By Elaine Magliaro
Earlier this week, military officials removed a “horrific” Halloween lynching display that had been set up in the yard of the on-base home of an active-duty soldier at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The “jarring” scene appeared to depict an African American family—two adults and one child—hanging from a tree by their necks. The child was reported to have a knife stuck in its back. According to Salon, there was another child in the display that “appeared to try to help one of the adults.”
Brendalyn Carpenter, a spokesperson for the army base, said that authorities “removed the display after being alerted to an ‘offensive’ Halloween decoration.” She told ClarksvilleNow.com, “Displays of an offensive nature are not reflective of Army values and the family-friendly environment provided for employees and residents of the Fort Campbell community.”
A Halloween display in front of an active-duty soldier’s Fort Campbell, Kentucky, residence that featured effigies with black trash bags as heads hanging by their necks from a tree was removed Tuesday, shortly after base officials were informed of the decorations.
Army Times reported that officials at the base “contacted the home’s occupant and relayed concerns raised by community members…” Carpenter said that the homeowner “willingly removed the decorations.” She added, “Personnel from the Installation Provost Marshal’s office investigating the scene determined that the decorations exceed installation and community standards and should be removed.”
Luke Brinker (Salon) said that the “lynching” display at Fort Campbell “refocuses attention on racism within the U.S. military, a problem that the Defense Department has redoubled efforts to address in recent years.” He noted that Reuters had reported back in 2012 that “neo-Nazis, white supremacists and skinheads” had “urged supporters to enlist in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps…” They argued that joining the military would “instill the skills and know-how required for what they consider an imminent race war.”
Reuters (August 21, 2012):
Aug 21 (Reuters) – They call it “rahowa” – short for racial holy war – and they are preparing for it by joining the ranks of the world’s fiercest fighting machine, the U.S. military.
White supremacists, neo-Nazis and skinhead groups encourage followers to enlist in the Army and Marine Corps to acquire the skills to overthrow what some call the ZOG – the Zionist Occupation Government. Get in, get trained and get out to brace for the coming race war.
If this scenario seems like fantasy or bluster, civil rights organizations take it as deadly serious, especially given recent events. Former U.S. Army soldier Wade Page opened fire with a 9mm handgun at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Aug. 5, murdering six people and critically wounding three before killing himself during a shootout with police.
The U.S. Defense Department as well has stepped up efforts to purge violent racists from its ranks, earning praise from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked and exposed hate groups since the 1970s.
According to Reuters, “Academics who study white supremacists say proponents of the ‘infiltration strategy’ of joining the U.S. military have adapted, telling skinheads to deceive military recruiters by letting their hair grow, avoiding or covering tattoos, and suppressing their racist views.” Carter F. Smith, a former military investigator who is now a professor of criminal justice at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee, told Reuters that the military needs a “comprehensive strategy” for neo-Nazis and gang members “who get past the screeners.” Smith said, “They are some of the most disciplined soldiers we have. They really want to learn to shoot those weapons. The problem wasn’t just that we were opening the floodgates to let them in. We let them out after prosecution or when their time was up and we didn’t let the police know.”
Halloween ‘Lynching’ Display At Soldier’s Home Removed After Complaints (Huffington Post)
Fort Campbell removes disturbing Halloween display (ClarksvilleNow.com)
Halloween ‘lynching’ display removed from on-base home at Fort Campbell (Raw Story)
Horrific “lynching” display removed from home on Kentucky Army base: The display refocuses attention on racism within military ranks (Salon)
After complaints, soldier removes controversial Halloween hanging display (Army Times)
I am gobsmacked! The sad part about this is there are way too many people who won’t see anything wrong with the display, and may even protest it being taken down. Free speech, y’know. 🙄
I do find the display offensive. And I have no problem with authorities removing the display on a military base.
But I do think it becomes a more complicated question on private civilian property.
I don’t think situations like this in civilian life have easy answers. I realize some of us are willing to cut back on the protections afforded freedom of speech. But in my opinion that is a dangerous path.
I don’t doubt that this display had racist intention . But suppose we were presented with a similar display with something to suggest political commentary – perhaps a sign to say ‘this is the way congress treats AA families’.
If you have confidence in democracy – the ability of thoughtful people to convince their fellow citizens of good policies with facts and strong arguments – then why would you fear hate speech? The only reason to fear hate speech is you if you believe the hater can be more persuasive for his belief than you can for your belief. When it comes to racism I don’t believe that. And you should not believe it either.
Given the choice of hate speech or government agents suppressing it, I think the choice is clear. Even hate speech ought to be protected. I would much rather oppose the haters than government agents.
You piqued my curiosity and I went hunting for more stories on the guy who built the display.
Tou Vue was quoted in his apology as saying creating a racist display was the farthest thing from his mind. He was recreating a scene from some movie called Scream (?). The kids were bagging leaves into black trash bags and he thought the bags would make good heads. He said next Halloween he’d stick with ghosts and goblins.
I tend to believe him as he was making quite an effort to stay outside and talk to his neighbors and apologize.
I’ve encountered many racists during my life and the one thing they never do is apologize.
I’d say it remains to be seen whether or not the person who created the display is a racist. He’s a member of the military. He was required to take down the display. How clueless is this individual if he didn’t entertain the thought that a lynching display on militray property would be called into question?
No question the display was inappropriate on several levels.
This just goes to show how wrong it is to deduce anything in this country. This was a minority service member trying to enjoy a ghostly holiday. When he realize another meaning he immediately did the responsible act. Perhaps we should focus on those who seem to enjoy denigrating the American Flag or our Founding Fathers at Valley Forge, or perhaps willing to understand drinking under the influence while driving
I believe you’ve got the story that I wrote about confused with another report about a lynching display. Tou Vue is from Minneapolis–not Fort Campbell in Kentucky.
Halloween scene resembling a lynching taken down
MINNEAPOLIS — A Halloween display in Minneapolis has been taken down after several neighbors expressed concern that the scene resembled a lynching.
“Lynching wasn’t even on my mind when we put this up. It was the furthest thing from my mind,” Tou Vue, the homeowner who put up the display, told KARE. “I didn’t mean to offend anyone and I apologize.”
BFM: Speech intended to persuade is one thing, speech intended to provoke and incite is another. The phrase “fighting words” comes to mind; in this case, a provocative “fighting image” might be the operational description of this Halloween display.
The upside of this episode is that the whoever created this display has called the necessary attention to themselves and should have a GPS shoved up his ass and tracked for the next twenty years.
Fair enough, that is a good distinction.
Now which government agency do you want to decide which are political statements intended to persuade and which are hat statements intended to incite.
What do we do about ironic comments, artist who present disrespectful religious images, people like Colbert, Maher, or Stewart? I am pretty sure there are a few dozen art/rock bands I could through in as well.
The distinction makes perfect sense till you start trying to actually make it work.
I would much rather oppose the haters than government agents.
@RTC: ” Speech intended to persuade is one thing, speech intended to provoke and incite is another.”
OK fair enough. I think that is a good point.
But now which government agency do you want to regulate that? Would choose NSA? They have all the data. How about FBI. The are pretty good with crime. What about CDC? I think they have a mental health unit that might be useful for both the haters and those who are distressed with what the hater say – and of course we can have confidence in their scientific, non political decisions.
Once we decide on the best agency to police this, how should they handle ironic comments and provocative displays by artist like the ones that offended Catholics a few years ago? I am pretty sure that with a little training federal police officers will have no trouble distinguishing art from hate speech.
What about political satirist like Maher, Stewart and Colbert. Now I am sure you have no trouble distinguishing their remarks from hate speech. But what about agents from CDC of NSA. What about CDC or NSA or FBI when Limbaugh turns up the heat or when Ted Cruz is president?
Do you feel safer now? Do you think we have a better chance at an open democratic society with the haters or with agents from your favorite federal agency?
I would rather oppose the haters than federal agents? RTC has made his choice. What about the rest of you? Would you rather debate haters or agents from DHS? What do you think?
You’re right. Thanx for the correction.
Read this story and tell me what you think
I had to look at the pictures to see the differences in the background.
The guy is active duty army, may not be from anywhere near Kentucky and he really may be just that clueless.
It really does happen. He’s active duty, may be trying to put in his twenty and would never jeopardize that by doing something that overtly racist in his front yard. If he was trying to be racist, he would know the base commander would never allow it.
I’m more surprised they even allow halloween decorations, but I bet they have a date when you can put them up and when they must be down by.
I would also bet his ass has been chewed so much he checks what the specs on christmas trees are before he puts one up this year.
bet there ain’t no damn angels hanging from it either.
I with BFM on this one. Racist, or stupid behavior can’t always be censored because the problem is who is to do the censoring? If it was a racist statement than this soldier can join the line of politicians today who have come out blatantly with racist comments. Massive opprobrium is the solution for the most part. What indicates this is the number of “whiners” that you see spouting “politically correct” to try to reverse the condemnation.
“There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.” – George Carlin
And floating behind that idea is the idea of intent. This situation doesn’t sound like there was bad intent behind it. Just a bit of thoughtlessness.
There may not have been bad intent behind the display. That would be hard to determine unless one knows the person who created it. If there was no bad intent, I’d say it’s an example of how ignorant some folks are to the history of racism in this country.
The Daily Mail is unfit for toilet tissue. That article was an abomination.
Mike: I think this is truly a case where local government is capable of governing best. Local government, municipal, county, or state would more accurately reflect the mores of a particular community. I would not approve of the NSA enforcing any such codes – they’re too busy collecting our data. Seriously, relying on federal enforcement of some type of standard would only lead to a further homogenization of American society, not something I want to see.
In the case of entertainers like Maher and Colbert, people understand that what they’re doing is comedy and satire. Even boors like Limbaugh and Ted Nugent deserve their place in the market. But on the street, in the ‘hood, and the workplace, people should be protected from oppressive expressions aimed at their race, creed, and sexual orientation.
You seem to want rely on the high-minded of the American public to quell hateful expressions, I’d like to see the high ideals of the American society enforced by some type of code. For Crissakes, they wanted to write citations for growing Indian grass and prairie dropseed in your front yard in my town. I’d like to think a disply of lynching victims would merit an equal response.
And yes, for the record, I don’t see all government regulation of speech as evil. I go back to the “fighting words” I mentioned above.
I’m at a bit of a disconnect here. I keep reading that he is a home owner and the home is on base. I don’t recall that they sold houses on base but even if they did the only local jurisdiction would be the Installations Provost Marshal.
I do think you remarks have merit. But I disagree because, on balance, I believe the threat is greater from government.
Fighting words are limited in the law. What you seem to have in mind seems much broader and in my opinion more dangerous. When the government gets it wrong over grass or zoning, the effect, in my opinion, is minor or at least limited in scope. But when those with strong opinions manage to get control of the machinery of government and suppress speech the effects are likely to be far more significant and widespread.
You seem confident that those with the power to influence government will always understand and accept social satirist such as Steward and Colbert. I think the history of the past hundred years tells us they will not. In the community that I imagine from your remarks, I think social satirist would be able to express themselves for only so long as they did not cause too many problems for those in power.
My recollection is that a few years ago Guilliani removed a art work from a museum show because he felt it was offensive to Catholics. I cannot comment on the merit of the art. But I think what you propose would have similar but far more widespread results . Guilliani was able to act because as mayor he had specif powers over the location where the collection was on display. Your approach would seem to give that kind of power to every mayor and city manager with the result that every group with influence over local government could shut down display and public discussion of what ever issue was their hot button. And I think the situation would be even worse is the federal government began to exercise such power.
I just do not see your proposal ending well for anyone who’s ideas challenge conventional values or entrenched power.
I was also confused but Elaine pointed out to me that there are 2 stories. One involves a homeowner in Minneapolis, a Mr Vue. The other involves the soldier in Fort Campbell whose name was not released. Both had lynching displays and both took them down after complaints.
One story I referenced above in the Daily Mail UK seemed to treat it as one story showing pictures that were, upon closer inspection, combined from the two separate events.
Elaine’s article addresses the Fort Campbell incident, not the incident in Minneapolis.
Horace may be right about The Daily Mail. I have heard the paper criticized by others. It looks as if the person who wrote that Daily Mail article conflated the two different stories. Not very responsible reporting.
I wrote that the display was set up in the yard of the on-base home of an active-duty soldier.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/10/north_mpls_halloween_display_featuring_hanging_doll_removed_after_complaints_photo.php The Hmong man, Mr Vue, said he did not know this was offensive and took it down after complaints. I am not so sure that the Kentucky incident was benign in intent.
I just discovered this company. You can have great Halloween and other special effects by pros without breaking the budget or falling off a ladder. How about holographic ghostly apparitions? The CelticLassie says this is….disturbing. She says it would definitely keep trick-or-treaters to a minimum.
Mike: Thanks for the thoughtful response. You, too, make a good point regarding government excesses.
I’m not aware of the situation with Guilliani, but here in Chicago some years back, a painting depicting former Mayor Harold Washington in drag was removed from the Art Institute. Although it was a poorly done work by a student, I thought the decision to remove it was wrong…and an excessive overreach of authority. My view on when community standards kicks in is governed by venue; in other words, where is the speech or expression taking place or put on display. People must make a conscious decision to visit a museum, oftentimes there are expenses involved, and one must be prepared to accept that artistic displays make express images and ideas that may be deemed offensive or obscene. But in that setting their critique carries greater weight and “massive opprobrium” can have an effect – the artist will either be deemed talented and become successful or not.
The same thing holds true for radio and TV personalities. These devices come with dials and they also have on/off swithches. Anyone should be free to tune into Ted Nugent or see him perform onstage (and he should be free to advertise and promote his events) but those actions involve consciously seeking out that expression.
A frontyard display is another matter in my mind. It subjects a community to images that can be difficult, if not impossible, to ignore. It exposes impressionable children to expressions of ideas that they may not be ready to understand. A Halloween celebration depicting a lynching trivializes tragic episode in the history of this nation. No different than depicting graphic sex acts should be prohibited from being displayed in frontyards, certain forms of hate speech should be prohibited from display in the streetscape by communities according to their values.
Moreover, prayer in public schools is prohibited in part on the basis that it stigmatizes non-Christian children. Should we not, as a community, protect African-Americans from being stigmatized by an open air depiction of a lynching?
In my mind this also raises property rights issues. I have to believe that frontyard displays depicting lynching and other forms of overtly hateful speech reduce property values in the community. My right to quiet enjoyment is also infringed upon if the view out my front windows looks out on a scene depicting racist hate speech.
I don’t share your sense of otherness when it comes to government; it’s our government, we is the government. I certainly agree that it’s been hijacked and that there is a frightening effort to supplant it with a ruling class is under way. One of the levers in this effort is spreading the believe that government is some foreign entity bent upon controlling our lives. You think that enforcing a nominal code of civic decorum, as decided by the citizenry, is too much control. I respectfully disagree.
“Local government, municipal, county, or state would more accurately reflect the mores of a particular community.”
While I get your point it is fraught with problems. Most intolerance in the US has historically occurred and will continue to occur at the local level. The cry of “State’s Right” was a cry against ending “Jim Crow”. There are States and municipalities today across America that would harass and arrest gay people for their sexual preference. There are never easy answers to the problem of prejudice, the hardest part of which is many bigots don’t see themselves that way, they feel they are being “realistic”.
Because I am kind of cranky this morning I am going to suggest that conflating the two stories works in the best interests of the U.S. Army.
bouise, I think you are propaganda sensitive. That was my thought when I saw the conflated stories. Sort of takes the sting out of what happened on the base.
Purposeful irresponsibility? One picture shows the exhibit on base but the other pictures are Vue’s residence. There’s brick on the house but not the same brick. There’s a tree in the yard but not the same tree. It fooled me first time around. I thought Vue was the serviceman but I couldn’t figure out why his city councilman was there on base.
So I went to nationalistic and found this:
Blouise, if you had been reading the other blog, you would be quite familiar with the Daily Mail. When you first posted the link, i thought, oh no, not blouise, too. lol
I don’t go over there (that other place) and, truth be told, I’m not that familiar with the publication in question … or wasn’t until now. Elaine was gentle with me as I learned. 🙂
nationalistic was supposed to be nationalwiki … this auto correct feature is often a pair in the neck
And pair was supposed to be pain … time to take Tex for his appointment anyway
I won’t be so gentle with you next time you post a link to one of them thar right-wing rags. Get a grip, will ya???
blouise, actually I read Elaine’s comments before I went to the link. My confusion was why the MN guy was in the middle of the KY story. For what purpose? MN guy made a mistake and apologized. KY guy is army and we don’t want anyone in the army to appear racist, do we?
Amo, Amas, Amat
See ya later, mon ami
Yep, when I open that closet door, that’s the skeleton I see.
what you’ve missed….
Mike S: I agree, there are no easy answers when it comes to cracking down on hate speech in a free society. Where is the line and how far over it is too far and who makes that determination and what can and cannot be done to protect the dignity of those who manifest a difference in society?
To allow people to decorate a streetscape with vile images would seem to breed a more hateful world. Doesn’t a government of the people, for the people, by the people have a role in peventing that?
I honor your namesake and thank you for further illuminating the pseudo-journalism practiced by The Daily Mail. I promise to steer clear.
p.s. I would have voted for you. 😉
“A man who called into C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” Thursday morning referred to President Barack Obama as “that n***er” before getting booted off the air.
The caller, who gave his name as Anthony from San Diego, California, identified himself as a Republican and started out talking about the direction he thinks the new GOP majority in Congress should take.
“I would just like to say, that the Republicans — and I’m a Republican — please do not overreach,” the caller began. “I know they’re going to overreach but I’m telling you, if you advocate for the repeal of Obamacare and you get too extreme, then Hillary Clinton will be elected President in 2016.”
“This is about race,” he added. “The Republicans hate that nigger Obama.”
Host Steve Scully quickly cut off the caller after he dropped the racial slur.”
If one analyzes what that caller actually said then one can comfortably infer that the only one worse than Obama would be Hillary suggesting some republicans hate women even more than they hate black men which makes his calling into C-Span a perfect example of the “overreach” against which he was warning. They really can’t help themselves.
Blouise, Maybe they really believe the Bill was the first black president.:)
Republicans brought us Watergate, savings and loan collapses, 9/11, and the near catastrophic failure of the entire world’s economy but they hate black people, immagrants, and women so we keep electing them. It’s a good fit if one really understands our history.
Swarthmoremom and blouise,
It is all still about race: Obama hatred, the South and the truth about GOP wins
All the conventional wisdom you’ll hear tonight is wrong: Republican gains are really proof of age-old ugliness
But 40 years of data from the General Social Survey — the gold standard of American public opinion research — say otherwise. They tell us that Southern whites overwhelmingly blame blacks for their lower economic status, ignoring or denying the role played by discrimination, past and present, in all its various forms, and that the balance of Southern white attitudes has barely changed at all in 40 years. At the same time, attitudes outside the white South have shifted somewhat — but still tend to blame blacks more than white society, steadfastly ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary — such as 60 years of unemployment data, over which time “the unemployment rate for blacks has averaged about 2.2 times that for whites,” as noted by Pew Research. It is only Democrats outside the white South who have dramatically shifted away from blaming blacks over this period of time, and the tension this has created within the Democratic Party goes to the very heart of the political challenge both Obama and Landrieu face — a challenge that is not going to simply go away any time soon.
Before turning to the GSS data, it’s worth noting that it’s hardly an anomalous finding. A 2011 study from Tufts (press release/full study) found that whites as a whole see racism as a zero-sum game, such that decreases in discrimination against blacks over the decades are reflected in increases in discrimination against whites, so that now whites are more discriminated against than blacks. This perception is not simply mistaken, it’s downright delusional, flying in the face of mountains of objective data. For example, a June 2014 study by Young Invincibles, “Closing the Race Gap,” found that blacks need to complete two more levels of education to have the same probability of employment as their white counterparts. Nonetheless, as explained in the Tufts press release:
On average, whites rated anti-white bias as more prevalent in the 2000s than anti-black bias by more than a full point on the 10-point scale. Moreover, some 11 percent of whites gave anti-white bias the maximum rating of 10 compared to only 2 percent of whites who rated anti-black bias a 10. Blacks, however, reported only a modest increase in their perceptions of “reverse racism.”
They will impeach him over immigration if he does something favorable to immigrants through executive order
I posted this on Gene’s latest column but I really do believe that what we are experiencing is an aberration akin to McCarthyism and it is a widespread social and cultural phenomenon. White men are desperate as they watch power continue to seep out of their hands. The phenomenon is quite well illustrated over at that other place. It’s going to be a rough ride for awhile.
“It’s going to be a rough ride for awhile.” blouise Yes it is. They clearly have the upper hand. They now have two thirds of the legislatures.
It’s going to be tough going for black people, average working folks, teachers and other public employees, the elderly, the poor, college graduates with large student loans to repay, immigrants, and on and on and on…
They will impeach him over immigration if he does something favorable to immigrants through executive order. SwM
Of course they will … it’ll be a repeat of Clinton. And … they still have the Supreme Court in their backpockets and lots of republican governors and state legislatures to help with voter suppression. They’ll take credit for the lower gas prices Obama got and for improved health-care with an emphasis on women’s health-care. The only thing we don’t know yet is what catchy name they’ll give their 2016 “grassroots” movement.
The bright spot is that every state even North Dakota defeated personhood legislation even if they put in a candidate, Corey Gardner, that previously sponsored it. Ron Paul might think twice about pushing this legislation but then again he might not. The other strange thing is that voters in a number of states approved the minimum wage while voting for candidates that are against it. The voters in most states skewed very old.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/4/7158293/mitch-mcconnell-strategist “To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.
It’s been ugly. But in most voters’ mind, the ugliness has attached to Obama and, by extension, Democrats. It was a very counterintuitive strategy, but it was well-grounded in the best political science available. And it worked.”
The voters in most states skewed very old. SwM
That’s why they so desperately need to suppress the vote for 2016 when the young, more discerning voter makes his/her appearance.
The Democrats do have a plan and I don’t think the Republicans are going to like it at all.
Tucker Carlson unloads in unhinged rant about race and immigration
The conservative talking head fans fears that Obama administration is ginning up racial tension VIDEO
Tucker Carlson is at it again.
Appearing on conspiracy kook Alex Jones’ radio program Tuesday, the conservative media personality — recently seen suggesting that having to bake a cake for a gay couple is “fascism” –alleged that President Obama is stoking racial tension to gain political advantage and joined Jones in railing against immigration.
Responding to Jones, who approvingly cited right-wing pundit Ben Stein’s recent allegationthat Obama is “the most racist president there has ever been in America,” Carlson said, “I have no idea what’s in his heart. I have no idea what his true beliefs are. But it’s very clear – they’ve made it as clear as it’s ever been in the last two weeks – that they’re willing to use race to divide the country to get out the vote and use racial fears to get their base out to the polls.”
After Jones chimed in that there’s an elite plot to “flood us with all these illegals” so as to “create that balkanization,” Carlson heartily agreed.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. There’s no doubt that they see immigration as a source of political power and that’s scary,” he said.
The stoopid. It burnsssss.
The numbers continue to mystify political scientists. Obama is still well ahead of Bush in his approval numbers but Democrats seem as eager to see his Presidency end in two years as Republicans were too see Bush out in 2006.
blouise, Also low gas prices, high levels of consumer confidence, and rising employment levels……
Me thinks we need to go to a single 6 year term … one term only …and then get them out.
No worries about getting re-elected, no need to pander to special interests and plenty of time to accomplish goals. And the VP can’t run for the presidency for 6 years after the term has ended.
Just want to set the record straight on this issue regarding the Halloween decorations. I lived on Fort Campbell when this happened, I was a friend and neighbor of the family. This scene was meant to depict an aspect of the movie “Sinister”. If you haven’t seen the movie, it’s about a supernatural being (Mr. Boogie/Bughaal) that manipulates children into killing their families in gruesome ways. After the kids have killed their families, Mr. Boogie takes the children with him to use to manipulate the next child.
This specific scene is depicting one of the families in which the child was told to hang his family. The child in the depiction wasn’t trying to help the adult, it was playing with the bodies, just like the scene in the movie.
Also, another thing that’s wrong with this article is, the family that did this was a mixed race family. One parent was black, the other was white. They apologized to anyone they offended, as it wasn’t their purpose, and the only reason they chose the bag color they did, was because that just happened to be the color garbage bags they had at the time. This brand, style and color is the cheapest (with coupons), most popular, sturdy bags the commissary sells.
I can tell you from a military standpoint, that service members may enter the military a racist, but the comradarie makes them brothers and sisters (though females have a harder time). A small percentage of people may not get over their racism, but by and large, it’s not as prominent as you’re reporting. Sexism is by and large a greater problem than racism.
Just a suggestion, but you might want to take this down, as its true meaning doesn’t quite fit the narrative you’re trying to make it fit. Had you possibly researched this photo sufficiently, and talked to the family, they would have set the record straight. There were even articles in the Fort Campbell paper and Clarksville paper that reported on this, and both updated their stories that said the same thing as I have.