By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the 19 soldiers awarded Medals of Honor for their actions at Wounded Knee in 1890 will retain their awards. This decision follows a review ordered by Hegseth’s predecessor, Lloyd Austin, in response to congressional recommendations. The review panel concluded that the soldiers deserved the medals despite the historical context of the event, where the U.S. Army killed approximately 250 Native Americans. This decision aligns with Hegseth’s broader actions, including restoring Confederate-linked names and memorials in the military, and echoes a White House executive order that discouraged reinterpretations of American history.
Read the original article here
Hegseth says Wounded Knee soldiers will keep their Medals of Honor, and frankly, it’s raising a lot of eyebrows. It’s a bit bizarre, isn’t it? To make a big deal out of something that happened over a century ago, as though it’s some kind of major victory. One can’t help but wonder if this is truly a priority.
The whole situation feels…pointless. These soldiers are long gone, and the events they were honored for are deeply controversial, to say the least. The comments about the medals themselves being awarded for vague reasons like “being brave” doesn’t help. It’s as if the medals were handed out to legitimize something that’s difficult to defend.
Hegseth’s statement that these soldiers “deserve those medals” and that their place in history “is no longer up for debate” is a pretty strong stance. It’s essentially saying that the actions at Wounded Knee, which many consider a massacre, are something to be celebrated. And that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.
The timing of this announcement also feels strange. It seems like there are so many pressing issues facing the country today, and focusing on an event from 130 years ago just feels like a distraction. The fact that many people are raising questions about the motives behind this decision is understandable. Are we really taking care of real problems?
The narrative presented seems a bit like revisionist history, and it feels like it’s ignoring the brutal reality of what happened at Wounded Knee. General Nelson Miles’ assessment of the event as a “massacre” speaks volumes, as does his criticism of the actions of the 7th Cavalry. The fact that General Miles even sought a court-martial for Colonel Forsyth for incompetence speaks volumes about how poorly executed the incident was.
There’s also the question of intent. Was anyone even trying to take these medals away? It seems as though this could be a case of creating a problem where none existed, just to stir up controversy and solidify a specific viewpoint.
The reactions to the decision range from anger to disappointment to resignation. Some people see it as a blatant disregard for the Native American community and a celebration of genocide. The idea that this is being used as a tool to incite violence also seems to resonate with some observers.
It raises the broader question of how we as a nation reconcile with our past. Do we embrace the “mistakes” of the past? Do we try to erase history, or learn from it? The response seems to suggest that the government doesn’t wish to acknowledge the mistakes of the past.
The idea of trying to erase history has also been mentioned by some commenters, who argue that it’s important to embrace history instead. But it is an unfortunate reality that this appears to be an attempt to legitimize something that is deeply flawed.
There’s a sense that this is a calculated move, a “dog whistle” aimed at a specific audience. It plays into a narrative that some people subscribe to and is a way to try and provoke a reaction, rather than to resolve an issue. This choice feels unnecessarily callous.
The focus seems to be on the wrong things. The conversation isn’t on today’s issues, but on the actions of men who have been dead for many years.