Prof. Chris Raffensperger
Professor of History and Chair of the Department
Kenneth E. Wray Chair in the Humanities
Director, Ermarth Institute for the Public Humanities
Medieval Europe, Russia, Ukraine
It is important to begin a topic such as celebrations for veterans to make the statement that their service is appreciated. Until the presidency of Bill Clinton, all of our presidents were veterans and some even war heroes. Congress boasted 60% to 70% veteran representation in the 1980s, though now it is down below 20%.
Yet, despite our move away from military service at the executive and legislative level, we have increased the performative aspect of honoring our veterans by merging sport with service. Major sporting leagues honor both veterans and active military regularly on special nights, and with special uniforms; thanking them for their services past and present. This despite the fact that the approximately 30% of MLB players who are Hispanic, either American or from Spanish-speaking countries, would be targeted by ICE if they were not playing baseball. Or despite the fact that the 60% of NFL players and 70% of NBA players who are Black would not be acceptable to command cadres in Pete Hegseth’s military.
While for Wittenberg students this is the norm, for those of us (slightly) older, this was not the way the world worked when we were in college. At that time, no one said “thank you for your service” to random strangers on the street or in the store.
Military movies of the 1980s were as likely to be bitter about war, like “Platoon” and “First Blood”. “Full Metal Jacket” showed the brutal side of war, particularly in the preparation of soldiers. In the 1990s, especially later in the decade, this began to change and movies lauded the sacrifice of The Greatest Generation, not coincidentally popularized by the eponymous 1998 book by Tom Brokaw. “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line” followed by the “Band of Brothers” TV show on HBO valorized the service of that generation for all to see.
The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 launched public patriotism into the stratosphere as an entirely new generation of veterans was created and the public relations push went full throttle. Stories of military service became popular, with figures like Pat Tillman leaving an NFL contract behind to pursue a career in the military. Major sports leagues pushed the connection between service and sport, in large part to increase their own reputations and trumpet their kind of service over that to the country.
Over the 21st century though, the idea of supporting the troops became politicized and the Republican Party claimed patriotism as their own value. Yet, to take just one example I know well, of the 67,000 applauding in Lincoln Financial Field for the Eagles “Salute to Service” celebration in November 2025, how many were Democrats? In Philadelphia there are six times as many Democrats as Republicans. Sports leagues do not have a monopoly on demonstrative patriotism (ask any pickup truck owner), but neither does one political party. While the reasons for “support(ing) our troops” may be numerous and the rationale for honoring them at sporting events may be specious, the actual support for the men and women who serve is bipartisan.
Prof. Ross Jackson
Associate Professor of Business & Economics
Program Director, Master of Science in Analytics
Management
Every year American sports fans experience a series of “salutes” designed to recognize our veterans and/or current members of the military branches in the United States, which includes the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and sometimes the Coast Guard. These events are either in conjunction with, or in addition to, numerous days of recognition and remembrance, including Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and Veterans Day. In fact, when examining the list of holidays, it is easy to establish that within the United States, there are more official and unofficial days of recognition dedicated to veterans and those serving in the military than any other individual, group, or profession.
The logic behind this consistent and far-reaching recognition is fairly straightforward. If politicians want a cadre of people willing to go wherever they are told, whenever they are told, and potentially risk their lives for whatever reason they are giving, those in power better create a rhetoric and society that lauds that sacrifice. Military members are not well paid, and they are prohibited from plundering. From an economic perspective, the valorization of one’s service is part of the compensation package.
This isn’t meant to be cynical, or to disparage their service. It is simply to point out that these forms of public recognition serve a vital social function independent from the expressed reasons of focus. To understand what is being recognized or celebrated, it is beneficial to examine the United States military itself.
Central to the military ethos, at least within the United States, are the notions of deference to, and respect of, authority, discipline, esprit de corps (solidary), and individual sacrifice. That these values are often important in situations marked by mortal danger is beyond doubt. That individuals are willing to live these values, and place themselves in harm’s way, is worthy of social recognition and esteem. The incessant veterans/miliary “salutes” in American sports provides a public (and popular) way of recognizing those who serve our nation in this specific way. It also provides us with an opportunity to reflect on what is venerated.
Reflecting on the miliary ethos for too long can result in uncomfortable tension. Perhaps this is clearest when examining the willingness to defer to and respect authority. This is the ultimate duty of the military. Orders are given; it is expected that they will be followed unquestioningly. This is a bedrock of the “good order and discipline” that is detailed thoroughly in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Any “conduct unbecoming” could be met with a court-martial. Within that context, it is understandable that deference to authority is expected. But even within this extreme context, things are not always so simple. I once heard an Air Force general quip that only in the Air Force is a direct order given by a general officer viewed as the starting point for a conversation. Leaving this aside, for those of us committed to a liberal arts education, deference to authority is in direct opposition to our ends. We want people to question authority, all authority. This questioning is essential for an individual to determine what it is exactly that one thinks, and to understand why one thinks whatever it is one does. Questioning authority in our context is essential.
For sure, one could resolve this tension by simply declaring that what is valued in one context isn’t necessarily valued in another. Ultimately, of course, that is true. However, it is a little bit of a dodge. Especially in regard to something as serious as this. When I worked for the military, I cut an atypical figure. In an environment marked by nattiness and conservatism, I wore blue jeans, Birkenstock, and had a beard. This was often met with disdain by those conforming to the established order. However, in one large meeting, a military person pointed at me and told the audience that I was exactly what they were fighting to protect; that the military existed to safeguard the right for others to go against authority. Military members, at their best, realize that the values they must adopt for the services to function, are not the same values for which they are fighting. They are compelled to respond with “yes, ma’am” or “yes, sir.” We have the freedom to respond with, “we shall see.” And for that, I am more than willing to incessantly salute our veterans and military members.
