vox--2020-06-09--Money Talks: They’ve been together for 15 years and are never getting married. It makes money compli

Money Talks: They’ve been together for 15 years and are never getting married. It makes money complicated.

Kim Steins and Geoff Marshall have been together for 15 years , but they don ’ t ever plan to get married .
The pair met at the College of Idaho when Kim needed a car to report on a college newspaper assignment at a cemetery and Geoff offered to drive her .
Post-college , they continued to live in Idaho , but when Geoff was diagnosed with cancer , they moved in with Geoff ’ s parents in Oregon .
He was in treatment for two and a half years and racked up close to $ 15,000 in medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was facing her own debt : $ 50,000 in student loans .
Now , Geoff is cancer-free , they live in an apartment in Washington , DC , and both work at nonprofits .
Kim makes $ 85,000 a year ; Geoff makes less than half that .
In some ways , marriage would ease their finances — most couples find that it ’ s better to file joint taxes — but for them , there are plenty of reasons , both personal and financial , to never tie the knot .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sense , and when is it actually financially beneficial for you and your partner to get hitched ?
Kim : I realized I didn ’ t want to get married sometime during college , but I ’ m honestly not totally sure what started it for me .
I was a girly-girl who had spent a significant amount of time in my childhood looking at wedding dresses and cakes , and thinking about color schemes .
I love the aesthetics of weddings and formal events .
But the whole institution seemed gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in college , my sister had already been married and divorced , I had other friends who were starting to divorce .
It just seemed like a big hassle .
Geoff : I think for me the appeal of married life , or long-term relationships , or whatever , was the sense of companionship and friendship , so the idea of signing a legal contract to promise to like or love someone just felt weird and unnecessary .
Kim : I kind of miss the opportunity to wear a big fancy dress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that , nope .
Geoff : There was a concern about not getting housewares as wedding gifts .
Kim : The biggest benefit to not being married , at this point , is that we can make big financial commitments without involving the other person at all .
So , after Geoff ’ s medical stuff , he was in collections for a lot of bills and had really bad credit .
But I had really good credit , so we didn ’ t have a problem getting an apartment .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so if I wanted to take on something riskier , it wouldn ’ t impact his credit even if it tanked mine .
Geoff : I joked this year about doing counterfactual taxes just to see how much the difference would be for us [ if we were married ] , but then I decided I had other things I ’ d rather spend my time on .
Kim : We haven ’ t made living wills or advance directives , but it ’ s on the list , and we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we don ’ t share a health insurance plan because we both get it through our jobs .
Geoff : If she were making less then there would be a lot more stress about money generally , but because she ’ s making more I feel like it ’ s a bit easier for me to relax about spending .
I still get twinges and I ’ m naturally going to sort of be hesitant to spend , but I think Kim earning more helps me feel less worried .
Kim : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response policy , so my job is pretty recession-proof .
It ’ s been nice to have that security right now !
Geoff : The funding for my organization definitely became a lot more precarious , due to Covid-19 .
We changed our major annual event to an online one , that was a big deal .
We did manage to get a loan through the Payroll Protection Program and that has helped secure things , at least for a while .
But there ’ s still big question marks for the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savings accounts for various big-ticket items .
We have a travel account , a general savings account , a computer savings account , and a couple others .
The main thing Geoff likes to spend money on is computer and home network stuff , so I think it ’ s comforting for him to have a dollar amount that we know we ’ ve set aside for this specific purpose .
I grew up poor , and I think that makes me a more impulsive spender .
There were always clothes , toys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of stuff that I couldn ’ t have , and I always felt really limited .
So for me , it ’ s about freedom .
I never felt free to really express myself or live the life I wanted to live .
But now I feel like I have a lot more real freedom .
Geoff : My family was pretty thrifty while I was growing up .
Definitely middle class , but my mom especially liked to spend money on experiences instead of things .
So we didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle-class status objects , but we had a nice house and got to take cool trips .
We didn ’ t have a honeymoon , obviously , but Kim and I have actually said that one of our New Year ’ s resolutions is to take more short trips because we found ourselves in the position where we would go back to Idaho to see Kim ’ s family and Oregon to see my family — and that ended up being like seven years .
We ’ re not doing well at our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going out and about to do that kind of stuff ; it feels reckless and dangerous .
We are saving money , though .
And we ’ ve had a couple long weekends as well , as little “ staycations.
” It ’ s something .
Especially with Covid , with us both working from home , there ’ s an especially big problem of blurring work life and personal life .
So we take an extra day off here and there .
If you have a compelling story about how money comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — whether with a partner , a friend , a sibling , a coworker — we want to hear about it !
Email alanna.okun @ vox.com and karen.turner @ vox.com with a little about yourself .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Kim Steins and Geoff Marshall have been together for 15 years, but they don’t ever plan to get married. The pair met at the College of Idaho when Kim needed a car to report on a college newspaper assignment at a cemetery and Geoff offered to drive her.
Post-college, they continued to live in Idaho, but when Geoff was diagnosed with cancer, they moved in with Geoff’s parents in Oregon. He was in treatment for two and a half years and racked up close to $15,000 in medical debt. At the time, Kim was facing her own debt: $50,000 in student loans.
Now, Geoff is cancer-free, they live in an apartment in Washington, DC, and both work at nonprofits. Kim makes $85,000 a year; Geoff makes less than half that. In some ways, marriage would ease their finances — most couples find that it’s better to file joint taxes — but for them, there are plenty of reasons, both personal and financial, to never tie the knot. When does skipping the “I dos” make sense, and when is it actually financially beneficial for you and your partner to get hitched?
Kim: I realized I didn’t want to get married sometime during college, but I’m honestly not totally sure what started it for me. I was a girly-girl who had spent a significant amount of time in my childhood looking at wedding dresses and cakes, and thinking about color schemes. I love the aesthetics of weddings and formal events. But the whole institution seemed gross to me. And even when I was in college, my sister had already been married and divorced, I had other friends who were starting to divorce. It just seemed like a big hassle.
Geoff: I think for me the appeal of married life, or long-term relationships, or whatever, was the sense of companionship and friendship, so the idea of signing a legal contract to promise to like or love someone just felt weird and unnecessary.
Kim: I kind of miss the opportunity to wear a big fancy dress and have a bouquet. But outside of that, nope.
Geoff: There was a concern about not getting housewares as wedding gifts.
Kim: The biggest benefit to not being married, at this point, is that we can make big financial commitments without involving the other person at all. So, after Geoff’s medical stuff, he was in collections for a lot of bills and had really bad credit. But I had really good credit, so we didn’t have a problem getting an apartment. Now, he has really great credit too, so if I wanted to take on something riskier, it wouldn’t impact his credit even if it tanked mine.
Geoff: I joked this year about doing counterfactual taxes just to see how much the difference would be for us [if we were married], but then I decided I had other things I’d rather spend my time on.
Kim: We haven’t made living wills or advance directives, but it’s on the list, and we’re planning to do it soon. And we don’t share a health insurance plan because we both get it through our jobs.
Geoff: If she were making less then there would be a lot more stress about money generally, but because she’s making more I feel like it’s a bit easier for me to relax about spending. I still get twinges and I’m naturally going to sort of be hesitant to spend, but I think Kim earning more helps me feel less worried.
Kim: Happily, my organization works on recession response policy, so my job is pretty recession-proof. It’s been nice to have that security right now!
Geoff: The funding for my organization definitely became a lot more precarious, due to Covid-19. We changed our major annual event to an online one, that was a big deal. We did manage to get a loan through the Payroll Protection Program and that has helped secure things, at least for a while. But there’s still big question marks for the future.
Kim: We have some specific savings accounts for various big-ticket items. We have a travel account, a general savings account, a computer savings account, and a couple others. The main thing Geoff likes to spend money on is computer and home network stuff, so I think it’s comforting for him to have a dollar amount that we know we’ve set aside for this specific purpose.
I grew up poor, and I think that makes me a more impulsive spender. There were always clothes, toys, food, events, all that kind of stuff that I couldn’t have, and I always felt really limited. So for me, it’s about freedom. I never felt free to really express myself or live the life I wanted to live. But now I feel like I have a lot more real freedom.
Geoff: My family was pretty thrifty while I was growing up. Definitely middle class, but my mom especially liked to spend money on experiences instead of things. So we didn’t have a lot of the sort of middle-class status objects, but we had a nice house and got to take cool trips.
We didn’t have a honeymoon, obviously, but Kim and I have actually said that one of our New Year’s resolutions is to take more short trips because we found ourselves in the position where we would go back to Idaho to see Kim’s family and Oregon to see my family — and that ended up being like seven years. We’re not doing well at our goal. We’re certainly not going out and about to do that kind of stuff; it feels reckless and dangerous. We are saving money, though. And we’ve had a couple long weekends as well, as little “staycations.” It’s something. Especially with Covid, with us both working from home, there’s an especially big problem of blurring work life and personal life. So we take an extra day off here and there.
If you have a compelling story about how money comes into play in one of your relationships — whether with a partner, a friend, a sibling, a coworker — we want to hear about it! Email alanna.okun@vox.com and karen.turner@vox.com with a little about yourself.


vox--2020-06-09--How to talk to kids about racism, explained by a psychologist

They ’ ve seen the killing of George Floyd and other scenes of police violence against black people play across their TV screens again and again , as Kelly Glass reports at Vox .
They see the thousands of people in the streets every day protesting that violence — sometimes , the kids are part of the protests .
And they see how their parents address racism in their own lives — or how they don ’ t at all .
As Howard Stevenson , a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania ’ s Graduate School of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re always communicating about race , whether you talk about it or not.
” Stevenson has spent 30 years studying racial socialization , or the way that parents raise their kids to think about race .
And he works with kids of all races on how they respond to “ racially stressful encounters , ” which he defines as “ any moment in which someone is stressed and overwhelmed thinking about it , facing it , or thinking about it in the past.
” That could mean a moment when a child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a racist comment but then regrets it , or witnesses someone else say something racist and fails to speak up about it .
For Stevenson , there ’ s a clear strategy that can help kids navigate those moments and speak their mind — whether it ’ s to call out racism or apologize for saying something bigoted .
A father himself , he acknowledges that black kids and other kids of color shouldn ’ t have to be trained to respond to racism — he ’ s said to his kids , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daddy even has to tell you about this.
” But , he told Vox , research shows that kids are treated differently based on skin color as young as preschool .
For many black parents , teaching kids about those differences is a way of protecting them .
But too often , white parents are afraid to bring up the subject , sometimes because they ’ re not comfortable with it themselves .
Today , Stevenson says , the lessons about racism in American society couldn ’ t be clearer — just turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , in a conversation that ’ s been condensed and edited , about how parents can teach those lessons to their children , and themselves .
After all , Stevenson points out , when navigating a racist world , it ’ s not enough to simply be a good person .
You have to actually understand how racism works and how to fight it .
And teaching that , he says , “ is the role of parenting.
” What are the kinds of techniques that you ’ ve studied in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to respond to moments of racism and injustice ?
People , children and adults , sometimes see a racial moment as threatening .
If the young person or an adult sees the racial moment as threatening , they ’ re more likely to overreact in a particular way .
And so one of the strategies is around noticing — if you notice that you ’ re actually overreacting or having certain expressions in your body , thoughts , and feelings , you can manage it .
We teach kids especially how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , locate , communicate , breathe , and exhale .
Calculate what feelings are you having , and then on a scale of one to ten , how intense are they ?
So somebody could be called a slur or say something they regret , and they feel scared at the level of nine .
And they ’ re also angry at themselves at the level of six .
But they ’ re also sad because the person they said it to might have been somebody that they like and care about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is : To what degree can you locate those feelings in your body ?
And because the body kind of keeps the score of your emotions , if you can figure that out , you ’ re more likely to be able to relax that part of your body , which will keep you from more anxiety .
Communicate is : What self-talk are you noticing ?
Are you saying anything to yourself ?
“ Man , that was an idiot thing to say .
Oh , my gosh , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist.
” Or what images come to your mind — do you see any pictures of people or situations while you ’ re going through the encounter ?
We can teach people those strategies followed by breathing and exhaling .
And we know that it helps many people bring their brain from sort of locking down to being much more open to seeing around themselves , to hearing better , to listening better , and that ’ s where the healthy decision-making comes in .
The opposite of that is that people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid a racial moment .
And if they are able to avoid it , the stress will go down , but they ’ re not any more competent for the next time they need to speak up or have a conversation .
It sounds like these techniques are applicable both if someone experiences racism and if someone perpetrates racism or says something that might be racist .
Is that right ?
Yes .
As well as somebody who is watching and freezes and doesn ’ t know what to do .
So how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these steps ?
And at what age do you recommend starting ?
I ’ ve always recommended starting very early .
Many families believe , “ I don ’ t want to burden my kids with racial stuff because it ’ s so heavy .
It might damage their childhood.
” But we do share things with our kids early that are troublesome , perhaps scary , but it doesn ’ t throw off their childhood or lead them to nightmares .
And so what we ’ ve figured out mostly is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
In families of color , parents having had very negative racial experiences of discrimination in childhood could prompt them to hesitate to talk about these issues .
Whereas white families who may not have had experience with race or racism at all are more fearful of being thought of as racist , or their children thought of as racist .
But you ’ re always communicating about race , whether you talk about it or not .
Children at young ages are pretty adept at reading your nonverbal language , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite observable .
Children , over time , see it over and over and over again .
And so they ’ re learning about what their parents won ’ t do in many respects more than what to do , if you ’ re not talking about it .
So one good recommendation is , if you ’ re going to have a conversation about race , talk about what ’ s going on with you , as a parent .
What feelings do you have , including the fear of talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming from ?
How do you recommend that parents bring up the kinds of racial moments that you were talking about ?
How do you define that for kids ?
There are times when children will have feelings of what happens to them or other friends where they feel it was wrong or an injustice .
That sense of injustice , kids can feel that something ’ s not right .
That actually is a great place to start .
The parents could say , did you ever have a situation where something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you felt was wrong ?
How do you feel about it ?
Is there something you wanted to say when it happened , but you didn ’ t because you were afraid ?
But we know children are treated differently by race in the larger world as early as preschool .
We know that children very early on can understand the differences in categories around skin color .
And in the way that you can socialize kids that skin color difference is a scary thing to talk about , you can also socialize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about by how explicit you can be in sharing .
Can you talk me through an example of the kind of racial moment that you train kids to respond to ?
Well , students have told me many times , young people , as young as fifth grade , that they can feel hurt and somebody uses a racial slur or gendered slur .
And they ’ re put in a bind in that moment , especially if it happens in front of other students , and just like adults will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t said anything or done anything , to protect themselves , to carry that burden with them .
And with that comes a host of , you know , “ What is it about me that could have brought this about ?
” So calculating your feelings is a way to sort of say , “ Well , I ’ m feeling hurt and ashamed .
But I ’ m incredibly mad.
” We ’ re asking what do you notice in your body and your thoughts and feelings .
Students can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is larger than just what the person said to me and larger than me not speaking back up.
” And then we can go through a set of rituals like , “ What would you have wanted to say ?
” Say nobody ’ s going to arrest you , nobody ’ s going to kick you out of class .
If you said you were angry at a nine , what would you want to say that matches that anger ?
And so we can practice with them several options of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match that feeling , even if it seems rude , to eventually come up with something that wouldn ’ t get them in trouble that they could say the next time — that would also mean they wouldn ’ t be quiet , because that swallowing is something that haunts them .
They ’ re tired of being perceived as weak , and tired of other people thinking that they can pick on them .
Talk to me a little bit about the benefits of these strategies for kids .
You mentioned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry with them if they are quiet when they want to speak up — how do these strategies help ?
If you ’ re mad that you didn ’ t speak up in a situation — let ’ s say it happens in the classroom — sometimes that classroom becomes a trigger for you .
You ’ re less likely to focus in the classroom .
It might affect your persistence in performance and grades .
[ And ] we know these kinds of microaggressions can affect your health , including your sleep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to be less likely to hold in and keep grudges because of unresolved moments .
How do the strategies you teach differ for black kids and other kids of color versus for white kids who don ’ t experience racism but who might be perpetrating or being a bystander to racism ?
There ’ s a dance to racism in our society , a dance in learning about the politics of race .
So many people ask me , what do you do for white people who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t been exposed ?
I say , if you take an astronomy class and you find out about black holes , you may be surprised — “ I didn ’ t know that , now I do.
” That ’ s not knowing .
But if you grew up in a culture where race has been around everywhere , like if you have a telephone , or a TV , or you watch cartoons , or any imagery in American society , you ’ re exposed to race and racism .
So the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you were trained to not know or trained to not see ?
And that ’ s the place where you can begin .
How do I stop that dance that I usually do around not seeing or not wanting to see ?
When studies have interviewed white parents about race , they are much more likely to be grateful that their children don ’ t talk about it out of fear that talking about it could either hurt their kids or other people in some way .
So it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more likely to see bringing up race as healthier , and protective .
This is a hard question , or maybe it ’ s just hard for me to articulate .
But you ’ ve outlined clear benefits for kids of color if they get training in how to respond in the kinds of racial moments you identify .
But how do you think about the fact that they shouldn ’ t have to experience these moments at all ?
It seems like it ’ s a problem that they have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I ’ ve had to say to my kids , “ It ’ s a shame that Daddy even has to tell you about this , that you live in a world that doesn ’ t see you as as human as other people .
And I do it out of your protection .
But I don ’ t want you for a second to believe that there ’ s something wrong with you .
It ’ s just the way other people see your humanity .
That ’ s not how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t so much historical evidence of that dehumanization that gets repeated and retriggered all the time , then you could make the argument that maybe I don ’ t have to have this conversation .
But if you do , then you must say , I ’ m sorry that we even have to .
But [ parents can tell kids ] it ’ s not about you .
It ’ s about [ other people ’ s ] lens and their narrow narrative about you .
And you can lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what that means .
How should parents and educators be thinking about this particular moment in history ?
And how should they be talking to kids about what ’ s going on now ?
You can watch any bit of television , just watch the news and say , what ’ s not cool about this picture ?
I don ’ t know if there ’ s ever been a time when these lessons on racism and discrimination have been so stark , in the last 20 years , as we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So the lessons should be easier to pull off .
For me , these are issues of morality — but I think morality is not the best way to go these days .
I don ’ t think morality makes us competent necessarily in how to see these issues or how to deal with them .
If you say , “ We have an opening for an algebra teacher at our school , ” and I say , “ I have a friend who ’ s morally of high caliber and standing — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” most people wouldn ’ t entertain their CV .
But we think that way when it comes to racial issues .
As a parent , I would say , I don ’ t want somebody who ’ s good but incompetent in the world doing their work .
What if my child were seen as somebody moral but incompetent at navigating racial moments ?
Parents of color know , “ I want my child to be prepared for these racial encounters that are stressful because it could affect their well-being and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white parents might say , “ I want my child to be skilled at navigating racial encounters too .
Why would I want a child who avoids these issues and then in some respects is incapacitated ?
How can I help my child speak up on behalf of his friend ?
If his friend of color goes through stuff that affects my child , that ’ s still important.
” I think it ’ s hilarious that so many politicians have gone back into their college careers and found that they dressed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good people , and they ’ re really ashamed of having done it .
But you could argue that they never got a lesson about how you see people different than them .
That is the role of parenting .
[ Parents can say ] , “ the reason why I wouldn ’ t ever want you to do this — and I want to show you the governor who did this — not just because it ’ s going to be embarrassing to me , and not just because it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but because it goes against your values for the kids that you ’ ve spent time playing with .
It goes against the values of the people you ’ re going to eventually represent if you become a congressman .
It ’ s dehumanizing.
” Two mothers talk to their teenage sons about race and police brutality in the United States .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you get your podcasts , including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

America’s kids are watching.
They’ve seen the killing of George Floyd and other scenes of police violence against black people play across their TV screens again and again, as Kelly Glass reports at Vox. They see the thousands of people in the streets every day protesting that violence — sometimes, the kids are part of the protests.
And they see how their parents address racism in their own lives — or how they don’t at all. As Howard Stevenson, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education, told Vox, “you’re always communicating about race, whether you talk about it or not.”
Stevenson has spent 30 years studying racial socialization, or the way that parents raise their kids to think about race. And he works with kids of all races on how they respond to “racially stressful encounters,” which he defines as “any moment in which someone is stressed and overwhelmed thinking about it, facing it, or thinking about it in the past.” That could mean a moment when a child is called a racial slur, makes a racist comment but then regrets it, or witnesses someone else say something racist and fails to speak up about it.
For Stevenson, there’s a clear strategy that can help kids navigate those moments and speak their mind — whether it’s to call out racism or apologize for saying something bigoted. A father himself, he acknowledges that black kids and other kids of color shouldn’t have to be trained to respond to racism — he’s said to his kids, “it’s a shame that Daddy even has to tell you about this.”
But, he told Vox, research shows that kids are treated differently based on skin color as young as preschool. For many black parents, teaching kids about those differences is a way of protecting them. But too often, white parents are afraid to bring up the subject, sometimes because they’re not comfortable with it themselves.
Today, Stevenson says, the lessons about racism in American society couldn’t be clearer — just turn on the TV. He spoke with Vox, in a conversation that’s been condensed and edited, about how parents can teach those lessons to their children, and themselves. After all, Stevenson points out, when navigating a racist world, it’s not enough to simply be a good person. You have to actually understand how racism works and how to fight it. And teaching that, he says, “is the role of parenting.”
Anna North
What are the kinds of techniques that you’ve studied in terms of teaching racial literacy to kids and how to respond to moments of racism and injustice?
Howard Stevenson
People, children and adults, sometimes see a racial moment as threatening. If the young person or an adult sees the racial moment as threatening, they’re more likely to overreact in a particular way. And so one of the strategies is around noticing — if you notice that you’re actually overreacting or having certain expressions in your body, thoughts, and feelings, you can manage it.
We teach kids especially how to use a mindfulness approach we call calculate, locate, communicate, breathe, and exhale. Calculate what feelings are you having, and then on a scale of one to ten, how intense are they? So somebody could be called a slur or say something they regret, and they feel scared at the level of nine. And they’re also angry at themselves at the level of six. But they’re also sad because the person they said it to might have been somebody that they like and care about. All those feelings are important.
Locate is: To what degree can you locate those feelings in your body? And because the body kind of keeps the score of your emotions, if you can figure that out, you’re more likely to be able to relax that part of your body, which will keep you from more anxiety.
Communicate is: What self-talk are you noticing? Are you saying anything to yourself? “Man, that was an idiot thing to say. Oh, my gosh, they’re gonna think I’m a racist.” Or what images come to your mind — do you see any pictures of people or situations while you’re going through the encounter? We can teach people those strategies followed by breathing and exhaling. And we know that it helps many people bring their brain from sort of locking down to being much more open to seeing around themselves, to hearing better, to listening better, and that’s where the healthy decision-making comes in.
The opposite of that is that people are overwhelmed so much that they try to avoid a racial moment. And if they are able to avoid it, the stress will go down, but they’re not any more competent for the next time they need to speak up or have a conversation.
Anna North
It sounds like these techniques are applicable both if someone experiences racism and if someone perpetrates racism or says something that might be racist. Is that right?
Howard Stevenson
Yes. As well as somebody who is watching and freezes and doesn’t know what to do.
Anna North
So how do parents and educators start teaching kids these steps? And at what age do you recommend starting?
Howard Stevenson
I’ve always recommended starting very early. Many families believe, “I don’t want to burden my kids with racial stuff because it’s so heavy. It might damage their childhood.” But we do share things with our kids early that are troublesome, perhaps scary, but it doesn’t throw off their childhood or lead them to nightmares.
And so what we’ve figured out mostly is that parents are more the issue than the children. In families of color, parents having had very negative racial experiences of discrimination in childhood could prompt them to hesitate to talk about these issues. Whereas white families who may not have had experience with race or racism at all are more fearful of being thought of as racist, or their children thought of as racist.
But you’re always communicating about race, whether you talk about it or not. Children at young ages are pretty adept at reading your nonverbal language, and being afraid to talk about race is quite observable. Children, over time, see it over and over and over again. And so they’re learning about what their parents won’t do in many respects more than what to do, if you’re not talking about it.
So one good recommendation is, if you’re going to have a conversation about race, talk about what’s going on with you, as a parent. What feelings do you have, including the fear of talking about it? And what is that fear coming from?
Anna North
How do you recommend that parents bring up the kinds of racial moments that you were talking about? How do you define that for kids?
Howard Stevenson
There are times when children will have feelings of what happens to them or other friends where they feel it was wrong or an injustice. That sense of injustice, kids can feel that something’s not right. That actually is a great place to start. The parents could say, did you ever have a situation where something was done to you or someone that you felt was wrong? How do you feel about it? Is there something you wanted to say when it happened, but you didn’t because you were afraid?
But we know children are treated differently by race in the larger world as early as preschool. We know that children very early on can understand the differences in categories around skin color. And in the way that you can socialize kids that skin color difference is a scary thing to talk about, you can also socialize kids that it is a wonderful area to talk about by how explicit you can be in sharing.
Anna North
Can you talk me through an example of the kind of racial moment that you train kids to respond to?
Howard Stevenson
Well, students have told me many times, young people, as young as fifth grade, that they can feel hurt and somebody uses a racial slur or gendered slur. And they’re put in a bind in that moment, especially if it happens in front of other students, and just like adults will walk away, if they haven’t said anything or done anything, to protect themselves, to carry that burden with them. And with that comes a host of, you know, “What is it about me that could have brought this about?”
So calculating your feelings is a way to sort of say, “Well, I’m feeling hurt and ashamed. But I’m incredibly mad.” We’re asking what do you notice in your body and your thoughts and feelings. Students can be able to say, “Wow, this is larger than just what the person said to me and larger than me not speaking back up.” And then we can go through a set of rituals like, “What would you have wanted to say?” Say nobody’s going to arrest you, nobody’s going to kick you out of class. If you said you were angry at a nine, what would you want to say that matches that anger?
And so we can practice with them several options of things they really want to say that match that feeling, even if it seems rude, to eventually come up with something that wouldn’t get them in trouble that they could say the next time — that would also mean they wouldn’t be quiet, because that swallowing is something that haunts them. They’re tired of being perceived as weak, and tired of other people thinking that they can pick on them.
Anna North
Talk to me a little bit about the benefits of these strategies for kids. You mentioned that there’s a harm that kids carry with them if they are quiet when they want to speak up — how do these strategies help?
Howard Stevenson
If you’re mad that you didn’t speak up in a situation — let’s say it happens in the classroom — sometimes that classroom becomes a trigger for you. You’re less likely to focus in the classroom. It might affect your persistence in performance and grades.
[And] we know these kinds of microaggressions can affect your health, including your sleep. And so another benefit is you’re going to be less likely to hold in and keep grudges because of unresolved moments.
Anna North
How do the strategies you teach differ for black kids and other kids of color versus for white kids who don’t experience racism but who might be perpetrating or being a bystander to racism?
Howard Stevenson
There’s a dance to racism in our society, a dance in learning about the politics of race. So many people ask me, what do you do for white people who don’t know about race because they haven’t been exposed? I say, if you take an astronomy class and you find out about black holes, you may be surprised — “I didn’t know that, now I do.” That’s not knowing. But if you grew up in a culture where race has been around everywhere, like if you have a telephone, or a TV, or you watch cartoons, or any imagery in American society, you’re exposed to race and racism. So the real question is, how is it that you were trained to not know or trained to not see?
And that’s the place where you can begin. How do I stop that dance that I usually do around not seeing or not wanting to see?
When studies have interviewed white parents about race, they are much more likely to be grateful that their children don’t talk about it out of fear that talking about it could either hurt their kids or other people in some way. So it’s a protective notion. Whereas families of color are more likely to see bringing up race as healthier, and protective.
Anna North
This is a hard question, or maybe it’s just hard for me to articulate. But you’ve outlined clear benefits for kids of color if they get training in how to respond in the kinds of racial moments you identify. But how do you think about the fact that they shouldn’t have to experience these moments at all? It seems like it’s a problem that they have to be trained for this, you know?
Howard Stevenson
I’ve had to say to my kids, “It’s a shame that Daddy even has to tell you about this, that you live in a world that doesn’t see you as as human as other people. And I do it out of your protection. But I don’t want you for a second to believe that there’s something wrong with you. It’s just the way other people see your humanity. That’s not how Daddy sees it.”
If there wasn’t so much historical evidence of that dehumanization that gets repeated and retriggered all the time, then you could make the argument that maybe I don’t have to have this conversation. But if you do, then you must say, I’m sorry that we even have to.
But [parents can tell kids] it’s not about you. It’s about [other people’s] lens and their narrow narrative about you. And you can lead to a lot from there about white supremacy and what that means.
Anna North
How should parents and educators be thinking about this particular moment in history? And how should they be talking to kids about what’s going on now?
Howard Stevenson
You can watch any bit of television, just watch the news and say, what’s not cool about this picture? I don’t know if there’s ever been a time when these lessons on racism and discrimination have been so stark, in the last 20 years, as we’ve seen in the last four. So the lessons should be easier to pull off.
For me, these are issues of morality — but I think morality is not the best way to go these days. I don’t think morality makes us competent necessarily in how to see these issues or how to deal with them. If you say, “We have an opening for an algebra teacher at our school,” and I say, “I have a friend who’s morally of high caliber and standing — they have trouble with math, however,” most people wouldn’t entertain their CV. But we think that way when it comes to racial issues.
As a parent, I would say, I don’t want somebody who’s good but incompetent in the world doing their work. What if my child were seen as somebody moral but incompetent at navigating racial moments?
Parents of color know, “I want my child to be prepared for these racial encounters that are stressful because it could affect their well-being and their health and their self-esteem.” But white parents might say, “I want my child to be skilled at navigating racial encounters too. Why would I want a child who avoids these issues and then in some respects is incapacitated? How can I help my child speak up on behalf of his friend? If his friend of color goes through stuff that affects my child, that’s still important.”
I think it’s hilarious that so many politicians have gone back into their college careers and found that they dressed up in blackface. Some people are really good people, and they’re really ashamed of having done it. But you could argue that they never got a lesson about how you see people different than them. That is the role of parenting.
[Parents can say], “the reason why I wouldn’t ever want you to do this — and I want to show you the governor who did this — not just because it’s going to be embarrassing to me, and not just because it’s going to be embarrassing for you, but because it goes against your values for the kids that you’ve spent time playing with. It goes against the values of the people you’re going to eventually represent if you become a congressman. It’s dehumanizing.”
And that starts early.
Listen to Today, Explained
Two mothers talk to their teenage sons about race and police brutality in the United States.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.


vox--2020-06-09--Live results for the June 9 primaries

Live results for the June 9 primaries

With Joe Biden securing a majority of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination on Saturday , the presidential primary is officially no longer the top race to watch .
Good thing there are plenty of other primary races to keep things interesting .
Voters in five states are going to the polls on June 9 — Georgia , South Carolina , West Virginia , Nevada , and North Dakota .
There are several competitive US Senate , gubernatorial , and US House races in the first four states , plus some competitive state Supreme Court races in West Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for its at-large House seat and governor ’ s race , although both are expected to remain in Republican hands this fall .
Georgia is a key state to watch because it has two Senate seats open this fall .
However , just one race will get a Democratic nominee on Tuesday night .
The other is a special election with a massive all-party primary happening on November 3 .
Georgia also boasts four competitive primaries for House seats : two in the hyper-competitive Atlanta suburbs and two more seats in Republican districts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In South Carolina , Sen. Lindsey Graham is expected to emerge from his Republican primary to face Democrat Jaime Harrison in the fall ( Harrison is running unopposed ) — the question is how decisively .
Graham retains an advantage going into the fall because South Carolina is still fundamentally a Republican state , but Harrison outraised Graham in the first quarter of 2020 , and what few polls have been conducted show the potential for a close race .
And Republicans are vying to face off against Rep. Joe Cunningham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocking upset in South Carolina ’ s First Congressional District in 2018 .
In Nevada , Republicans are running to see who will face off against two Democratic House members , Reps. Steven Horsford and Susie Lee .
Both Democrats flipped their districts in 2018 , but they have the potential to swing back .
And finally , there are primary races for West Virginia ’ s gubernatorial race and three state Supreme Court seats , after three state Supreme Court justices were impeached in 2018 following a corruption scandal .
Democratic voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate to run against Republican incumbent Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in the fall , although Capito will be extremely tough to beat .
Vox is covering the results live , with our partners at Decision Desk HQ .
Georgia has long been a Republican stronghold , but Democrats made gains in 2018 , harnessing the political power of Atlanta ’ s suburbs .
National Democrats look to see if they can turn the state blue in 2020 and pull off some long-shot wins in two Georgia Senate races in the process .
Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges Sen. David Perdue in the fall ; Jon Ossoff , a 2017 House candidate , appears to be the frontrunner but needs to clear 50 percent in order to avoid an August 11 runoff .
Other serious candidates in that race are former Columbus , Georgia , Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and 2018 candidate for lieutenant governor Sarah Riggs Amico .
There won ’ t be a nominee chosen in Georgia ’ s other , highly watched Senate special election — that race will go down to the wire with an all-party primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler has a serious primary challenge from Rep. Doug Collins , plus Democrats Raphael Warnock and Matt Lieberman .
There are four other interesting US House primaries playing out , two in House districts around Atlanta ’ s suburbs ( one of which Democrats flipped in 2018 , and the other where they came within 500 votes of winning ) .
There are also two open Republican seats in northern Georgia with large fields of candidates running .
For more on Georgia ’ s primary contests , read Vox ’ s roundup here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won his primary , as expected .
State Rep. Nancy Mace has won the GOP primary in South Carolina ’ s First Congressional District .
While the Democratic fight to take on Sen. Lindsey Graham has pretty much been settled — former South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison is now running unopposed — the incumbent senator still needs to beat a few challengers in the Republican primary before he ’ s on the ticket again this November .
Graham recently got President Donald Trump ’ s formal endorsement and is by far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be worth watching how decisive his margin is .
The thing to watch here isn ’ t whether he ’ ll win , but if there ’ s any anti-Trump — and , by extension , anti-Graham sentiment — bubbling up in South Carolina .
Meanwhile , a slate of four Republicans — businesswoman and Mount Pleasant Town Council member Kathy Landing , state Rep. Nancy Mace , Bikers for Trump founder Chris Cox , and Bluffton housing official Brad Mole — are duking it out to unseat Rep. Joe Cunningham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First District in 2018 .
Cunningham faces some headwinds , given the heavy Republican lean of his district and Trump ’ s dominance there in 2016 , but he ’ s a moderate , and national Democrats will likely spend heavily to protect him .
For more on South Carolina ’ s primary contests , read Vox ’ s roundup here .
Republicans are eyeing Nevada ’ s primaries on June 9 for opportunities to unseat a pair of Democrats facing potentially tough reelection campaigns , Reps. Susie Lee in the Third Congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both districts are swingy , and Lee and Horsford won them in 2018 , a wave midterm year for Democrats .
Nevada has voted blue in three of the past four presidential elections , but it ’ s considered a battleground state .
Nevada ’ s Latino voters could be key to keeping the state blue , but the state also has an aging , increasingly conservative population .
For more on Nevada ’ s primary contests , read Vox ’ s roundup here .
There ’ s a bit of something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary races .
Much of the action is happening in statewide races .
Republican Gov .
Jim Justice has a few primary challengers but is expected to win his race .
Meanwhile , there ’ s a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary between Kanawha County Commissioner Ben Salango ( endorsed by moderate Sen. Joe Manchin ) and progressive community organizer Stephen Smith .
A recent poll showed Smith within 3 points of Salango , and he ’ s been organizing in the state for quite some time .
Three Democrats — state Sen. Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robb , and activist Paula Jean Swearengin — are running to be the nominee who faces off against Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in November .
There are also three races for the state ’ s Supreme Court of Appeals .
But because these races are nominally nonpartisan , there is no primary election to choose each party ’ s candidate .
Still , the state ’ s Republican Party endorsed incumbent Justice Tim Armstead , Fifth Judicial Circuit Judge Lora Dyer , and Putnam County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kris Raynes , while rival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Hutchison , former Justice Richard Neely , and 13th Judicial Circuit Judge Joanna Tabit .
It is unusual for so many seats to be up for grabs at once , but it ’ s the result of a corruption scandal that forced three justices to resign in 2018 .
For more on West Virginia ’ s primary contests , read Vox ’ s roundup here .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution @ @ @ @

With Joe Biden securing a majority of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination on Saturday, the presidential primary is officially no longer the top race to watch.
Good thing there are plenty of other primary races to keep things interesting. Voters in five states are going to the polls on June 9 — Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia, Nevada, and North Dakota. There are several competitive US Senate, gubernatorial, and US House races in the first four states, plus some competitive state Supreme Court races in West Virginia. North Dakota is also holding primaries for its at-large House seat and governor’s race, although both are expected to remain in Republican hands this fall.
Georgia is a key state to watch because it has two Senate seats open this fall. However, just one race will get a Democratic nominee on Tuesday night. The other is a special election with a massive all-party primary happening on November 3. Georgia also boasts four competitive primaries for House seats: two in the hyper-competitive Atlanta suburbs and two more seats in Republican districts left open by retiring members of Congress.
In South Carolina, Sen. Lindsey Graham is expected to emerge from his Republican primary to face Democrat Jaime Harrison in the fall (Harrison is running unopposed) — the question is how decisively. Graham retains an advantage going into the fall because South Carolina is still fundamentally a Republican state, but Harrison outraised Graham in the first quarter of 2020, and what few polls have been conducted show the potential for a close race. And Republicans are vying to face off against Rep. Joe Cunningham, a moderate Democrat who pulled off a shocking upset in South Carolina’s First Congressional District in 2018.
In Nevada, Republicans are running to see who will face off against two Democratic House members, Reps. Steven Horsford and Susie Lee. Both Democrats flipped their districts in 2018, but they have the potential to swing back.
And finally, there are primary races for West Virginia’s gubernatorial race and three state Supreme Court seats, after three state Supreme Court justices were impeached in 2018 following a corruption scandal. Democratic voters in the state will also pick a candidate to run against Republican incumbent Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in the fall, although Capito will be extremely tough to beat.
Vox is covering the results live, with our partners at Decision Desk HQ.
Georgia
Update: Jon Ossoff has won the Democratic primary for US Senate, avoiding an August 11 runoff. He will face incumbent Sen. David Perdue (R) in November. In Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District, former Republican Rep. Karen Handel won her primary and will face Rep. Lucy McBath (D) in November. In Georgia’s Seventh Congressional District, Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux won her primary, and will face Republican Rich McCormick in the fall.
Georgia has long been a Republican stronghold, but Democrats made gains in 2018, harnessing the political power of Atlanta’s suburbs. National Democrats look to see if they can turn the state blue in 2020 and pull off some long-shot wins in two Georgia Senate races in the process.
Tuesday’s elections will decide which Democrat challenges Sen. David Perdue in the fall; Jon Ossoff, a 2017 House candidate, appears to be the frontrunner but needs to clear 50 percent in order to avoid an August 11 runoff. Other serious candidates in that race are former Columbus, Georgia, Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and 2018 candidate for lieutenant governor Sarah Riggs Amico. There won’t be a nominee chosen in Georgia’s other, highly watched Senate special election — that race will go down to the wire with an all-party primary on November 3. Incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler has a serious primary challenge from Rep. Doug Collins, plus Democrats Raphael Warnock and Matt Lieberman.
There are four other interesting US House primaries playing out, two in House districts around Atlanta’s suburbs (one of which Democrats flipped in 2018, and the other where they came within 500 votes of winning). There are also two open Republican seats in northern Georgia with large fields of candidates running.
For more on Georgia’s primary contests, read Vox’s roundup here.
Georgia’s Democratic Senate and House primaries
Georgia’s Republican House primaries
South Carolina
Update: Sen. Lindsey Graham has won his primary, as expected. State Rep. Nancy Mace has won the GOP primary in South Carolina’s First Congressional District.
While the Democratic fight to take on Sen. Lindsey Graham has pretty much been settled — former South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison is now running unopposed — the incumbent senator still needs to beat a few challengers in the Republican primary before he’s on the ticket again this November. Graham recently got President Donald Trump’s formal endorsement and is by far seen as the favorite, but it will be worth watching how decisive his margin is. The thing to watch here isn’t whether he’ll win, but if there’s any anti-Trump — and, by extension, anti-Graham sentiment — bubbling up in South Carolina.
Meanwhile, a slate of four Republicans — businesswoman and Mount Pleasant Town Council member Kathy Landing, state Rep. Nancy Mace, Bikers for Trump founder Chris Cox, and Bluffton housing official Brad Mole — are duking it out to unseat Rep. Joe Cunningham, a Democratic first-term incumbent who flipped the First District in 2018. Cunningham faces some headwinds, given the heavy Republican lean of his district and Trump’s dominance there in 2016, but he’s a moderate, and national Democrats will likely spend heavily to protect him.
For more on South Carolina’s primary contests, read Vox’s roundup here.
South Carolina’s Democratic House primaries
South Carolina’s Republican Senate and House primaries
Nevada
Republicans are eyeing Nevada’s primaries on June 9 for opportunities to unseat a pair of Democrats facing potentially tough reelection campaigns, Reps. Susie Lee in the Third Congressional District and Steven Horsford in the Fourth. Both districts are swingy, and Lee and Horsford won them in 2018, a wave midterm year for Democrats. Nevada has voted blue in three of the past four presidential elections, but it’s considered a battleground state. Nevada’s Latino voters could be key to keeping the state blue, but the state also has an aging, increasingly conservative population.
For more on Nevada’s primary contests, read Vox’s roundup here.
Nevada’s Republican House primaries
West Virginia
Update: Kanawha County Commissioner Ben Salango has won the Democratic governor’s primary and will challenge incumbent Republican Gov. Jim Justice this fall. Activist Paula Jean Swearengin has won the Democratic Senate primary.
There’s a bit of something for everyone in West Virginia’s primary races. Much of the action is happening in statewide races. Republican Gov. Jim Justice has a few primary challengers but is expected to win his race. Meanwhile, there’s a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary between Kanawha County Commissioner Ben Salango (endorsed by moderate Sen. Joe Manchin) and progressive community organizer Stephen Smith. A recent poll showed Smith within 3 points of Salango, and he’s been organizing in the state for quite some time. Three Democrats — state Sen. Richard Ojeda, former South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb, and activist Paula Jean Swearengin — are running to be the nominee who faces off against Sen. Shelley Moore Capito in November.
There are also three races for the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals. But because these races are nominally nonpartisan, there is no primary election to choose each party’s candidate. Still, the state’s Republican Party endorsed incumbent Justice Tim Armstead, Fifth Judicial Circuit Judge Lora Dyer, and Putnam County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kris Raynes, while rival group ReSet West Virginia is supporting incumbent Justice John Hutchison, former Justice Richard Neely, and 13th Judicial Circuit Judge Joanna Tabit. It is unusual for so many seats to be up for grabs at once, but it’s the result of a corruption scandal that forced three justices to resign in 2018.
For more on West Virginia’s primary contests, read Vox’s roundup here.
West Virginia’s Republican Senate, House, and gubernatorial primaries
West Virginia’s Democratic Senate, House, and gubernatorial primaries


vox--2020-06-09--The racist history behind the 10 US Army facilities named after Confederate leaders

The US Army currently has 10 bases and facilities named after leaders of the Confederacy .
Within the next few months , that number could possibly drop to zero .
On Monday , Army spokesperson Col. Sunset Belinsky told Politico that “ The secretary of defense and secretary of the Army are open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic.
” That ’ s opened the door for the Army to reverse its long-held position on keeping the names honoring Confederate officers .
The Army defended such a stance as recently as February , with a spokesperson telling Task & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition of naming installations and streets after historical figures of military significance , including former Union and Confederate general officers.
” But the nation ’ s oldest military service has come under renewed pressure in recent months to change that practice .
In February , the Marines signaled Confederate-related items — including the Confederate battle flag — would no longer be permitted on its bases and officially followed through last week .
In May , the New York Times editorial board wrote a scathing piece arguing the military celebrated white supremacy , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names .
More recently , the protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd have prompted states like Virginia and Florida to announce plans to remove Confederate statues .
Now , some of the Army ’ s most revered retired generals and former top civilian leaders have come out in support of the Pentagon ’ s seemingly more open stance .
“ If the former Confederate state of Virginia can remove the statue of General Lee from Richmond , the capital city of that Confederacy , today ’ s Army ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of today as well , ” John McHugh , who served as secretary of the Army from 2009 to 2015 , told me .
The US Navy has taken a cue from all that ’ s going on , with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday announcing Tuesday that the service would prohibit the Confederate battle flag in any public or workspaces , including ships , aircraft , submarines , and bases .
If the Army were to follow through , experts say the next step would be for current Army chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the names or seek support from the armed services committees in Congress to approve changes in a forthcoming , must-pass budget authorization .
However , it ’ s unclear if either move is on the near horizon .
For many , such a move is long overdue .
“ Bases that continue to bear the names of Confederate soldiers and officers — persons who wrongly fought to protect the institution of slavery and would have denied black Americans from serving in the military — are a reminder of that systemic oppression we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of inclusivity needed to accomplish the mission , ” Rep. Anthony Brown ( D-MD ) , a retired Army colonel and vice-chair of the House Armed Services Committee , told me .
“ Removing these names will be another step in an honest accounting of our history and an expression that we continue to strive to form a more perfect union , ” Brown , who is African American , said .
Why the Army named bases after Confederates in the first place The history of naming Army installations after Confederate officers is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of racism .
As the nation mobilized for both world wars , political leaders amended Jim Crow-era laws to allow more minority troops into the military ’ s ranks .
Perhaps the most consequential amendments were made to the Selective Service Act of 1940 , which required men between 21 and 45 years of age to register for the draft .
Two amendments to the law , one by Sen. Robert Wagner ( D-NY ) and another by US Rep. Hamilton Fish ( R-NY ) , allowed black Americans and other minorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The final text of the statute read “ there shall be no discrimination against any person on account of race or color ” in selecting or training men in the military services .
The Pentagon ’ s official history of racial integration in the armed forces concluded that , with varying degrees of success , such changes “ actually spread federally sponsored segregation into areas where it had never before existed with the force of law.
” Most of those areas were in the South .
Mike Jason , a retired Army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan , told me the region had lots of cheap land , which is why the Army in the early 1900s built bases and other facilities there .
As a way to appease racist white political leaders and locals who didn ’ t want a more integrated military nearby , the Army named bases after Confederate “ heroes ” who were popular among these leaders and locals .
That ’ s why all 10 facilities named after those men are in the South : three in Virginia , two in Louisiana , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama , North Carolina , and Texas .
And the Confederate officers the Army chose to name the bases after weren ’ t just selected at random or because of their military prowess during the Civil War .
Most were specifically chosen because of their local ties .
For example , Gen. Robert E. Lee and Maj. Gen. George Pickett , both Virginians , have bases named after them in the state .
Take Fort Gordon in Georgia , first established as Camp Gordon in 1916 , smack in the middle of World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lt. Gen. John Brown Gordon , one of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee ’ s most trusted officers .
Gordon was elected to the US Senate in 1872 , but he was also widely known as the head of Georgia ’ s chapter of the Ku Klux Klan ( a charge he , as leaders of the organization often do , denied ) .
By the time of his death in 1904 , according to the New Georgia Encyclopedia , he was for many “ the living embodiment of the Confederacy.
” Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders .
Pickett led the infamous Pickett ’ s Charge at the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg straight into opposing guns , helping the Union win that fight and turning the tide of the Civil War .
Had the Confederacy prevailed in the battle , it might ’ ve continued northward to overtake Union territory .
Despite that massive blunder and the fact that he fled to Canada to avoid execution as a traitor , Virginia ’ s Camp Pickett was dedicated in 1942 , earning the larger “ fort ” designation in 1979 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the words of Iraq War veteran Fred Wellman , “ a jackass and an asshole.
” Bragg , whose father owned slaves and who would later own slaves himself , had such a notoriously bad temper that Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in his memoirs recalled a story of one of Bragg ’ s superiors admonishing him : “ My God , Mr. Bragg , you have quarreled with every officer in the army , and now you are quarreling with yourself !
” What ’ s more , he lost big in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to resign from the Confederate army .
Yet , the largest military installation in the world by population — North Carolina ’ s Fort Bragg , founded in 1918 — bears his name .
“ We are forcing our black soldiers to serve on a base named after leaders who served to keep them in chains ” The issue of what an Army base is named isn ’ t trivial : It has an actual effect on the thousands of black Americans and other minorities who put on the Army uniform every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are forcing our black soldiers to serve on a base named after leaders who served to keep them in chains , ” Wellman said .
Bishop Garrison was one such soldier .
In the summer of 2000 , the then-21-year-old spent a summer training at Fort Polk in Louisiana , named after Lt. Gen. Leonidas Polk .
Polk , who was a slave owner and an Episcopal bishop in addition to being a Confederate officer , made one of the Confederacy ’ s biggest mistakes when he sent troops to overtake Columbus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s lawmakers to request help from the Union , thus ending Kentucky ’ s neutrality in the war .
Training at Fort Polk for a few weeks as a cadet didn ’ t sit well with Garrison .
“ The Confederacy , particularly as a black man from the South , was a shadow you couldn ’ t escape , ” he told me .
“ We should have never named anything or erected effigies in the name of Confederates.
” “ Symbols of oppression need to be removed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great example as it has throughout history by renaming its bases , ” he continued .
Which raises the question : Why has it taken so long for the Army to even consider changing these bases ’ names ?
It depends on whom you ask .
The Army has dragged its feet on this issue for years Experts have offered three main explanations — some more convincing than others — for why those 10 facilities haven ’ t had their names changed : 1 ) the pervasiveness of the Lost Cause myth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and competing problems , and 3 ) courting controversy .
Let ’ s start with the first point .
Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus , one of the service ’ s most celebrated leaders before an ignominious fall , wrote an op-ed in the Atlantic on Tuesday describing how Confederate culture has persisted in the Army .
“ When I was a cadet at West Point in the early 1970s , enthusiasm for Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson was widespread , ” Petraeus wrote .
“ We were not encouraged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had fought , at least not in our military history classes .
And throughout my Army career , I likewise encountered enthusiastic adherents of various Confederate commanders , and a special veneration for Lee.
” Wellman , who attended the famed Army academy in the 1980s , told me that continued after Petraeus ’ s day .
During the 1980s , professors taught him and his peers — one of his classmates was current Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville — about the Lost Cause : the “ collection of historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of slavery and the Civil War , ” as historian William R. Black has defined it .
The lessons treated those myths as more or less truth , rather than a competing narrative to dispel .
And while the West Point campus features a gate , barracks , and a statute all dedicated to Lee , the academy only got a statue of Union General ( and later US president ) Ulysses S. Grant — a West Point alum — last year .
“ The Army , like every other large institution in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lost Cause mythology , ” Jason , the retired Army colonel , said .
As to the second point , McHugh , the former top Army civilian , told me the service just hasn ’ t really had time to deal with this issue .
“ During all my time in the Pentagon , we were in two very bloody theaters of war that consumed most all of the bandwidth , ” he said .
“ While in retrospect there should have been , there simply wasn ’ t the national level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those kinds of decisions.
” Others who served in the Army told me that ’ s an understandable position , as the service always has a lot going on trying to keep Pentagon bosses , lawmakers , and the American people happy and its troops alive .
Add two wars on top of that , and any free time on the calendar quickly goes away .
But others contend that ’ s just an excuse .
The secretary could simply write a memo and the bases ’ names would change .
Politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the defense secretary and key members of Congress on board , but that doesn ’ t negate the fact that the names could be changed with the stroke of a pen .
McHugh , however , told me this issue never came up during his time in charge of the service — though it was certainly discussed numerous times in public discourse during his tenure .
And it ’ s worth noting that after the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , debate about changing the 10 facilities ’ names @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did little about it .
Perhaps that inaction had to do with the final explanation , which is one the Army has repeatedly used : that changing the names would stir up immense controversy within the ranks .
Take , for instance , the response to a request from Rep. Yvette Clarke ( D-NY ) in 2017 .
She asked the Army to rename two streets at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn : General Lee Avenue and Stonewall Jackson Drive .
When the Army wrote back , Diana Randon , who was at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on these issues , said the two men were “ an inextricable part of our military history.
” Such a move would be “ controversial and divisive , ” she continued , and “ contrary to the Nation ’ s original intent in naming these streets , which was the spirit of reconciliation.
” Of course , as discussed above , that is a blatant misrepresentation of why these individuals ’ names were chosen .
They were deliberately chosen to appease racist people , particularly in the South — not to achieve some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That guy , any day of the week , is better than Braxton Bragg ” Clearly , it makes no sense for the Army to keep these names .
But that still brings up an important question : Which names to replace the Confederates with ?
Most I spoke with said Army leadership should put down multiple names on a list — say , 100 — and then put together a commission of experts to pick the best 10 .
But there are many different ideas about which names should appear on such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former head of Army installations , is to rename the facilities after their locations , like Fort Leavenworth in Kansas .
“ By naming places , not people , the military can better exemplify its values of honor , sacrifice , and community , ” he wrote in the New York Times last month .
Another is to give the spotlight to distinguished service members from minority communities .
Experts I spoke with mentioned Medal of Honor recipient Sgt .
Roy Benavidez , a Latino soldier who rescued eight members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vietnam and came under intense enemy fire .
After getting stabbed with a bayonet , he continued to fight and pull troops onto another evacuation helicopter until he could no longer move or speak .
As he was placed into a body bag , he spat on the doctor ’ s face to prove he was still alive .
He died in 1998 .
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton , who commanded Fort Benning in Georgia , tweeted on Tuesday in support of renaming that base as Fort Omar Bradley .
Henry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Confederate army , was a pro-slavery politician who became a top advocate for secession after Abraham Lincoln became president .
Bradley , by contrast , was a World War II hero and the country ’ s last surviving five-star general , helping troops make it from the Normandy landing all the way into Germany to help win the war .
“ Bad policy that such important Army posts be named after traitors , ” Eaton tweeted .
“ Time for change.
” Another suggestion is Sgt .
1st Class Alwyn Cashe , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after pulling six wounded soldiers out of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in 2005 in Iraq .
He suffered burns on over 70 percent of his body doing so and died from those injuries .
Asked by the Stars and Stripes newspaper what compelled him to keep going back into the fire , he said “ I had made peace with my God , but I didn ’ t know if my men had yet.
” “ That guy , any day of the week , is better than Braxton Bragg , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is why he finds the Army ’ s inaction on renaming the bases until now “ inexcusable.
” “ There is no reason to delay this decision another day , ” he said .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The US Army currently has 10 bases and facilities named after leaders of the Confederacy. Within the next few months, that number could possibly drop to zero.
On Monday, Army spokesperson Col. Sunset Belinsky told Politico that “The secretary of defense and secretary of the Army are open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic.”
That’s opened the door for the Army to reverse its long-held position on keeping the names honoring Confederate officers. The Army defended such a stance as recently as February, with a spokesperson telling Task & Purpose, “The Army has a tradition of naming installations and streets after historical figures of military significance, including former Union and Confederate general officers.”
But the nation’s oldest military service has come under renewed pressure in recent months to change that practice. In February, the Marines signaled that Confederate-related items — including the Confederate battle flag — would no longer be permitted on its bases and officially followed through last week. In May, the New York Times editorial board wrote a scathing piece arguing the military celebrated white supremacy, in part because of the 10 installations’ names.
More recently, the protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd have prompted states like Virginia and Florida to announce plans to remove Confederate statues. Now, some of the Army’s most revered retired generals and former top civilian leaders have come out in support of the Pentagon’s seemingly more open stance.
“If the former Confederate state of Virginia can remove the statue of General Lee from Richmond, the capital city of that Confederacy, today’s Army ought to be able to respond to the realities of today as well,” John McHugh, who served as secretary of the Army from 2009 to 2015, told me.
The US Navy has taken a cue from all that’s going on, with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday announcing Tuesday that the service would prohibit the Confederate battle flag in any public or work spaces, including ships, aircraft, submarines, and bases.
Today, I directed my staff to begin crafting an order that would prohibit the Confederate battle flag from all public spaces and work areas aboard Navy installations, ships, aircraft and submarines. — USNavyCNO (@USNavyCNO) June 9, 2020
If the Army were to follow through, experts say the next step would be for current Army chief Ryan McCarthy to issue a memo to change the names or seek support from the armed services committees in Congress to approve changes in a forthcoming, must-pass budget authorization. However, it’s unclear if either move is on the near horizon.
For many, such a move is long overdue.
“Bases that continue to bear the names of Confederate soldiers and officers — persons who wrongly fought to protect the institution of slavery and would have denied black Americans from serving in the military — are a reminder of that systemic oppression we continue to confront and damages the culture of inclusivity needed to accomplish the mission,” Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD), a retired Army colonel and vice-chair of the House Armed Services Committee, told me.
“Removing these names will be another step in an honest accounting of our history and an expression that we continue to strive to form a more perfect union,” Brown, who is African American, said.
Why the Army named bases after Confederates in the first place
The history of naming Army installations after Confederate officers is deeply intertwined with America’s long history of racism.
As the nation mobilized for both world wars, political leaders amended Jim Crow-era laws to allow more minority troops into the military’s ranks. Perhaps the most consequential amendments were made to the Selective Service Act of 1940, which required men between 21 and 45 years of age to register for the draft.
Two amendments to the law, one by Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY) and another by US Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-NY), allowed black Americans and other minorities to volunteer for war or be drafted. The final text of the statute read “there shall be no discrimination against any person on account of race or color” in selecting or training men in the military services.
The Pentagon’s official history of racial integration in the armed forces concluded that, with varying degrees of success, such changes “actually spread federally sponsored segregation into areas where it had never before existed with the force of law.”
Most of those areas were in the South. Mike Jason, a retired Army colonel who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, told me the region had lots of cheap land, which is why the Army in the early 1900s built bases and other facilities there. As a way to appease racist white political leaders and locals who didn’t want a more integrated military nearby, the Army named bases after Confederate “heroes” who were popular among these leaders and locals.
That’s why all 10 facilities named after those men are in the South: three in Virginia, two in Louisiana, two in Georgia, and one each in Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.
And the Confederate officers the Army chose to name the bases after weren’t just selected at random or because of their military prowess during the Civil War. Most were specifically chosen because of their local ties. For example, Gen. Robert E. Lee and Maj. Gen. George Pickett, both Virginians, have bases named after them in the state.
Take Fort Gordon in Georgia, first established as Camp Gordon in 1916, smack in the middle of World War I. It’s named after Lt. Gen. John Brown Gordon, one of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s most trusted officers. Gordon was elected to the US Senate in 1872, but he was also widely known as the head of Georgia’s chapter of the Ku Klux Klan (a charge he, as leaders of the organization often do, denied).
By the time of his death in 1904, according to the New Georgia Encyclopedia, he was for many “the living embodiment of the Confederacy.”
Many weren’t even particularly effective military leaders.
Pickett led the infamous Pickett’s Charge at the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg straight into opposing guns, helping the Union win that fight and turning the tide of the Civil War. Had the Confederacy prevailed in the battle, it might’ve continued northward to overtake Union territory.
Despite that massive blunder and the fact that he fled to Canada to avoid execution as a traitor, Virginia’s Camp Pickett was dedicated in 1942, earning the larger “fort” designation in 1979.
Gen. Braxton Bragg was, in the words of Iraq War veteran Fred Wellman, “a jackass and an asshole.” Bragg, whose father owned enslaved people and who would later own enslaved people himself, had such a notoriously bad temper that Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in his memoirs recalled a story of one of Bragg’s superiors admonishing him: “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!”
What’s more, he lost big in the 1863 Battle of Chattanooga, leading him to resign from the Confederate army. Yet, the largest military installation in the world by population — North Carolina’s Fort Bragg, founded in 1918 — bears his name.
“We are forcing our black soldiers to serve on a base named after leaders who served to keep them in chains”
The issue of what an Army base is named isn’t trivial: It has an actual effect on the thousands of black Americans and other minorities who put on the Army uniform every day to serve their country.
“We are forcing our black soldiers to serve on a base named after leaders who served to keep them in chains,” Wellman said.
Bishop Garrison was one such soldier. In the summer of 2000, the then-21-year-old spent a summer training at Fort Polk in Louisiana, named after Lt. Gen. Leonidas Polk.
Polk, who was a slave owner and an Episcopal bishop in addition to being a Confederate officer, made one of the Confederacy’s biggest mistakes when he sent troops to overtake Columbus, Kentucky. His incursion led the state’s lawmakers to request help from the Union, thus ending Kentucky’s neutrality in the war.
Training at Fort Polk for a few weeks as a cadet didn’t sit well with Garrison. “The Confederacy, particularly as a black man from the South, was a shadow you couldn’t escape,” he told me. “We should have never named anything or erected effigies in the name of Confederates.
“Symbols of oppression need to be removed, and the military would continue to set the great example as it has throughout history by renaming its bases,” he continued.
Which raises the question: Why has it taken so long for the Army to even consider changing these bases’ names?
It depends on whom you ask.
The Army has dragged its feet on this issue for years
Experts have offered three main explanations — some more convincing than others — for why those 10 facilities haven’t had their names changed: 1) the pervasiveness of the Lost Cause myth in Army culture, 2) bureaucratic inertia and competing problems, and 3) courting controversy.
Let’s start with the first point. Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, one of the service’s most celebrated leaders before an ignominious fall, wrote an op-ed in the Atlantic on Tuesday describing how Confederate culture has persisted in the Army.
“When I was a cadet at West Point in the early 1970s, enthusiasm for Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson was widespread,” Petraeus wrote. “We were not encouraged to think deeply about the cause for which they had fought, at least not in our military history classes. And throughout my Army career, I likewise encountered enthusiastic adherents of various Confederate commanders, and a special veneration for Lee.”
Wellman, who attended the famed Army academy in the 1980s, told me that continued after Petraeus’s day. During the 1980s, professors taught him and his peers — one of his classmates was current Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville — about the Lost Cause: the “collection of historical myths meant to whitewash the hard truths of slavery and the Civil War,” as historian William R. Black has defined it. The lessons treated those myths as more or less truth, rather than a competing narrative to dispel.
And while the West Point campus features a gate, barracks, and a statute all dedicated to Lee, the academy only got a statue of Union General (and later US president) Ulysses S. Grant — a West Point alum — last year.
“The Army, like every other large institution in America, has been shaped by the Lost Cause mythology,” Jason, the retired Army colonel, said.
As to the second point, McHugh, the former top Army civilian, told me the service just hasn’t really had time to deal with this issue. “During all my time in the Pentagon, we were in two very bloody theaters of war that consumed most all of the bandwidth,” he said. “While in retrospect there should have been, there simply wasn’t the national level of discourse we see today that often leads to those kinds of decisions.”
Others who served in the Army told me that’s an understandable position, as the service always has a lot going on trying to keep Pentagon bosses, lawmakers, and the American people happy and its troops alive. Add two wars on top of that, and any free time on the calendar quickly goes away.
But others contend that’s just an excuse. The secretary could simply write a memo and the bases’ names would change. Politically, it’d be better to have the defense secretary and key members of Congress on board, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the names could be changed with the stroke of a pen.
McHugh, however, told me this issue never came up during his time in charge of the service — though it was certainly discussed numerous times in public discourse during his tenure.
And it’s worth noting that after the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, debate about changing the 10 facilities’ names started up again, though the Pentagon did little about it.
Perhaps that inaction had to do with the final explanation, which is one the Army has repeatedly used: that changing the names would stir up immense controversy within the ranks. Take, for instance, the response to a request from Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) in 2017. She asked the Army to rename two streets at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn: General Lee Avenue and Stonewall Jackson Drive.
When the Army wrote back, Diana Randon, who was at the time the service’s top official on these issues, said the two men were “an inextricable part of our military history.” Such a move would be “controversial and divisive,” she continued, and “contrary to the Nation’s original intent in naming these streets, which was the spirit of reconciliation.”
Of course, as discussed above, that is a blatant misrepresentation of why these individuals’ names were chosen. They were deliberately chosen to appease racist people, particularly in the South — not to achieve some kind of national “reconciliation.”
“That guy, any day of the week, is better than Braxton Bragg”
Clearly, it makes no sense for the Army to keep these names. But that still brings up an important question: which names to replace the Confederates with?
Most I spoke with said Army leadership should put down multiple names on a list — say, 100 — and then put together a commission of experts to pick the best 10. But there are many different ideas about which names should appear on such a list.
One from Sandy Apgar, the former head of Army installations, is to rename the facilities after their locations, like Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. “By naming places, not people, the military can better exemplify its values of honor, sacrifice, and community,” he wrote in the New York Times last month.
Another is to give the spotlight to distinguished service members from minority communities. Experts I spoke with mentioned Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Roy Benavidez, a Latino soldier who rescued eight members of his patrol after their helicopter crashed in Vietnam and came under intense enemy fire.
After getting stabbed with a bayonet, he continued to fight and pull troops onto another evacuation helicopter until he could no longer move or speak. As he was placed in a body bag, he spat on the doctor’s face to prove he was still alive. He died in 1998.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who commanded Fort Benning in Georgia, tweeted on Tuesday in support of renaming that base as Fort Omar Bradley.
Henry Benning, a brigadier general in the Confederate army, was a pro-slavery politician who became a top advocate for secession after Abraham Lincoln became president. Bradley, by contrast, was a World War II hero and the country’s last surviving five-star general, helping troops make it from the Normandy landing all the way into Germany to help win the war.
“Bad policy that such important Army posts be named after traitors,” Eaton tweeted. “Time for change.”
I commanded Fort Benning, Home of the Infantry, one of 10 Army installation named after Confederate generals. Bad policy that such important Army posts be named after traitors. Time for change. I like the sound of Fort Omar Bradley, the Soldier’sGeneral, for the Infantry Center. — Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) June 9, 2020
Another suggestion is Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe, a black soldier who received a Silver Star after pulling six wounded soldiers out of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in 2005 in Iraq. He suffered burns on more than 70 percent of his body doing so and died from those injuries.
Asked by the Stars and Stripes newspaper what compelled him to keep going back into the fire, he said “I had made peace with my God, but I didn’t know if my men had yet.”
“That guy, any day of the week, is better than Braxton Bragg,” said Jason, the retired Army colonel, which is why he finds the Army’s inaction on renaming the bases until now “inexcusable.”
“There is no reason to delay this decision another day,” he said.