Biden’s Renaming Farce: A Smokescreen over Confederate Legacy?

In a twist of irony, 2023 witnessed the renaming of seven Army bases that were once named in honor of Confederate leaders. This renaming exercise fell under scrutiny, considering the bases were merely rebranded with figures that bore the same Confederate surnames, albeit non-Confederates. Many regard this move as a thinly disguised attempt to undermine the national pursuits of distancing from Confederate associations – a move that continues to divide opinions along those who uphold the southern heritage and others who demand the expulsion of any trace of slavery proponents.

Marc Morial, who presides over the National Urban League – an organization known for its commitment towards civil rights – asserted that this renaming hardly made a difference, dismissing it as a ‘difference without a distinction’. This comes after Biden’s previous naming conventions that primarily honored service members from the domains of women and minorities were abruptly replaced, reflecting the latest agenda of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. As part of this new direction, all texts, policies, and programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion were purged, mirroring Trump’s sweeping exclusions.

Federal regulations now impede the military from reverting to the original Confederate names. However, Hegseth’s move still manages to foster links to names which carry strong resonation with many soldiers. This play on nostalgia has raised many eyebrows, stirring debates over the true intentions behind this strategy.

The United States was witness to a secession led by eleven southern states, creating the Confederacy after President Abraham Lincoln’s Election. Lincoln was an open opponent to slavery’s expansion, and the Confederacy was a direct attempt to reinforce the institution of slavery. The institution, which subjugated millions of African Americans, eventually led to the Civil War. The Confederates bore the brunt of failure in 1865.

Morial was quick to label the move to retain the old names as a sly maneuver. He pointed to the case of Fort Bragg in North Carolina, once renamed by Biden as Fort Liberty. The base was the pioneer in name restoration by adopting another American service member bearing the same name. The selected name was of a World War II soldier, which shielded the restoration from legal consequences.

Hegseth personally endorsed the renaming in February, which was swiftly criticized by Jack Reed, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Reed accused Hegseth of violating the essence or spirit of the law, even though he might have adhered to the law itself. This renaming debacle has extended beyond army bases, drawing widespread public ire for their Confederate associations.

Morial shared his conviction that there could indeed be better ways to honor lesser-known heroes without resorting to reverting bases to names associated with Confederate leaders. He questioned the appropriateness of naming military bases after individuals who tried to overthrow the government. Stacy Rosenberg, an associate teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, voiced her concerns about the inefficiency of frequent name changes.

Rosenberg stated that distancing from Confederate heroes as namesakes was a plausible strategy, but the newest renaming practice simply seems like an attempt to curry favor with Trump’s political base. She brought attention to the essence of naming a military base, emphasizing on the need to ensure that the individuals’ accomplished service record justified honoring their name in such a grand manner.

Angela Betancourt, a public relations strategist and United States Air Force Reservist, referenced the renaming of military bases as a branding tactic. This strategy embodies the image administrations want the military to exemplify. Betancourt acknowledged the widespread disapproval about the recurrence of Confederate-associated names, but urged for a consideration of the heritage and legacy personified by the new namesakes.

Despite the concerns surrounding Confederate associations, Betancourt maintained that such adjustments should not detract from honoring the new figures. The extreme focus on the past may inadvertently disregard the importance of venerating worthy individuals.

The narrative around these renamings seems to ignore the justified eradication of Confederate symbols. Instead, it focuses on the superficial manipulation of names, which does nothing more than perpetuate the issues of yesteryears. A more honest and transparent approach is necessary to genuinely move forward from these historical burdens.

It is clear that the renaming scheme is deeply flawed, given its thinly veiled attempt to retain Confederate associations. The strategy smacks of counterproductive measures, as it seems to revert progress, rather than move ahead from the dark pages of history.

Ultimately, the repeated renaming of military bases serves as a stark reminder of the volatile nature of politics. It also serves as a testimony to the constant struggle between progress and tradition – an ongoing war in itself, as administrations seem determined to imprint themselves on the nation’s history, irrespective of the cost to its citizenry.