Now the POW/MIA flag is racist

[pourts]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ag-under-fire-symbol-racist-hate-david-french

The link above is to the rebuttal piece. I refuse to link to the original here, though I did read it.

Was the POW/MIA flag co-opted by opportunist politicians? Sure. Did it originate from an unpopular and possibly illegitimate war? Maybe. But is the flag racist? Absolutely not, and the author actually can't prove that in his piece. The "racism" part of the title is more for attention than anything else

Its times like these when I temporarily agree with the "Starship Troopers" style of franchise, where only those who have served in the military are allowed to vote.

 

[squorch2]

http://www.newsweek.com/its-time-haul-down-another-flag-racist-hate-361929

 

[pourts]

Cool. Thanks for adding to the discussion by posting a direct link to the "click-bait" style article which I purposefully didn't post a direct link to.

 

[squorch2]

Oh, this is your website?

my bad, I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA

 

[Randy Daytona]

It's not just the flag. Look what is going on with the remembrance of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...asing-ties-to-jefferson-and-jackson.html?_r=0

 

[Flash]

I am going to hazard a guess the original op/ed piece was just written to get attention, simple as that. The author's reasoning was very poor and I am not even sure if he knows what racism even means. I am not the biggest fan of the flag, I think it suggests that we knowingly left folks behind in POW camps, but his article is just plain stupid.

...I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA

 

[Spekkio]

It's not just the flag. Look what is going on with the remembrance of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...asing-ties-to-jefferson-and-jackson.html?_r=0

In fairness, Jefferson was actually a conservative.

 

[HAL Pilot]

...I think it suggests that we knowingly left folks behind in POW camps,....

You think we didn't?

I'm pretty sure we did, one of which was Harley Hall. Harley was my second cousin and former #1 Blue Angel. He was shot down 14 hours before the cease fire and seen alive in the POW camp by other POWs. His RIO was told they violated the cease fire and were therefore criminals who would not be returned. The RIO was released after making massive noise from his solitary cell when the others were being released. The U.S. escorts demanded to look into the cell even though the North Vietnamese guards insisted it was not a U.S. POW but instead a common criminal. Yet Harley was never returned and it was claimed he was killed as he was captured.

John McCain was also pretty instrumental in passing legislation that ended any chance of finding and recovering left behind POWs. Things like the story of Harley Hall became classified and the Pentagon started refusing to release information - even to the family, include stuff they already released. While I respect his war time service, he's should be crucified for turning his back on those left behind.

There is plenty of evidence we left POWs behind after the Korean War too.

The U.S. government and military will do unthinkable things if they believe doing so will further their causes. I realize they're the best system going and I'm grateful to be a U.S. citiizen and live in this country, but that doesn't mean our government and country are innocent of all wrong doing.

I have do doubt we left POWs behind and there is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

 

[jmcquate]

In fairness, Jefferson was actually a conservative.

Really!?!.........do tell. The man who authored the legal defense for armed revolution against the British empire? You would consider him conservative in a 18th century context?

 

[jmcquate]

You think we didn't?

I'm pretty sure we did, one of which was Harley Hall. Harley was my second cousin and former #1 Blue Angel. He was shot down 14 hours before the cease fire and seen alive in the POW camp by other POWs. His RIO was told they violated the cease fire and were therefore criminals who would not be returned. The RIO was released after making massive noise from his solitary cell when the others were being released. The U.S. escorts demanded to look into the cell even though the North Vietnamese guards insisted it was not a U.S. POW but instead a common criminal. Yet Harley was never returned and it was claimed he was killed as he was captured.

John McCain was also pretty instrumental in passing legislation that ended any chance of finding and recovering left behind POWs. Things like the story of Harley Hall became classified and the Pentagon started refusing to release information - even to the family, include stuff they already released. While I respect his war time service, he's should be crucified for turning his back on those left behind.

There is plenty of evidence we left POWs behind after the Korean War too.

The U.S. government and military will do unthinkable things if they believe doing so will further their causes. I realize they're the best system going and I'm grateful to be a U.S. citiizen and live in this country, but that doesn't mean our government and country are innocent of all wrong doing.

I have do doubt we left POWs behind and there is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

I tend to agree with you Hal. Most likely there were downed US aircrew that the Soviets wanted to have a chat with.

 

[Recovering LSO]

It's not just the flag. Look what is going on with the remembrance of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...asing-ties-to-jefferson-and-jackson.html?_r=0

I think the original article(s) made mention of this phenomena:



It's all the rage now and you're not hip, innovative, or progressive if you don't subscribe to it. Yes, there are elements of our past that should be discussed in a critical manner, but wholesale rejection of historical characters, ideas, and events because they don't jive with current philosophies is not only tragic, it's downright ignorant. If we're supposed to learn from history...how do we learn from something that is essentially erased or denied? If one feels compelled to suggest that said denial or rejection is in fact proof of "learning," well we may have to agree to disagree in that regard.

 

[Flash]

You think we didn't?

....I have do doubt we left POWs behind and there is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

No I don't think we have, at least not intentionally. I have yet to see a single piece of concrete evidence otherwise.

 

[Pags]

Cool. Thanks for adding to the discussion by posting a direct link to the "click-bait" style article which I purposefully didn't post a direct link to.

I think it'd be hard to have a discussion without first reading the source article...

I am going to hazard a guess the original op/ed piece was just written to get attention, simple as that. The author's reasoning was very poor and I am not even sure if he knows what racism even means. I am not the biggest fan of the flag, I think it suggests that we knowingly left folks behind in POW camps, but his article is just plain stupid.

I'm not quite sure how the flag is racist and the author didn't really explain himself either. Instead, the author seemed to use a lot of opinion sources vice facts to write his article. His major point seems to be that because the south was doing nasty things to VC/NVA prisoners and the US was bombing civilians in an undeclared war that it was ok for North Vietnam to torture American POWs. He also tried to argue that the number of POWs tortured/killed was far lower in comparison to the number of North Vietnamese that were killed. On a pure factual level, I imagine that both of these points are correct, but he didn't put together a very cogent argument as to why this should stop the US from ensuring that everyone is accounted for.

 

[Spekkio]

Really!?!.........do tell. The man who authored the legal defense for armed revolution against the British empire? You would consider him conservative in a 18th century context?

You are aware that his political career didn't end with authoring the Declaration of Independence? He served as a cabinet member to GW and former President, during both of which he preached federal restraint and states rights. The first thing he did when elected was cut taxes.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The definition of a conservative is one who supports standing institutions against wholesale changes. One of the foremost revolutionaries of his day hardly fits that definition.

Jefferson believed some things that jive with current conservative talking points, such as limiting federal power. Saying that makes him a "conservative" is disingenuous. He was not considered 'conservative' by the politics of his day.

Among other things, he was vehemently opposed to establishment of religion (i.e., state support for religious institutions). He also did not want any kind of standing military and deeply distrusted banks and large business interests. How far would that get him on a "conservative" platform today?

It was a different world then.