No African American GIs?

[gunnergoz]

Racism drove the policy of segregating blacks in the Army, but the segregated "Nisei" regiment was more a product of national prejudice against the Japanese because of the war. Latinos, Koreans, Chinese, Native-Americans, etc. all served in unsegregated units (but of course not without encountering racism).

Of course, there was nothing special about the US in having racist policies regarding military service in this era. Take Australia, for example:

"National prejudice" = racism in a different guise IMO. The entire sad chapter of American abuse (and exploitation) of Japanese Americans during the war was nothing but rampant racism. Were there segregated Nisei units before the war? No, but that was because in pre war days, so few Japanese Americans entered the military to begin with. Once the war started and manpower needs ramped up, the army was not squeamish about accepting Japanese Americans on its own, racist (and segregated) terms.

[Nidan1]

Hold on there. Are you saying that there was racism eg. in Germany at the time? :confused::confused: I hope you can prove such preposterous claims!

Noooooooo!......not me, I'm just trying to keep the discussion on point.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

I recall in the early '60s the SAO had the slogan, "The Mediterranean runs through France as the Seine runs through Paris." Their view was that Algeria was an integral part of France.

Michael

Yep, Algeria was the exception (since, administratively speaking, it wasn't a mere colony or protectorate), and its independence was a sore point even for some who had come to reluctantly accept the rest of the decolonization (hence the SAO and all).

That's also why conscripts served in the Algeria war (since it officially wasn't a colonial war, but basically a police operation on French soil...), and why there was a war to begin with (compared to Tunisia and the French part of Morocco, which got their independent in the mid-50's without such a bloodshed). Of course, there were also some more down-to-earth reasons for refusing Algeria's independence (namely, the discovery of important oil reserves in in the mid 50's).

That being said, it didn't make any difference when it came to 'native' Algerians serving in the military - they could only serve in colonial units, got an lower pay than French soldiers, and so on. Basically, Algeria was considered an integral part of the French territory, but the majority of its population were subject to the same discriminations as in colonies or protectorates, so Algeria's particular status didn't actually matter much for discussions about the composition of the Free French Forces...

[Andrew H.]

Well - it's one of the things that our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers fought for - freedom of speech.

Which war was that?

[Childress]

"National prejudice" = racism in a different guise IMO. The entire sad chapter of American abuse (and exploitation) of Japanese Americans during the war was nothing but rampant racism.

We suck! We should have strived to live up to the sterling example set by the Japanese in China, Korea and elsewhere. Mandatory name changes, summary execution, rape, forced labour, artificial famines, and looting was nothing compared to horror of the internment camp.

[Splinty]

We suck! We should have strived to live up to the sterling example set by the Japanese in China, Korea and elsewhere. Mandatory name changes, summary execution, rape, forced labour, artificial famines, and looting was nothing compared to horror of the internment camp.

Thank you! Someone needed to put this discussion in its proper perspective.

[Nidan1]

This thread started out innocently enough, but like watching a plane crashing in slow motion the end is inevitable.

Whenever this topic is discussed nothing good ever comes of it, the issue is too polarizing and usually causes bad feelings.

I would hope that the Admins button this one up soon.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes, best way to solve a problem is to point fingers at each other and sweep any discussion under the carpet.

[Nidan1]

Yes, best way to solve a problem is to point fingers at each other and sweep any discussion under the carpet.

Yep, this is certainly the place to solve the problem of racism and predjudice.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Trying to get back on track, I think that it is probably fair to say that a very low proportion of Afro-Americans served as combat troops. Also there was next to no segregation, which taken together would mean that troop formations would be almost always white in origin possibly with a hispanic element as well. Very, very occasionally you might find an all black unit, but statistically, I would contend that this would be rare in the extreme.

The Vietnam war makes a very interesting contrast, in that a significant percentage of the grunts drafted in WERE black... but that of course is another story.

SLR

[Vanir Ausf B]

Also there was next to no segregation,

Integration. But we know what you meant.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yep, this is certainly the place to solve the problem of racism and predjudice.

If not here then where?

[MikeyD]

the issue is too polarizing and usually causes bad feelings.

Well, I can think of a lot of issues I'd describe that way but this particular one, with 67 year of hindsight, I suspect everybody's pretty much in universal agreement on. Unless you're talking to someone who had been dropped on their head as a child.

[Nidan1]

If not here then where?

In your own head would be a good place to start.

[Magpie_Oz]

In your own head would be a good place to start.

Sorry? Are you suggesting there is something wrong in my head?

[Wodin]

You could have afro caribean troops..but all the units would have to be black due to segregation...balck troops and white troops in the same unit is Hollywood...most where emplyed as drivers...

[gunnergoz]

Childress and Splinty - if you want to compare the US behavior against its own citizens to that of non-democratic states like wartime Japan, by all means go ahead. I always thought the US prided itself on standing head and shoulders above such fascist dictatorships. I deliberately did not make comparisons since there are no equivalencies. But I do hold our nation, the USA, to a higher standard than I do other countries, if for no other reason that this is what we are told we are: superior in belief and in conduct. And in my opinion, the nation's conduct against its Japanese American citizens in that era was appalling.

The argument that Japan treated other races worse is a red herring that serves no purpose other than to distract Americans from the fact that their nation was not living up to its own vaunted standards at the time. America could have done better, but failed to do so, all the while touting itself as the beacon of individual liberty and at the forefront of the fight against arbitrary, tyrannical governments that ran roughshod over their citizens.

In point of fact, numerous wealthy and politically connected Americans personally benefited from closure of Japanese American businesses and the confiscation of their assets, and pressure from these sources was not an insignificant aspect of the anti-Japanese-American sentiment rampant in the US at the time.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The argument that Japan treated other races worse is a red herring that serves no purpose other than to distract Americans from the fact that their nation was not living up to its own vaunted standards at the time.

The "vaunted" standards of the time were the Jim Crow laws. By that measure it was par for the course.

Most of human history looks fairly horrid when judged by today's standards. I don't see the point in wallowing in it, but to each their own.

[gunnergoz]

The "vaunted" standards of the time were the Jim Crow laws. By that measure it was par for the course.

Most of human history looks fairly horrid when judged by today's standards. I don't see the point in wallowing in it, but to each their own.

That is just looking back that we can say that now. The vaunted standards I was thinking of were the likes of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms from his 1941 speech. Most Americans thought of freedom in those terms while the reality was that in fact, Jim Crow laws existed and were accepted. Hypocritical? Of course. But we did aspire to the better angels of our nature, did we not? Then as now?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Most Americans thought of freedom in those terms while the reality was that in fact, Jim Crow laws existed and were accepted. Hypocritical? Of course. But we did aspire to the better angels of our nature, did we not? Then as now?

Given the fact that the civil rights movement didn't really go mainstream for another 25 years or so, I would say no.

When the Founding Fathers wrote "We the People" their definition of "People" was quite different than what we think of today. That doesn't mean we can't admire and use the principles behind the words, but they lived in a different world.

[Childress]

But I do hold our nation, the USA, to a higher standard than I do other countries, if for no other reason that this is what we are told we are: superior in belief and in conduct. And in my opinion, the nation's conduct against its Japanese American citizens in that era was appalling.

Sorry, I can't let this go. If you want to pass judgements based on absolute morality be my guest. But sans comparisons they're weightless. You engage on a slippery slope which leads down the road to moral equivalency if not contempt for the person or entity who fails to measure up. You demoralize him. Balzac wrote that every great fortune is founded upon a crime. The same can be said for nations, all nations. Every present nation, at one point, dispossessed the indigenes. So?

One arrives at a state where we have high schools kids well versed in the evils of slavery or our alleged environmental transgressions who can't name the century in which the Declaration of Independence was issued.

[Magpie_Oz]

I was really asking the question in regards of segregation purely as a curiosity as to why it was done rather than to single out any particular country as being racist or not.

I have always though that segregating units to be racist in the extreme and to claim that "allowing" Afro-Americans to serve in their own units was not racist as being just silly. That is why I was asking as to the reasons for the segregation.

The Australian policy was the usual road to hell being paid with good intention with a good dose of racism thrown in. Despite the "ban" on Aboriginal enlistment and the that fact that until 1966 Aboriginal Australians were not Australian citizens somewhere around 3000 Aboriginal Australians served with the regular forces. Despite their numbers however they were not placed in segregated units. The "ban" on enlistment though it did have a taint of racism was based officially on not requiring those without representation in Australia being required to take up the defence of Australia. There was also concern that Aboriginals in regular units would cause disharmony, something which did not occur. The lot of the Aboriginal Servicemen when they returned home however was a different story entirely.

The NZ case has nothing to do with segregation. I have always held the embracing of the Maori culture by the wider population in NZ as something of an example. The Maori battalion was raised by motivations from the Maori themselves and came to be lead by Maori Officers and NCO's.

My understanding is that the Maori Bn came into being mainly from the fact that the Maori peoples have been able to maintain a distinct independent culture within the wider framework of the New Zealand nation and not from a desire from either party to be segregated along the lines of race.

[gunnergoz]

Sorry, I can't let this go. If you want to pass judgements based on absolute morality be my guest. But sans comparisons they're weightless. You engage on a slippery slope which leads down the road to moral equivalency if not contempt for the person or entity who fails to measure up. You demoralize him. Balzac wrote that every great fortune is founded upon a crime. The same can be said for nations, all nations. Every present nation, at one point, dispossessed the indigenes. So?

One arrives at a state where we have high schools kids well versed in the evils of slavery or our alleged environmental transgressions who can't name the century in which the Declaration of Independence was issued.

You are welcome to your opinion and I exercise my right to disagree. I am still ashamed of some of what the nation did then as I am with certain conduct since the second world war. I have my standards for judging my country's conduct, you can have your own and neither opinion is of more value than the other just because you say so.

[gunnergoz]

Given the fact that the civil rights movement didn't really go mainstream for another 25 years or so, I would say no.

When the Founding Fathers wrote "We the People" their definition of "People" was quite different than what we think of today. That doesn't mean we can't admire and use the principles behind the words, but they lived in a different world.

I was living in that pre-civil-rights world, so perhaps that is the difference between us. What is history for you is memories for me. My standards thus are based on a different perspective than yours in all likelihood.

[Nidan1]

Sorry? Are you suggesting there is something wrong in my head?

Not at all. I meant that by changing the way people think about those that are different from themselves is the way to better understanding and the elimination of predjudice.