, another group of veterans has managed to become offended. This time over the unveiling of a statue. It seems that in Ft. Edward, NY, a statue of Maj. Robert Rogers is being unveiled this Memorial Day weekend. For those of you not "in the know", Maj. Rogers wrote a field manual that became the basis for modern Army Ranger fighting tactics. So why would this statue offend anyone? Well, it's not the statue so much as the timing.
"I think it's a travesty that we would think about honoring a person, especially someone who fought against us, on that day," said Bob Bearor, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division in the 1960s. "It's a sacred day. ... Let's honor our dead who died for our country."
OK, being a vet myself, I'm as sensitive to veterans' causes as anyone. But come on, let's get real here. No one is trying to offend anyone by unveiling this statue on Memorial Day. The thought process is easy to see. Maj. Rogers was a military man, and Memorial Day is the day to honor the military. If you're getting offended because of this, you're looking too hard for something to offend you. Seriously. Lighten up a bit.
With the number of stories like this appearing, I really have to wonder if media editors don't send their reporters out looking for them.
1
Of course they send them out looking. And they keep looking until they get the results they want. Kind of like the dems counting and recounting votes.
Posted by: Oyster at May 28, 2005 08:07 AM (YudAC)
2
Absolutely, Oyster. The media hates us military types and wants to expose every single issue as if it's the end of an era or something.
The fact that the commander-in-chief is the man most handed by the MSM isn't helping either. I wonder what would happen if a Democrat were elected President?
Would these stories fall to the way side? Would the MSM be content for at least four years?
Posted by: Chris Short at May 28, 2005 08:16 AM (IJb3W)
3
The way I see it, some people only see things in black and white; they are absolutists. Those are often the best people to have on your side when things go wrong. Relativists, on the other hand, while better at theoretical conversation, are generally of little use when it's time to bust heads.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2005 10:03 AM (0yYS2)
4
Well, now I''m totally confused.
My experience on the Jawa Report is that readers are sensitive about patriotism. Minor disagreements with US policy are looked at suspiciously and deemed to be unpatriotic.
Rogers is a man who was loyal to the enemy. Isn't that an unpatriotic act to the degree that the man is undeserving of being honored?
Personally, I don't care if the man gets a statue or not. I'm just remarking about the apparent inconsistancy on the issue of patriotism that is being displayed by Jawa readers.
Posted by: greg at May 28, 2005 10:20 AM (/+dAV)
5
His choice to remain loyal to England was a choice many made. There wer good arguments on both sides. They either stayed here or went back to the mother country, which I believe is what Rogers did. He was an asset during the French and Ind-i-an War, no?
We have no problem honoring Cofederate soldiers on Civil War battlefields who directly fought against the Union. Again, they had some darn good reasons.
These complainers need a life.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 28, 2005 10:24 AM (2IJRr)
6
Ok, so Rogers was loyal to England during the revolutionary war. So why is it "insenitive" for Memorial Day? Seems like it would be ALOT more "insensitive" to unveil his statue on Independance Day.
Posted by: KurtP at May 28, 2005 10:52 AM (Bw1bW)
7
against us, on that day
Respect due for a vet, but NEWSFLASH: almost half the colonists sided with England. Tough titties.
Posted by: Poosh at May 28, 2005 10:58 AM (l8gSf)
8
Yes. The man made his choice. It doesn't detract for what he did during the F&I War. He decided to not side with what was not even a country then. Perhaps he was more of a pratriot then the Masonic, Leftist elitists who started the revolution.
Heh Heh. Awaiting the deluge...
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 28, 2005 11:26 AM (pBi9/)
9
So, it's a privately funded statue that's set up on a privately funded site paid for by a private group.
For all I care, the outraged retired Rangers can parachute in at night and cut the head off the goddamn statue, holding it for ransom, or, as an alternate solution, fund a statue of George Washington dropping trou, have it cast, and place it near Maj. Roberts.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 28, 2005 03:59 PM (SSwaR)
10
It seams that you cant do anything these days without offending some whinning bunch of little cry babies why dont they just put a sock in it and give it a rest
Posted by: sandpiper at May 30, 2005 01:41 PM (uPdgJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
