It’s Time for the U.S. Army to Rename its Helicopters

“Look at me. I was raised on this land where the sun rises–now I come from where the sun sets. Whose voice was first sounded on this land? The voice of the red people who had but bows and arrows. The Great Father [President Ulysses S. Grant] says he is good and kind to us. I don't think so. I am good to his white people...” (Brown 184).

Sioux Chief Red Cloud’s words capture well the spirit and experience of all the Native Americans who were systematically deceived, killed, forcibly relocated, and divested of their land over the course of a mere thirty years from 1860 to 1890.?Now, the same United States Army that produced leaders who committed horrendous atrocities against indigenous populations now?makes use of Native American tribal names as the designators for its aircraft.[1]?These leaders include?household names like Commanding General of the US Army William Tecumseh Sherman, Major General George Armstrong Custer, and General of the Army Philip Sheridan.[2]?As an Army veteran and graduate of the Army Air Assault Course, which trains soldiers in the proper execution of helicopter operations, I lament the fact that my Army was part and parcel in the atrocities America committed against those to whom the stewardship of this land originally belonged. The time has come to redesignate/rename our inventory of helicopters and end the tradition of using tribal names.?

A Record of Racism, Hatred, Lies, and Unmitigated Violence

It was Sherman who said of the exiled Modoc People that even though they were?peaceably residing away from White settlers, “no other reservation for them will be necessary except graves among their chosen Lava Beds” (Brown 230). Time and again “the Great Warrior Sherman”–as he came to be known by many Native Americans–confronted, intimidated, and conquered the people who at times trusted and revered him as he mercilessly divested them of their homes, sacred hills, and hunting grounds. Those whom he did not deem as hostile were to be relocated to “camps where they could be fed and exposed to the white man’s civilized culture” (170).

The oft-mythologized Custer, throughout his memoir?My Life on the Plains?and various letters and diaries speaks of the First Peoples in disparaging and racist ways. In the 1860s–with the scalp of Chief Black Kettle in tow–Custer led his troops back to Camp Supply on the Canadian River following the wholesale slaughter of 103 Cheyennes (as a mass killing was more efficient than separating the warriors from non-combatant women and children). Once there, he and his troops were greeted with a full formal review and a public recognition by Sheridan for “efficient and gallant services rendered” (Brown 169).?It was Sheridan who remarked that “the only good Indians I ever saw were dead” (170).?

Similar sentiments traveled across the plains to the Rocky Mountains where the Utes resided. When he found himself unable to persuade them to take of the ways of the White man, Nathan C. Meeker used false narratives to launch his “Utes Must Go” Campaign, which (with state and federal support) led to the near obliteration of the tribe within Colorado’s borders. He lamented to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that “their needs are so few that they do not wish to adopt civilized habits” (374).?

So ingrained was the racism, bigotry, and prejudice that some Whites, like Colonel Henry Maynadier, were surprised to learn that Natives could shed tears (125). Neither the proven humanity of the Native Americans (as many, like Ely Parker, adopted the ways and language of the White man) nor their willingness to share their land was enough. Even the Treaty of 1868, which stated that “no white person or persons shall be permitted to settle upon or occupy any portion of the territory, or without the consent of the Indians pass through the same” (273) was not strong enough to stop America’s lust for land.

Far from representing the margins of society, these words and actions by those who many would no doubt consider great leaders in Army history capture the essence of the nineteenth century (White) American mind. As it pertained to the presence and proper place of the First Peoples, their existence was an inconvenience thrust upon White settlers, treasure seekers, and explorers by the hand of Providence. Such was the flawed idea of so-called “Manifest Destiny,” which declared that God has gifted the West to White settlers in a manner reminiscent of Canaan being granted to Israel by Yahweh in the Old Testament. Such a reading and interpretation of Scripture was misplaced, but joyously accepted.[3]?And this they did with ruthlessness cunning, lies, and overwhelming military force.

How Did Helicopters Get Named for Native American Tribes?

The Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian and the Department of Defense agree that the origins of the current helicopter naming convention dates back to 1947, when General Hamilton Howze was assigned to the aviation branch of the Army. Along with this assignment came the responsibility to “develop doctrine and the way forward when it came to employing Army aircraft and how they would support warfighters on the ground” (Lange). Dissatisfied with names like “Hoverfly” and “Dragonfly,” he determined that the H-13 light helicopter “would be called the ‘Sioux’ in honor of the Native Americans who fought Army soldiers in the Sioux Wars and defeated the 7th Calvary Regiment at the Battle of Little Bighorn” (Lange). In 1969, this procedure was codified in Army Regulation 70-28.

Apparently, the Army and Defense Department did not see the tragic irony at work in naming its main battle tank–the M4 Sherman–after the Great Warrior Chief. Out of a well-intentioned sense of comradery and respect–but a lack of consideration for historical and/or social context–we are left with a strangely ironic dichotomy. The same Army that removed the Native Americans seeks to simultaneously honor them and their oppressors.

The Army’s flawed assumption is that these are their names to use, but they are not. The names of these tribes, their warriors, and their memories are not the property of the U.S. government. Further, no one seems to have considered how the First Peoples themselves feel. Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian Cultural Interpreter Coordinator Mandy Van Heuvelen suggests “while [the use of tribal names] may be perceived as an honor in some communities, there may be others who don't see it that way. What it is meant to represent is not really an accurate reflection of who they are, their history and culture. It could be considered misappropriation of a culture” (Davis).

What’s the Solution??

The solution to this problem is multifaceted, but a good place to start is with research and surveys. In the same way that the Department of Defense Naming Commission recommended new names for military bases, posts, ships, streets, and the like named after Confederates, a Native American Naming Commission could be constituted to undertake a similar task. The Defense Department has a long history of distributing and interpreting surveys (related to command climate, food quality, medical/dental service, and more). Similar means could be used to determine the prevailing opinions of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous servicemembers and veterans.

Whether the names are changed or not, the Army, and the Armed Forces as a whole, should evaluate current syllabi and learning objectives for entry level training and follow-on courses (like Air Assault, Ranger School, Sapper Course, and Special Forces Qualification Course) to ensure that the history and culture of the tribes affected by American conquest are made known. At a minimum, the tribal heritage behind the names should be included in instructional periods and materials related to Army aircraft and their functions.

Is the Military Just Getting Soft?

Some will argue that the military needs to keep its focus on combat and warfighting, not peripheral issues like the names of equipment. This view, however, is short-sighted as it fails to take into account the “human capital” that is the military’s greatest asset. As General James McConville stated in reference to his?People First Initiative, “People are the [US] Army’s greatest strength and most important weapon system.” We may tell ourselves that warfighters do not worry about such things, but the fact is they do.

Others will say it is simply not realistic to think that a tradition of naming that dates back to at least the Vietnam-Era can really be changed. Yet, the acceptance of the Naming Commission’s recommendations by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III in September 2022 (Garamone) and the Marine Corps’ success in redesignating its entire fleet of UH-1 and AH-1 helicopters (which date back to the Vietnam Era) from “Huey” to “Venom” and “Super Cobra” to “Viper”–respectively–show that tradition and culture can be changed.?

Conclusion: Don’t Take Their Story Too

In her memoir,?Becoming, Michelle Obama poignantly reminds her readers that “Your story is what you have, what you will always have. It is something you own” (xi). Today’s Army must not allow that sacred birthright to be added to the list of treasures the Army of the past–and by extension America–took from its original inhabitants.?

Works Cited

Brown, Dee.?Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. Holt,?Rinehart & Wilson, 1970.

Davis, Akilah. “Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook: Why Army helicopters are given Native?American names,”?ABC 11 News,?https://abc11.com/army-helicopters-apache-blackhawk-native-american/11220233/#:~:text=According%20to%20 Van%20Heuvelen%2C%20naming,stands%2C%20but%20the%20tradition%20continues. Accessed 9 March 2023.

Garamone, Jim. “DOD Begins Implementing Naming Commission Recommendations,”?U.S.?Department of Defense,?https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3260434/dod-begins-implementing-naming-commission-recommendations/. Accessed 21 February 2023.

Lange, Katie. “Why Army Helicopters Have Native American Names,”?U.S. Department of?Defense, https://www.defense.gov/News/Inside-DOD/Blog/Article/2052989/why-army-helicopters-have-native-american-names/. Accessed 21 February 2023.

Manuel, Rojoef. “US Marine Corps Receives Final Viper Helicopter, Completes H-1 Program,”?The Defense Post,?https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022 /11/04/usmc-viper-helicopter/. Accessed 21 February 2023.

McConville, James. “People First: Insights from the Army’s Chief of Staff,”? Army.mil, https://www.army.mil/article/243026/people_first_insights_from_ the_armys_chief_of_staff. Accessed 21 February 2023.

Obama, Michelle.?Becoming.?Crown: 2018.

[1]?E.g., UH-60 “Blackhawk,” CH-46 “Chinook,” AH-1 “Apache,” UH-72 “Lakota,” and MH-6 “Little Bird” are all named for Indigenous tribes or leaders.

[2]?Sheridan led a large portion of the US Army during the American Civil War and went on to become Commanding General of the US Army. Custer is famous for his part in the Battle of Little Big Horn (which would not have taken place had he not been working to displace the Sioux Peoples. Sheridan is best known for “The Burning” of the Shenandoah Valley in 1864.

[3]?For more on the major views regarding ancient Israel’s relationship to the New Testament Church, see?Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views, edited by Chad Brand, B&H Academic: 2015. See also, Wayne Grudem,?Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine?(2nd ed.), Zondervan Academic: 2020,?pp. 1047-1342.