It’s a target – doesn’t make any diffrence who they name it after.

- Kyon

I like many others in attempts to look at this apolitically return to the “guidance” the CNO and company are supposed to follow (as P.S quoted above)

Chavez does nothing to amplify the fighting spirit of the Navy, uphold it’s traditions or heritage. If anything his own words work contrary to this inspiration.

His name fails to “unify the public as a whole” as witnessed by the many disagreements.

Chavez does nothing to serve a diplomatic purpose; and if anything his name and the union he founded is of a more socialistic association rather than representing us aboard without compromizing either fighting spirit or principles of American republicanism

Chavez service was not noteworthy; it did not deserve commendation or special honor. Simply serving is insufficient grounds for ship naming, especially when you look at the long list of Hispanic Americans which made even greater sacrifice honoring their service.

There is a “perception” that this naming is being done to appease not so much a single important personage but a body electorate as a form of political pandering prior to a major election cycle. While perception is not fact it is often as the adage goes becomes truth.

“The ability of the Navy to retain the right to name its own ships rests mainly on the skill and ability of those holding the power to so do to realize that if the American people at large are inspired by the names chosen, they will continue to employ in the job the organization that successfully did so. Thus, every ship name is, in essence, a covenantal act between the sea services and the citizens of the Republic, and should be thought of in that light.”

For me this is the crux of the naming. A ship’s name has importance than simply honoring the dead. It must inspire our sailors to fight on in the face of adversity; it must remind us of the strength our country and the freedoms associated. It should serve as testiment to our heritage and traditions which empowered those that came before us…

Should the lesson for the seaman upon her deck in time of war serve to show him the solution to opposition is …

fasting?

Organizing a strike… ?

Perhaps a peaceful protest will turn the tide of battle…

I disagree with their choice; and I can only pray the leadership I once served under can fathom why.

SECDEF Rumsfeld came within a gnat’s whisker of revoking the authority to name ships from SECNAV Winter. I guaran-damn-tee that if he were still SECDEF that authority would have been vaporized from Mabus.

I am done with reading outsiders whine, complain, bemoan, besmirch the Navy and the Navy’s leaders in personal attacks.

While some of us may not be on watch now, we have been…

And regardless, outsiders who may have never spent time on a cold (or hot) midwatch have every right to comment on how their taxes are being spent.

As for pinging on the senior leadership…Sometimes it appears somebody needs to show them the side that still ain’t painted.

So Mr. X sets policy Y which many find abhorent. We are allowed to attack policy Y but not the individual who set the policy?

Gosh, it’s so clear now.

Accountability…soon to be removed from your dictionaries.

Man, it’s like everyone got Channel Fervor…

M. Ittleschmerz:

Perhaps if you are tired of “outsiders” commenting, USNI is “not your bag, baby?” Unlike SNA (which does draw a TON of its membership and funding from the has-beens), USNI draws ALMOST ALL of its funding and membership from the has-beens.

I remember when folks were trying to vote to change the mission statement of USNI to “advocacy.” That failed. So, Sorry, M. Ittleschmerz if you are upset that we aren’t properly towing the line, but then again, WE DON’T HAVE TO.

Deal with that. With a sense of active-duty-still-on-watch-and-the-captain-is-coming-urgency.

As for frank talk in naval circle, I would opine it has been skin burning caustic in the past…

Indeed that gent would have made a Navy Times headline for being relieved any number of times from when he was a Lt on.

(on a totally unrelated side note, I have always wondered if this particular topic had anything to do with the largely undeserved bad rap SE Morison laid on MoH winner Frank Jack Fletcher in his WWII history…)

Cesar Chavez would be quite a good name for a ship, not because he was in the Navy (which he was), but because of the good he did in organizing for those who labored under very miserable conditions before Chavez came along. As far as the guy who wondered who Saul Alinsky was, he was one of the inspirations for our current Commander-in-Chief and one of mine as well. Alinsky showed that the people mattered in a democracy and that voices raised in unison are heard.

A good book which gives some different perspective is here.

(not to say that pulling the carriers that fateful August day was the right thing to do…but…well…read the book)

back kinda sorta to on topic…

And I can’t think of any navy flag who had more personal bad things said about him than Fletcher.

You know, I withdraw the comment I made, since obviously 1944 was the halycon days of race relations and my ignorance did not take that into account. see the light. I really do. There is not way–no way in heck–that Seaman Chavez could have run into anybody that was not an angel in Navy blue, or who did not treat him into the utmost respect. And of course, looking back at the original comment I made, since I categorically said he was absolutely 100% in the right, I should have shaded it to be a little on the safe side. Or just condemned him along with the rest of the crowd. I ask repentence for my naval thought crime.

I’m stupid. You’re smart. All there is to it. Thanks.

PS I would like to see any evidence that you may have the Mr. Chavez was victimized by any kindof widespread discrimination…

All I can think of that comes close is that case at the Weapons Station at Port Chicago.

FWIW PS the USN understood it didn’t pay to act like that…

Racial Theories Waste Manpower

This does not mean, however, that such attitudes may be accepted as a controlling factor in the formulation of general policy or in day to day operations. It is encumbent on, and expected of each officer that his attitudes and day to day conduct of affairs reflect a rigid and impartial adherence to Naval regulations, in which no distinction is made between the color of individuals wearing the uniform. This pattern of thought should be passed on by each officer to the enlisted men, both White and Negro, under him.

Sid, I’ve already repented of my thought crime. The existence of one Spanish-descent admiral was more than enough evidence for me. I quickly made this conversion because I already knew that the rise of Uriah Levy to his commodoreship back in the antebellum period heralded the end of the anit-Semitism in the United States. And as the United States Navy is a reflection of nation at large, if it no longer existed in the nation it didn’t exist in the Navy. All because someone had flag rank. Q.E.D. I’ve seen the light. Your production of a pamphlet is only icing on the cake, as we all know that procedure on the lowest deck always follows policy. Especially if the chief drinks. Which I understood some back then did.

As far as old WWII messages and training materials–I love reading them. There’s a good one about liberty restrictions at the museum at Pax. Tells the men what they can’t do while still treating them as men.

An additional thought and then a “close”

As far as the difference between what an officer corps of that era was trying to impose and what could sometimes actually happen at the barracks level–though it is about the Army, and pre-war, I do point everyone to “From Here To Eternity”.

For my closing statement: This has been a very irritating thread for me, because if someone had said–many posts ago–”Okay, but do you think there is any possibility that Chavez might have also just been a screwup?”, I would have said “sure”. And of course, an additional thought that had came to my mind was that not every veteran of World War II came out of it just loving his time in service–or the service he was in.

So, to get back to the original reason for this thread–I can think of at least five reasons why Chavez said what he did–found himself in a hostile environment; personally couldn’t hack it (which the principal of “speak not ill of the dead” requires me to not mention again, for it is a slander on a man who cannot defend himself); just didn’t like military life in general but did serve honorably (in which case he is in very good company, “Greatest Generation” wise); or found himself in one of those cases where he fell under some bad leaders who didn’t give a dang about any of their subordinates; or did okay but thought he should have been able to rise higher than he did, and resented the fact that he didn’t. Any and all, pick your choice. Or just hang the man. Whatever floats your boat. But I’ve said my piece, and retire back to my ignorance.

PSW,

Awww, come on. We don’t have to agree – what good would that do? The point is the discussion – the friction and exchange of perspective and points of view. That is the strength of a comment section in blogs.

To your point, of course there was racial discrimination – especially back then if you were of sub-Saharan African or Japanese extraction (until the post-war period) — and Jews had a rough time, as did in a fashion Catholics, Irish, 1st Generation Germans with accents, people from Appalachia, etc…etc…etc. The children of those who fought in Tory Militias in the Carolinas in the late 1700s-early 1800s, Gingers, of course, still have issues … sigh. shall we go on? That isn’t the point about naming a ship after him anyway.

What Chavez may or may not have experienced on a personal level due to his last name was no excuse for his comments about the Navy …. and do not make up for the fact that of all the things we could name a ship after – Chavez shouldn’t be in any serious person’s top 1,000.

I am a U.S Military Veteran of both the Army and Navy and my parents were farmworkers and I to worked in the fields. I met Mr. Chavez in 1976, Mr. Chavez came to our house and discuss housing issues in my community of Cabrillo Village. He was a good and honest man and yes I believe a navy ship should be named after him.
Whether he liked serving in the Navy or not he still did his time and recieved his honorable discharge. Again thank you to all who have served this great nation.

“M. I. I get you don’t get it. But it matters to sailors. Anyway, nothing wrong with heavenly bodies. Noncontroversial. How about moons of our solar system? First choice….Miranda.”

Gramps – please go back and reread what I wrote and explain to me where you think that I “don’t get it”. I’ll be waiting.

Names matter. Which is EXACTLY what I’ve been talking about. Names of ships matter. And the names and epithets thrown at the Navy and Navy’s leadership matter, too. That’s my theme.

Now, if you want to go further about whether Sailors, especially unionized merchant Sailors, will accept the “USNS Cesar Chavez” name…then I’m not qualified to comment on it. You’d have to ask one of them. But I suspect that like the folks serving on other inspiring ships – Mesa Verde, Oakhill, Thomas S Gates, Whidbey Island and dozens more – those Sailors will adopt that name and make it something new. No matter what political breadcrumbs commenters on a blog will try and lob at them.