Posted on Nov 28, 2019
Elizabeth Warren introduces bill to revoke Medals of Honor awarded for Wounded Knee Massacre
2.16K
42
30
5
5
0
1. Should we reconsider MoH's given in the past if they go against current values?
2. Do MoHs given for arguably bad actions water-down or otherwise cast dispersion on current MoHs?
3. Should past MoHs given for group events be reconsidered for a different award - like we would currently give out Unit Awards for unit-events rather than individual awards to each member of that unit?
Side note - this question has nothing to do with Warren, the Dems, the Reps, the election, or any of that - just straight up about how we look at and reconsider the past, and whether we should be looking to "fix" past wrongs.
2. Do MoHs given for arguably bad actions water-down or otherwise cast dispersion on current MoHs?
3. Should past MoHs given for group events be reconsidered for a different award - like we would currently give out Unit Awards for unit-events rather than individual awards to each member of that unit?
Side note - this question has nothing to do with Warren, the Dems, the Reps, the election, or any of that - just straight up about how we look at and reconsider the past, and whether we should be looking to "fix" past wrongs.
Elizabeth Warren introduces bill to revoke Medals of Honor awarded for Wounded Knee Massacre
Posted from foxnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Medal of Honor
Medal of Honor
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
A thorough review of that terrible incident will show that those awards were done as an attempt to paint the entire action as a heroic and necessary action. It is difficult to condemn a person that has been labeled a hero.
First, one must look to the background of that massacre. Don't be sold on the idea that it was all about the so-called Ghost Dance. Like everything else, follow the money (and positions of power).
Then, look at the participants. Most were 7th Cav. This had much to do with "Custer's Revenge."
Those troops should not have been awarded any medal.
First, one must look to the background of that massacre. Don't be sold on the idea that it was all about the so-called Ghost Dance. Like everything else, follow the money (and positions of power).
Then, look at the participants. Most were 7th Cav. This had much to do with "Custer's Revenge."
Those troops should not have been awarded any medal.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
And this ladies and gentlemen is why progressivism is a cancerous blight. No they should not be taken away and why anyone should have to defend this is mind blowing. Are we going to take away any and all the medals from Iraq, Afghanistan because someone doesn't agree with the principles for why we fought 100 years from now? Hell, for the sake of a thought experiment, if communism was to take over the US, will we revoke MoHs from Korea and Vietnam because they fought the Ideology that is "now" dominant? You can even change that idea with Nazism and WII. If we open the door to this kind of revisionism then nothing is sacred.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG (Join to see) - I'm in! Let's absolutely start cutting back and cutting down undeserved awards.
On the other side, I don't find questioning the bravery of those involved in killing unarmed women and children to be "insulting." I think it's insulting to give medals of bravery to people who participated in those killings. There is nothing to be proud of in massacring unarmed people.
Even your voluntold folks don't have to mow down an unarmed camp of people with machine guns. No honor in that.
On the other side, I don't find questioning the bravery of those involved in killing unarmed women and children to be "insulting." I think it's insulting to give medals of bravery to people who participated in those killings. There is nothing to be proud of in massacring unarmed people.
Even your voluntold folks don't have to mow down an unarmed camp of people with machine guns. No honor in that.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - because all of the those killed where non-combatants. Also, let's also not discuss the fact that the MoH is not what it is today, the criteria is very different now than it was then.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSG (Join to see) - Given that the Army had disarmed the people prior to the shooting... yeah, they were pretty much all non-combatants. Most of the US casualties were caused by US forces...
And, if the criteria is different, then there should be a differentiation between the two awards.
And, if the criteria is different, then there should be a differentiation between the two awards.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - actually they where in the middle of disarming the people.... so no. Also, no to your second point. If you don't want to study history and know the difference then that's your fault. I see no validity to your argument when you don't even know our history. Here's some medals for context when they when they where created. Also the history of the medal so you can know the difference.
AAM: 1981
ARCOM: 1945
BSM: 1944
SSM: 1932 (originally the "Citation Star" made in 1918)
MSM: 1969
DSC: 1918
http://www.cmohs.org/medal-history.php
AAM: 1981
ARCOM: 1945
BSM: 1944
SSM: 1932 (originally the "Citation Star" made in 1918)
MSM: 1969
DSC: 1918
http://www.cmohs.org/medal-history.php
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth Could you elaborate on why you think we shouldn't readdress MoHs given in the past? This isn't about WHO introduced the bill, but about the bill itself.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google