The U.S. Army has always been an institution affected by the political whims of the day. Contributing to Benedict Arnold’s decision to betray his country was the political decision of Congress not to promote him to major general — his state of Connecticut already had two major generals, while some states had none. Numerous other examples could be cited in American military history, such as the decision to limit General George Patton’s supplies of gasoline so as to let the Soviet army get to Berlin first during World War II.
It has become increasingly clear that the American Army is seen as little more than a tool to advance the progressive goals of the Obama administration, including racial politics.
The latest evidence: 400 soldiers in the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, were told in a training session, “Our society attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual.” Soldiers were informed in a slideshow, “Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans.”
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The training promoted the concept known as “white privilege.”
The term “white privilege” evidently was first used among the radicals of the 1960s, after an essay was included in a radical pamphlet entitled “White Blindspot.” The essay mentioned the “struggle” against what it called white skin privilege, and was widely read among members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other groups of the New Left.
In fact, Bernadine Dohrn, a leader in the violent Weather Underground and wife of terrorist Bill Ayers (who bombed New York City police headquarters in 1970), wrote an article in a 1977 issue of Lesbian Tide, in which she used the term. Dohrn lamented that she had allowed “white privilege” to betray “revolutionary principles.” Ayers made the news recently with his protests designed to shut down a rally of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The expression “white privilege” became accepted in mainstream liberal circles in 1987, when Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay entitled, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” She described white privilege as “an invisible weightless knapsack of assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.” Today, the concept of “white privilege” is accepted dogma in liberal academic circles.
The radicals of the 1960s now control the American Army of the 21st century.
Among the assertions foisted upon the soldiers forced to sit through the “training” session included, “Our society attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual regardless of your social class,” and “Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do.”
If this was all new to the soldiers, the presentation had an explanation: “To be white in America means not having to think about it.”
This is not the first time that the Defense Department has used its control over soldiers to attempt indoctrination in left-wing political views. Previously, so-called equal opportunity training materials have identified conservative organizations as “hate groups.” In these sessions, the soldiers are cautioned that “many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” Interestingly, the slogan of the constitutionalist conservative John Birch Society is “less government, more responsibility, and, with God’s help, a better world.”
By the end of the Vietnam War, morale in the armed forces was at a low ebb; however, this changed dramatically in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. But after Reagan left office, the first Bush presidency, followed by the Clinton years, and finally, the second Bush administration began to deploy the military repeatedly, weakening morale.
When Bill Clinton was sworn in as president in January 1993, supporters were heard to remark as fighter jets flew overhead during the inauguration ceremony, “Those are our jets now.”
This attitude played out in Clinton’s efforts to remake the armed forces in the liberal image he desired. He pressured the military to feminize the Army, opening all specialties to women, and army policy soon reflected this pressure by implementing coed basic training and sensitivity classes. His efforts to admit open practicing homosexuals into the military was resisted, leading to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a prospective member of the military could not be asked if he or she was a practicing homosexual, but was expected to keep such information to himself or herself. This compromise position was too conservative for the Obama administration, which jettisoned it in 2011. Only two years later, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed the ban on women in direct combat. Now, the Army even welcomes transgendered people into the service.
Male Army ROTC cadets have even been forced to walk around several college campuses in high heels — red, no less — to demonstrate that they have a concern about sexual abuse. The Bible, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence have even been called sexist documents in an Army training course.
How far will this go? It must be remembered that the military is expected to follow orders. Failure to do so leads to the termination of a career. Hundreds of high-ranking officers — from not only the Army, but all the services — have chosen to retire or have been forced into retirement during the Obama years.
So when a general or admiral testifies before Congress in support of an Obama policy, it must be understood that these top military officials really have no other choice. Senator John McCain has called the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, “An echo chamber of the Obama administration.”
The recent inclusion of women into combat roles has been meekly accepted by the top brass — as if they really had any other choice. Although women average 50 percent less upper body strength than men, and there are real issues with bonding in combat units that include women, political considerations and assertions of equality are considered of greater importance.
The Washington Times of April 11, 2015 reported, “The Marine Corps’ historic experiment to allow women to take part in its Infantry Officer Course ended with zero female graduates…. Since the experiments began about two years ago, 29 women have voluteered for IOC [Infantry Officer Course] at Quantico.” Though all the women failed, General Dempsey has ordered a review of the standards. It can reasonably be presumed that this is so women can pass.
Army Secretary John McHugh, who has since retired, has asserted that women in Army Ranger school performed just as well, and even better, in some cases, than men. This would imply that no women performed worse than any of the men, which no one can seriously believe.
McHugh was challenged that the standards were reduced so women could complete the course.
Congressman Steve Russell (R-Okla.), a former Army Ranger, asked for the scores of the women, but he was informed that those records no longer existed. Instead of producing the records as requested by Russell, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, McHugh took offense at the request. He told Russell that the Army “took exception” to the “implication that this practice is somehow nefarious in either deed or motive.”
With the armed forces being used more and more to advance the whims and wishes of the political Left, the so-called training sessions in which white soldiers are made to feel guilty for simply being white are not surprising.
Judicial Watch obtained the records of the white privilege training sessions through a Freedom of Information request, and its president, Tom Fitton, reacted to what he saw. “Outrageous — that is the only word to describe this type of raw racist indoctrination,” he declared. “The Obama Administration undermines the morale of our military with morally repugnant ‘equal opportunity training’ that makes soldiers unwelcome because they are the wrong sex, race, religion or aren’t part of a politically correct group.”
Steve Byas is a history professor at Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College in Moore, Oklahoma. His book History’s Greatest Libels is a challenge to the politically correct lies told about such persons in history as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Joseph McCarthy.
