Why won't the Smithsonian agree to honor all Native American veterans in its new memorial?


THE HILL >> “The 1994 law authorizing the National Native American Veterans Memorial used the term ‘veterans of the armed forces,’ but this does not preclude the inclusion of the USPHS logo on the memorial.”

>> https://thehill.com/opinion/na...-all-native-american

==============================================

Veterans, please comment. This seems strange to me - but I'm not a veteran.

Even more impressive...

quote:

Congress passed legislation in 1994 allowing the national monument to be built, and it took 24 years — until June 2018 — for the Smithsonian to agree to a memorial design.

...and you wonder why the Govt pisses so much money down the drain.

The USPHS and NOAA are uniformed services, but they are not armed services.

So while people who serve in those two branches are veterans and worthy of remembrance for their service, if the law only specifically references armed services, then that would not include the USPHS or NOAA.

Any outrage should be directed at the legislators who drafted the law with that specific language, not the Smithsonian who is just having to follow the law as written.

Sorry, but when I think 'Veteran,' I never think of NOAA or the other one.

Why not add the Postal Service? Local dogcatchers? They wear 'uniforms,' too. . .

A line must be drawn somewhere. This just sou ds like whining.

Yup. Just another manufactured outrage.

quote:

USPHS

Sorry, they ain't Vets.

They may wear uniforms, but so does the dog catcher and they are far closer to a dog catcher than a Military Veteran.

The FIVE Armed Branches:
Army
Navy
Marines
Air Force
Coast Guard

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

USPHS

Sorry, they ain't Vets.

They may wear uniforms, but so does the dog catcher and they are far closer to a dog catcher than a Military Veteran.

Today I am going to run out to my mailbox when the postal lady arrives, hug her passionately, cry and thank her for her service to our country.



.

I've always thought it was strange to see the Surgeon General in a Navy-like uniform:

https://www.hhs.gov/about/lead...ome-adams/index.html

Is there a good reason for this? Did it make sense at one time?

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
Why not add the Postal Service? Local dogcatchers? They wear 'uniforms,' too. . .

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

USPHS

Sorry, they ain't Vets.

They may wear uniforms, but so does the dog catcher and they are far closer to a dog catcher than a Military Veteran.

Federal law says otherwise. Commissioned, uniformed officers of the USPHS and NOAA are considered veterans and eligible for all veterans benefits.

Dog catchers and mail carriers aren't commissioned officers. USPHS/NOAA officers are.

Like it or not, the US has 5 armed services, but 7 uniformed services. That's a term with a specific definition as laid out in Title 10 of the US Code, not just "anyone who wears a uniform" like cops, firefighters, dog catchers, or mail carriers. The USPHS and NOAA may not be armed, but they do have military, national defense, and intelligence purposes, and they serve in important roles during wartime.

But this memorial is specifically for "veterans of the armed services". So the issue here isn't that USPHS/NOAA aren't veterans. They are. It's just that USPHS/NOAA aren't armed services.

My understanding is these unarmed uniformed services by representing the US, the officers receive a commission and work for/with, the more familiar armed services thus the need for a uniform. I believe technically a retiree of those services can be referred to a veteran (for the sake of classification and benefits), the reality is nobody is referring to a retiree of those branches as veteran.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

Federal law says otherwise. Commissioned, uniformed officers of the USPHS and NOAA are considered veterans and eligible for all veterans benefits.

Well, I learn something new every day.

Still, the title of this thread is misleading. The memorial is for armed services veterans, so saying it only honors "some" veterans is deceptive at best, downright provocatively misleading at worst.

The question to me is whether the WWII Memorial and the Vietnam Memorial also honor NOAA and USPHS. If they do honor those veterans, then a double standard is being applied to this new memorial. If they don't honor the other two agencies, then critics of the new memorial want to apply a double standard and create rancor in an already divided nation.



.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
The question to me is whether the WWII Memorial and the Vietnam Memorial also honor NOAA and USPHS.

During WW1, WW2, and Korea, the President militarized the commissioned corps of the USPHS and the NOAA's predecessor called the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, and their members were assigned to various branches of the armed services for the duration of those war(s).

So as a result of their incorporation into other branches, I doubt the USPHS and NOAA's predecessor would be specifically called out in memorials for those wars, with their veterans instead being associated with whatever branch to which they had been assigned.

I don't believe the same occurred during Vietnam, although the USPHS did provide medical personnel to work with surgical teams and field hospitals during the Vietnam War, as well as heading up efforts to control malaria and other infectious diseases in country and perform other medical outreach to the people of South Vietnam. The NOAA (then known as the ESSA) assisted with military meteorology and surveying during the Vietnam War.

Combat as an infantryman, was awarded with a Combat Infantry Badge (C.I.B.). Combat jumps by paratroopers were awarded with a jump star on their airborne badge.

Well, it seems that a lot of butt-hurt truck drivers and other sorts said: "We were in combat I want a badge also." Bingo the Combat Action
Badge popped up.

Now our whole touchy-feeley-everyone society wants armed participation trophybadge / recognition.

This is unmitigated bullshit. I served with the infantry in Nam. I humped the same jungles. I was Field Artillery, they were Infantry. They were awarded CIB's because of their MOS and duty. They were proud of that distinctive device, and I was proud when they received them.

The Marines have their own system - which I freely admit I do not know.

My Dad had one as an Infantry officer leading an anti-tank platoon in Germany during WW II. I know how proud he was of that.

All of these me-toos, should be proud of their service, but don't sulk if it was not an "Armed Service" - a distinction earned over a history of combat engagements.

Off my free-speech box, and proud to have served in the Armed Forces.

PS: The National Vietnam Memorial was a memorial for the dead - not those who survived. The dead are only identified by name.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Federal law says otherwise. Commissioned, uniformed officers of the USPHS and NOAA are considered veterans and eligible for all veterans benefits.

Well, I learn something new every day.

Same here, thanks for the correction.