Staff Reports
In the latest display of political correctness running amok, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has decided to remove Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, unveiling this move during Pride Month with great pomp and circumstance. Now, it’s not particularly surprising that the decision was strategically timed to seize the headlines during a month that has seemingly been extended to a point where its grandiosity might rival that of any major holiday. Apparently, the powers that be want to make sure every drop of attention is squeezed from this tale of selective historical recall.
Let’s reflect for a moment on the uproar from the left. They are up in arms, fearing this change is the beginning of a terrifying trend where history might be rewritten before our very eyes. But let’s get real: the left has been doing some historical editing of their own for years. Tearing down statues and renaming buildings and institutions has been their modus operandi, all under the guise of correcting past injustices. Suddenly, they’re clutching their pearls because a ship will no longer bear the name of Milk, a figure whose contributions are exaggerated beyond any reasonable measure.
Harvey Milk is often hailed as a pioneer for gay rights. Yet, a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors doesn’t exactly qualify as changing the course of history in any meaningful way. What grand legacy did he leave that warrants such reverence? Surely if we’re dedicating naval vessels to public figures, they should be individuals who’ve genuinely altered the fabric of our nation—or the world—in a monumental way.
The contrast is striking when considering the treatment of figures like Christopher Columbus, whose explorations were pillars on which Western civilization expanded to the New World. The impact of Columbus has shaped centuries of history and society as we know it. Without his voyages, the world would be an unrecognizably different place. Yet, in today’s cultural climate, Columbus is often vilified more than he’s celebrated, his statues torn down in the name of progress, despite his undeniable historical significance.
The cognitive dissonance at play is remarkable. Monuments of historical figures have been destroyed, labeled outdated and irrelevant by the same voices now defending a name assignment from just seven years ago as essential to the narrative of history. Perhaps it’s time for a reality check, an indication that maybe—not everyone who manages to get elected or every cause that happens to coincide with contemporary social movements—deserves a permanent fixture in history. True recognition should be reserved for those whose legacies withstand the test of time, not merely the fleeting favor of current cultural trends.
