The Naming of Fort Hood, Texas 

It was Fort Hood for 81 years, not 61 years. I believe that most people will continue to refer to it as Fort Hood, easier to say.

Still Fort Hood in my mind

Today is Hood's 192nd Birthday.

World War II started in September 1939, it was more than two years old (not a few months old) at that point (in February of 1942). It is true that the USA entered the war in December of 1941, but that is not when the war started.

FACT: No One Can Erase 'History'. We only learn from History. While I admire the dedication demonstrated by anyone achieving the rank of a 4-Star General, I am puzzeled by the 'Re-Namimg". There were, and are, multiple individuals who were sent to War and/or served the US in the Military of multiple ethinic backgrounds. Regardless of whether they were Hispanic, or any other Ethnic background, all of those individuals were still "Americans". And, the Military was always 'supposed' to be "Colorless". It did not matter what ethnic background any of those in the Military may have evolved from. And, many of whom died serving their Country, regardless of their eththciity. No Question, there is certainly a great hornor to recoginze General Cavazos for his Military achievements, but in my opinion, this re-naming attempts to erase the purpose of the original 'naming', and eliminates "History", which cannot be changed. I, personally, served & was stationed at Ft. Hood during the Vietnam War. At that time, it contained III Corps, and the 1st & 2nd Armoured Divisions. It will always retain the same "Name" to myself, and many others, who were stationed there. None of my comments are intended to discredit General Cavazos, yet the question lingers: "Why"! Or, is this Military Fort to be renamed again, 81+/- years in the future, because of a future ethnic change in the population of the U.S.? There could have been many ways to recognize General Cavazos without this event. In my reading & research for the purpose of this re-maning, it was solely to recognize a "Hispanic" General. Re-Stated Fact: The Military was always supposed to be "Colorless". Hence, it gives me pause to wonder if General Cavazos would agreed. Again, all of the above are personal reflections & opinions. Nonetheless, nothing will change my "History" of having servered in the Military at Ft. Hood.

A perspective absent form every news story on this renaming. "Mc-FUR-son."

Yeah I have always wondered why they would name US Army Forts after rebels who were traitors to their nation and fought against the US Army.

I was stationed there as an 11H in the 90’s, where I went to the “toughest Air Assault school in the Army”. It is Fort Hood, and Benning is Benning, no matter the hand wringing woke elite tampering with history, names and statues. (They did leave a big statue of Lenin in Seattle…. a sweet guy who REALLY loved America, you know).

Served there in the late 90's. 2/8 inf 4th I.D. Will never call it anything else.

History is history hood benning lee will always be that original name

Interesting that you didn't really get into the discussion of whether Fort Hood should have been renamed, and the woke ideology and the attempted erasure of parts of American History behind the renaming.