move forward or we can ignore it and wallow in past tribulations that never fell upon living heads, but it isn’t going away.

 

[taxi1]

The time for reparations is over, there are no former slaves still alive.

Inheritance

Can the families of Union soldiers killed in fighting to end slavery get a tax break? Will blacks who owned slaves (a small but real number) be disqualified from getting payment (or maybe own more)? Then, when those checks are distributed how much do we pay varying American Indians? Then we go through the same questions (allies vs enemies, slave owning deductions,...). After that how much should we pay the LGBTQ people for...what ever?

Only people who were other's property, or descendants.

Again, the average slave was being sold for around $1000. Like a horse or a mule. Real property with real value. It'd not be a feel-good gesture, it'd be a payment for their worth. Inheritance.

You think someone who had a claim on land property established in 1850 through their family wouldn't be exercising their right to it now? Getting payment for it?

It's not going to happen, I know that. But dismissing it out of hand...those slaves had real value and they saw none of it. Their owners kept it all, except for what they lost when their property was freed.

 

[Flash]

What is the context of the patch? I'm a mature progressive, I ask questions before I get le trig.

Since no one else explicitly answered you I figure I would. Be careful what you ask for!

That is a patch from the reserve A-6 squadron VA-205, as the patch says they disestablished in 1994. At the time the debate about women in combat was pretty active after the Gulf War and the combat exclusion had just been lifted the year before for women in US military aviation units, they had previously been limited to non-combat units. Even though women had a nearly 20 year history in Naval Aviation by that point (except for a few female aerial navigators in WWII) they were usually limited to shore-based support squadrons like VAQ-33/34, VQ-1/2/3/4, VT, HT, VC and HC squadrons among a few others. They were also few in number, pretty rare birds so to speak.

The FAG part is 'Fighter Attack Guys', i.e. VFA guys, which flew the much disdained (by A-6 guys and a few F-14 types) F/A-18. There was a bit more rivalry back then between the Fighter and Attack guys in the Navy, most of it good natured but it did have a sharper edge to it occasionally. After all 'fighter pilots make movies, bomber (attack) pilots make history'. That edge got a little sharper post-Gulf War when the A-12 'Flying Dorito' was abruptly cancelled and the decision was subsequently made to do away with the VA/A-6 community pretty rapidly (within 5 years) in early-to-mid 90's. Some A-6 squadrons transitioned to F/A-18's but many didn't, to include VA-205. Lots of A-6 guys, who had grown up in a community that had been a large and integral part of Naval Aviation for 30+ years very quickly found themselves quickly and uncermoniously 'replaced' by the F/A-18 and modified F-14's, which were drawn down by almost 50% themselves. All of this happened right after the post-Gulf War victory high which had been followed immediately by the Tailhook '91 'crash' topped off by the Cold War going 'poof', all in the same year.

In the middle of all that Don't Ask Don't Tell was also implemented in '94.

Post-Cold War, post-Gulf War, post-Tailhook '91 was a time of great change and upheaval in Naval Aviation with previously integral parts of Naval Aviation going away very rapidly coupled with societal change WRT to women and gays along a very big drawdown in the US military all happening at the same time.

So some folks had some strong opinions on the events happening and a few cranked out some patches to reflect the attitudes at the time. The funny/ironic part is what they said in the patch has since come true, and we've done pretty damn good going to war with both. Figure that.