BS: WW2 made whites-only

Subject: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:41 AM

This is one of the creepiest stories about white racism I've read for a long time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm

(The Free French forces put together, with great difficulty, an exclusively white unit to "liberate" Paris in front of the cameras, on the orders of the racist US Government).

It made me wonder about what songs there might be about the Black experience in WW2. Obviously most of them are going to be from the French colonies because of their overwhelmingly greater numbers, but there should be some from the US, the Caribbean and the British colonies in Africa too.

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM

Hey, hey, hey- are you a caption writer for Fox News?

From the story it appears that first it was the French who demanded the whites-only parade, then the US and then the British.

(I recognize that the thrust of your post is the Black experience in WWII but your opening statement should not be ignored.)

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:58 AM

National pride???

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:00 AM

The "Tuskegee Airmen," who had one of the most exemplary records of all the fighter escort groups in WWII, came back to find their war exploits, for the most part, had not made their lives as civilians much different, nor opened up many opportunities. The recent movie, "Devil in a Blue Dress" portrayed a returning black war hero who finds himself and his service count for nothing in trying to find a job in post WWII Los Angeles. In southeast Texas in the 1940's and '50's I saw gas stations with three rest rooms; "Men, Women & Colored." Black people sat in the back of the bus and lived across the tracks, not to be seen on the white side of town after sundown. It is not surprising that, in those times, the government, pandering to those worst instincts "out of the ugly necessities of war" should put forth such a policy. That part of our past may be ugly, but the past does not have to be prologue. Ask our new President.

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM

The story makes it clear that making it an all-white show was done on the orders of the US general Bedell Smith. De Gaulle had insisted that the French should take the lead role, but didn't say that it just be the white French. That was an American idea that the British brass went along with (as they had done with the US importing segregation with their armed forces in Britain over the previous three years).

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: Nancy King
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM

Umm -- shouldn't this be below the line?

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:32 AM

Jack - do you still hold a grudge against Italy for feeding Christians to the lions?

I'm sure you have skeletons in your own closet that you have to deal with. No one is proud of segregation if that is what you are trying to insinuate. It seems like you are trying to keep the hatred alive instead of trying to improve for the future.

Subject: RE: WW2 made whites-only
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:33 AM

Yes-I'm sure it will be moved soon.... but it really, really would be nice if folks remembered to use the right prefix when posting....

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:48 AM

Whether there are skeletons or no, this is interesting, no?

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 12:10 PM

I am still wondering what musical trace there might be of the Black effort in WW2. I know about Ellington's V-discs, which were made *for* the war effort rather than expressing anything about it. And that's the nearest I can think of.

Somebody knowledgeable about Francophone African music must know of something from there.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: s&r
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 12:53 PM

The Gurkhas

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 01:11 PM

If there were any links to songs on the Gurkha site I couldn't see them. If there's a Gurkha equivalent of the Highland Division's Farewell to Sicily you aren't going to find it on a site like that.

The Indian subcontinent is a whole different issue anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 01:25 PM

Long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Vic Smith
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 01:37 PM

Jack Campin wrote:-
"Somebody knowledgeable about Francophone African music must know of something from there."

Well, I know quite a lot about the jaliya music of the Manding people of The Gambia, Senegal, Mali and Guinea Bissau and there is no reference to anything in their traditional music about the Second World War that I know of though there are lots of songs and stories about warriors though these tend to be about local conflicts including battles against French colonialists.

There are quite a number of modern composed jali songs calling for peace in Angola, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Liberia, etc. etc (e,g. "Africa" sung by the Gambian kora player and singer, Jali Sherrifo Konteh on his album "Mansalou" - see http://www.compoundsounds.com/) and one of the most popular song in all the jali repertoire is "Kaira" meaning "Peace" in Mandinka.

We have been going to West Africa each year since 1997 and a couple that we met on our very first day in The Gambia - Adam and Pa M'Boge - are now amongst our closest friends out there. Although we have got to know them well, it was only about four years ago whilst we were having a meal in their compound that we found out that both their fathers had fought in World War 2 in the Kings West African Frontier Force and that they had served in Burma. Pa's father had received the Distinguished Service Medal for carrying his wounded (British) officer back to safety under fire. When he showed me that medal, I saw that he also had the Burma Star - as did Adam's father - and that brought us closer together as my father had also fought in Burma and had been awarded the Burma Star.

When we next went out to The Gambia, we were able to meet up at the the Gambian National War Memorial in Fajara. This is beautifully maintained by the Commonwealth Graves Commission. The egrets that parade sedately around it seem to fit in well with the mood of the place. We were able to place a wreath from three offspring of Burma Star holders - two Gambians and one Brit. As well as the graves of those who were killed in West Africa, there are plaques listing the names of the many Gambians killed fighting in Burma.

On our visit to The Gambia earlier this year, we also found out the father of the Head Teacher of the school that we support out there, Mrs Yaharr Jallow, had been a recipient of the Burma Star.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 02:44 PM

SHAEF wanted to bypass Paris completely.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 02:51 PM

It is very sad that has happened...it is also very important to get everyone's story out there via some of the Smithsonian?? projects or on genealogy web sites so people find it when searching by name or situation etc. Write everything you know..and encourage others to do the same.

Also..don't forget other participants in WWII...the Filipinos who never got what they were promised..the Navaho Code talkers, etc...Many many groups. mg

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 03:04 PM

Vic, thank you very much for posting that and the link. Very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Les from Hull
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:01 PM

The Poles were excluded from the UK WW2 victory parade in an attempt to keep well in with 'Uncle Joe' Stalin, even though they had fought and died alongside the British before the Free French (or even the USA) became involved. I'll never be surprised what the 'powers that be' will do in the name of political expediency.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:14 PM

Integration of the US Armed Forces, 1940-65.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:50 PM

Rapaire, that's a hell of a read.

This bit I have seen confirmed by British social histories of the war:

Racial friction also developed in Great Britain where some American troops, resenting their black countrymen's social acceptance by the British, tried to export Jim Crow by forcing the segregation of recreational facilities. Appreciating the treatment they were receiving from the British, the black soldiers fought back, and the clashes grew at times to riot proportions. General Davis considered discrimination and prejudice the cause of trouble, but he placed the immediate blame on local commanders. Many commanders, convinced that they had little jurisdiction over racial disputes in the civilian community or simply refusing to accept responsibility, delegated the task of keeping order to their noncommissioned officers and military police. These men, rarely experienced in handling racial disturbances and often prejudiced against black soldiers, usually managed to exacerbate the situation.

As you might imagine, the thing that really ticked off the white racists in the military was when British girls took up with black GIs.

Some social historians come close to blaming the degeneration in race relations in post-WW2 Britain entirely on the US military's behaviour when over here. That goes way too far, but they sure didn't set a shining example.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: s&r
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:59 PM

Look up the Battle of Bamber Bridge

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:33 PM

Note that that's from the UH Military's official history site. They don't hide it.

Even when I was on active duty (1963, 1968-69) there were officers who would look the other way. There were also Black troops who went out of their way to cause trouble -- which is also true of some of the White troops. Race relations were often strained.

I think that they got better FAST when the first bullet cracked by.

There always were, and probably always will be, those who feel superior to others. The Greeks and the Barbarians, the Romans and the Gauls both come to mind.

It's not "right" but it happens. Overall, I think the US military is now ashamed of its racist past.

But consider: Black troops were killing gooks in 'Nam just as White troop killed Chinks in Korea and Japs in the Pacific. You must depersonalize, dehumanize, your enemy before you can kill him.

...There are rumors in our camp about the enemy.
They say that when you see him he looks just like you and me.
But you deny it Sergeant and you are a man of war,
Oh I hope you will be patient for I've never killed before.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 01:28 AM

No point in crying over history. One corrects, and moves on.

I remember just after the war (WW2), I was at a camp where many GI's were coming to be re-assigned or demobilized.
One Black soldier came (don't know his unit but probably auxilliary). He was assigned to an empty barracks where he was the sole occupant. He was given his meals in a small building near the kitchen facilities. He didn't participate in any of our duties (make-work stuff, we were just passing through).
The word was that he was outside our vision.
I was re-assigned rather quickly so I never learned any more about his situation or disposition.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:05 AM

There was a programme on the radio on this story called "Document" whic may be available to listen to. It included details of how French African troops were dealt with by the Germans as well as the exclusion from the liberation parades.

Does anyone have any information about the stories that British pubs would refuse to serve any Americans where the commanders tried to establish whites only rules?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:11 AM

Make that other stories about pubs etc.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:18 AM

Link to Listen Again

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: meself
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:52 AM

The BBC has a tremendous website with personal stories covering every possible aspect of the WWII experience. I don't have the links, but I've read a number of stories there concerning the American military, racism, and England.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Will Fly
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:57 AM

When bluesman Howling Wolf was travelling through Lincolnshire in the UK on a tour, he mentioned that he was stationed over here during the war and used to play the piano in a local pub.

Now I would like to have seen and heard that...

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 07:03 AM

There's an interesting thread on Cy Grant, a TV personality of the 50's/60's who was in the RAF during the 2nd World War, a rare beast!:

thread.cfm?threadid=111031

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 07:07 AM

After reading that thread again, realise they weren't such rare beasts after all, sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 09:15 AM

There are other sites than the BBC, revealing that at the top there was quite a bit of agreement with the American top brass, but at the grass roots, the British "needed to be educated about the ways of polite society". You might find the rules laid down by a vicar's wife, one Mrs May, and the reaction at the meeting where she gave them to the local women interesting.

Some make a distinction between white Americans from anywhere else but the Confederate states and the Southerners.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 09:29 AM

Long time ago.
-Q; 08 Apr 09 - 01:25 PM

**

No point in crying over history. One corrects, and moves on.
-Q ; 09 Apr 09 - 01:28 AM


I have noticed that one of Q's areas of interest on Mudcat is 19th century and earlier African American "plantation songs", African American spirituals, and American minstrel songs-all of which happened "a long time ago". It also seems to me that another area of interest-and I also should say another area of expertise-that Q has demonstrated on Mudcat is the etymology of old words and old phrases. And with regard to those old African American songs, I have noticed that Q posts them-as most other Mudcat members do-without any introductory remarks as to their now largely unacceptable use of referents such as what has become known as the "n" word. Since these songs are posted for the folkloric record, it's understandable that folks need to know how they were written way back then. It is less understandable to me that Q has never ever acknowledged in any Mudcat posting that I can recall reading that he recognizes that reading such dialect songs with or without the "n" word could be jarring to contemporary Black people and other people. I've wondered why Q has never acknowledged this. But I think that I have a glimpse of his reasoning in his second comment that I quoted in the beginning of this thread: Q wrote "No point in crying over history. One corrects, and moves on."

I call this the "it was what it was" point of view. Again, let me reiterate that for the sake of the folkloric record, I believe that it is important to fully know how things were-including how songs were sung and by whom and when from which sources. However, I also think that it is important to at leastacknowledge that the past still impacts the present in myriad ways like causing some Black folks like me to cringe when we see the "n word spelled out or when we see the "n" in the word "Negro" not capitalized. And-speaking for myself-the past still impacts the present when I become sad after reading threads like this one and learn of other ways I didn't previously know that the United States mistreated Black people from Africa and the African Diaspora. I'm an adult who has learned coping strategies to live with and work through my sadness. And how I feel in the scheme of things is of little importance. But it occurs to me that this "it was what it was" position coupled with a lack of regard for how what was affected Black and non-Black people then and how such an attitude and approach to the past impacts Black and non-Black people now might explain why there are so few Black people and other people of color who actively post on this discussion forum. (As always, I include the statement that I mean Black people and other people of color who publicly identify themselves as being a Black person or a member of another racial/ethnic group that is considered to be non-White). Given that it appears that Hilda Fish and Quarcoo (Kweku) haven't posted to Mudcat for over a year, it appears that I am the only Black person who has publicly identified her/himself as Black who still posts on Mudcat.

Some people may think that having an almost all White discussion forum doesn't matter. But how much richer the conversation would be if there were Black Africans from Senegal who could share information about the possible impact this American driven ruling about having WW2 White soldiers only liberate Paris had on them or their fathers or grandfathers. And think of how much richer the discussions of shanties and early calypso and other Caribbean music would be if there were folks from Jamaica and Trinidad and Barbados who were interested and knowledgeable about those music forms. I can think of other examples of how discussions about race-which regularly crop up in Mudcat's BS section like clockwork- could be fuller if there were Black people and other people of color posting to those discussion threads. And I'm sure that you can also think of some examples of past Mudcat threads. But I want to return to Q's second point.

In the first half of that second point Q wrote-presumably about this thread-that there is no point in crying about the past. To that point I would say that sharing information about this history and discussing this history and the ways that it might have impacted the present is not "crying about the past". For instance, if there are no African or Caribbean songs about WW2, I wonder why that is, given the propensity of Black folks to write songs that include references to actual happenings. Could it be that the pain of what happened to these soldiers in Europe was/is deep that those soldiers have difficulty adequately expressing it? Or could it be that the experiences of those French speaking Black people who (I learn from this thread) made up most of the French WW2 army, were so "foreign" to other people in their country that those people were disinterested in any songs with that theme or the soldiers didn't bother to compose songs about those experiences?

And returning again to Q's second point-in the second half of his second point Q wrote "One corrects, and moves on". Another poster to this thread wrote that it is documented that German soldiers murdered surrendering African soldiers because those soldiers were Black. How can "one correct" this? Shouldn't there at least be an acknowledgement if not an apology for this? And another poster wrote that French speaking Africans & Caribbean WW2 soldiers were denied pensions or had their pensions halted-again for no other reason then because of their racial identity. Has this action been corrected? And have the history books used in public schools throughout the USA, and France, and Germany, and The United Kingdom and in French speaking African nations and French speaking Caribbean nations been corrected to truthfully tell what happened way back then? You can answer those questions and others.

I thank Jack Campin for starting this thread. And I thank others for posting information and opinions to this thread. And though it may not seem like it, I also thank Q for writing those comments which I have quoted in this post. Ever since Q visited my website and encouraged me to visit Mudcat, I've been alert to learning from him. These two comments that Q wrote helped me "suss" out more about 'what makes Q tick'.   Of course I could be wrong about what I've gathered. And no one can ever fully no another person. But I've been interested in "reconciling" Q's interest in 19th century Black history with what appears to be rather dismissive "Republican" views of contemporary Black people which appear (to me) he has articulated in some political and social Mudcat threads. And as I've said-since I've been posting on Mudcat-I've been trying to figure out why so few Black people and so few other people of color post on Mudcat.

These two quotes from Q have given me more pieces to both of these puzzles.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 10:03 AM

For the record, let me note that I pmed Q to inform him about my above post after I had submitted it to this thread.

Also, for the record, let me address my friend Rapaire's 08 Apr 09 - 10:33 PM comments to this thread that "There always were, and probably always will be, those who feel superior to others. The Greeks and the Barbarians, the Romans and the Gauls both come to mind.

It's not "right" but it happens. Overall, I think the US military is now ashamed of its racist past.

But consider: Black troops were killing gooks in 'Nam just as White troop killed Chinks in Korea and Japs in the Pacific. You must depersonalize, dehumanize, your enemy before you can kill him."

-snip-

Rapaire, unfortunately I suppose that you're correct that "You must depersonalize, dehumanize, your enemy before you can kill him". However, Black soldiers fighting for the Allied cause in WW2 were "depersonalized " and "dehumanized" and they were not the enemy..

As to your point about the US military now being ashamed of its racist past, what makes you think this is the case? If it is true-good. I hope soon the US military will also be ashamed of-and take viable steps to correct-the shameful "don't ask don't tell policy that is directed against gays in the military.

I think that is on topic since imo it's part of that "people feeling superior to others' comment that you made. Maybe people "need" to feel superior to others" but I also think that the powers that be use this "need" to build and reinforce barriers between poor and working class people of all races and ethnicities who could unite together to topple those said powers that be.

And this strategy appears to be successful among at least 30% of the US population-that being around the number of folks who cling to Republican talking points that are "articulated" by the right wing media.

Thankfully, most Americans are wiser than that.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 01:18 PM

Thanks for your posts, Azizi. May I say that I think that your posts are getting ever clearer and easier to read? Your last two, I think should be in textbooks all over the country.

However, as for why so few self-described Black people frequent these waters, there may be a much simpler issue at work than that of non-acceptance or racism.

Black people, historically and as a group, don't seem to have gone into folk music as much as they have into jazz, for instance, or into pop and rock.

Charlie Pride, a successful country singer, makes a point of noting that. And the late Don Drew, a beloved Juneau country singer, loved and lived the country scene. I'm sure there are other Black folk, bluegrass and country singers but in my mind these two stand out as being fairly unique.

My point is: If a person is not into a certain kind of music why would he or she dabble their toes in here?

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Azizi
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 01:40 PM

I appreciate your comments, Ebbie. However, I guess it depends on what folks definition of "folk" is.

Furthermore, I believe that there's bound to be more Black people and people of color than me who enjoys discussing subjects such as children's playground rhymes & cheers, and African American spirituals, and 19th century African American songs, and shanties, not to mention the sources of various songs as well as the etymology of words & phrases whether they are found in the above named music genres or not.

And it also seems to me that Mudcat's BS threads are so eclectic that people interested in any subject under the sun or moon could post to those threads.

I haven't given up hope that those people will find Mudcat and become active posters on all sorts of threads including threads like this where providing racial identifying would add information, if not a degree of validity, to the information that they share.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 01:55 PM

The official history Rapaire linked to was impressive in its attempt to get to the truth, however unpleasant it might be.

It was a far more honest attitude that the suggestions that "it was all long ago" or "let's move on". I'm reminded of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, one of the more successful efforts at resolving a protracted history of oppression in recent decades. They recognized that reconciliation *without* first establishing the truth was worth nothing. You can't honestly move on without knowing exactly what you're moving on from.

One bit in that official history that shows a further layer of oppression: it mentions Black soldiers doing duty in the Aleutians during the war. The Aleutians got the harshest treatment of any minority in the US - they were all summarily deported so the islands could be militarized for the Pacific War, despite having no links at all to the Japanese. Most never lived to see their homes again or get any compensation - token compensation was finally offered around 1990, long after the interned Japanese-Americans. Their culture was annihilated even more effectively than that of the peoples Stalin was deporting at around the same time. Black soldiers weren't considered good enough to fight white enemies, but they were fine when the enemy was an aboriginal people that had never shown a flicker of hostility to the US.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: mg
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 12:24 AM

Well, today I read an obituary I meant to cut out..a man I think named Jimmy Green (I have about a 12 second retention of various facts)..who served in WWII. I think he was born in Arkansas and he served on a destroyer..can't remember the name.

I remember one powerful poem that I always thought could be a song about an African American..perhaps a cook..on a ship..the ship went down and he towed the survivors with a rope..and he never gave up. I read this in a special education classroom textbook and have looked for it but never found the poem again.

Also in Pearl Harbor...I think there was a bit exhibit about a cook who did some heroics...sorry..I scramble stuff so badly..but that was the jist of it...

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 04:00 AM

With regards to the somewhat off-topic post from Azizi 09 Apr 09 - 09:29 AM:

That's all well and good, Azizi, but when it comes to the scholarly discussion and study of folk songs, it is usually best to submit the information one has collected, without moralizing or editorializing.
Q has no reason to apologize for a song written over a hundred years ago. He's better off to post it and let people make their own judgment - they can read for themselves when the song was written, and understand its context.

He posts lots of songs from that era, more from Black sources than from white. It would be ludicrous for him to post some sort of caveat or apology with every song, just in case somebody might be offended.

Also, please note that Azizi's messages above were posted in a thread about an incident that happened during World War II, not about "19th century and earlier African American 'plantation songs,' African American spirituals, and American minstrel songs-all of which happened 'a long time ago.'" Rather than allow her to divert yet another thread from its original topic of discussion, I was tempted to move her messages and their responses to a new thread. Azizi has a point - not that I agree with it - but it certainly does not fit into the World War II discussion.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Azizi
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 04:50 AM

Joe, in my opinion, my posts on this thread are on-topic.

I respect the fact that you and others may disagree with some or with all of my comments.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 05:09 AM

Azizi, your always-lengthy comments make it difficult for people to return to the original topic of discussion, which was a very interesting aspect of the racism of World War II. Talk about 19th-century plantation songs in a thread about plantation songs.

But going back to the topic of racism in World War II, can't we discuss the subject without first issuing an apology and deploring all the terrible things that our great-grandfathers did sixty-four years ago? Hasn't it been said often enough by the vast majority of this community that we deplore racism and that many of us have worked for decades to right the wrongs caused by racism?

The story itself has tremendous impact, that the cards of the deck were stacked to make it appear that Paris was liberated by an all-white army. Editorializing and moralizing can actually detract from the impact of the story - just as editorializing and moralizing can detract from the impact of songs that are posted. Let the information speak for itself - there is no need to sugar-coat it.

And I'm sorry, but apologizing for what my ancestors did in 1945, seems absolutely ludicrous to me. I really didn't know my grandfather all that well and I have no idea what he said and did with regards to race; and my apology for anything he may have said or done would be an empty apology. I have never heard my father say a word that was even halfway racist; and during World War II, he was too young to make decisions other than to say, "Yes, Sir."

So, yeah, it was a long time ago. It's good to discuss these things and learn from them, but ludicrous to wallow in guilt over them.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: 3refs
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 07:32 AM

Every so often you get to witness a feel-good story.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/internationalus/the_ambassador_or_st_lawrence.html

Subject: Abrazos: WW2 made whites-only
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 08:42 AM

Agreement about issues of race seldom occurs

at the time people are trying to hold the discussion--

because each of us human beans on this planet

is at a different place

about anything other than

the most broadly-sweeping statement of basic values.


Trying to do it in text only further muddies the honest attempt for clarity--

whether to give it, to receive it, or to share it in common.


Still, it is also part of the human spirit to try, try, and try again....

while never quite finding peace in the contemplation of anyone else's attempt.


:~)


Abrazos,

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 10:55 AM

I don't think it's out of line at all to have some prefacing remarks in the beginning of a thread such as this which is focused on racially charged issues. Nor do I think it's out of line for someone to point that out when the opening statement doesn't provide much of an overview.

I just did a similar type of comment on a thread focused on Indian sea songs and shanties, along with a substantive contribution to the topic.

My own family had direct testimony from a returning Black WW 2 veteran about the racism that was rampant in our training camps; he was imprisoned for organizing a protest.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 12:22 PM

Hey, this thread started with:

This is one of the creepiest stories about white racism I've read for a long time.

The thread originator didn't belabor the point, but certainly made it clear where he stood.

Yeah, I admit I cringe when I see a thread with the term "coon songs" in the title. But no, if a person is posting dozens of songs, I would find it tedious for him/her to post some sort of caution or apology with each one.

And when somebody posts a song and gives bibliographic information and a date for the song, then I think most of us are intelligent enough to see that the song is being posted for study purposes and not to promote racism.

Same with songs in the Digital Tradition, which is full of songs of questionable taste. Should we have to apologize for every song somebody might find offensive?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 09 - 01:50 PM

"Long time ago. "

No it isn't. It's yesterday in historical terms.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 12:17 AM

Hang tough, Azizi.

I support your posts even on threads like this one because I think too much 'racism' gets passed over in the name of 'history'. I agree with McGrath. However, I also agree with Joe because songs cannot be changed or locked up just because they contain bad words. Scholarship should not be subject to that type of revision.

Q, imo, has made his positions clear very often. I disagree with them very often.

That's all I'm gonna say unless someone wants a scrap with me.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: meself
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 08:11 AM

Please note that Jack's opening post was ultimately a call for songs. Everything was cool until several posters seemed to take the implied criticism of historic racism (and how can you mention it without implying at least a measure of criticism?) personally. The first bewildering defensiveness came from Ron O., who took Jack's mention of racism on the part of the US military in WWII as evidence of a "grudge" against his country, and accused Jack of trying to "keep the hatred alive". Then Q's terse "Long time ago", which seems to suggest that the matter is unworthy of being mentioned because of its antiquity - unlike, as Azizi points out, those things in which the poster seems to take great interest that come from an even earlier time. Then Rapaire's odd observation that Black soldiers no doubt participated in the de-humanization of their enemy in several wars. Then Q's remark about "crying over history", a response to - what? Someone had mentioned that it was "sad that these things had happened"; is that "crying over history"? Sounds like a fairly restrained comment to me.

Okay, I'm not going to go on. I just find it interesting that there is so much defensiveness at the mention of a "creepy" (well, wasn't it?) incident of racism from a "long time ago".

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: MartinRyan
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 10:51 AM

I suspect much of the angst produced by this thread would have been avoided with a more communicatve choice of title. It's a bit like starting a thread looking for shanties - and titling it "World wide abuse of maritime labour". It might work but....

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Azizi
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 11:15 AM

I'm posting to this thread to mention that I have posted a clarification of my initial comment to this thread on this thread:

Race & Socially Responsive Posting

While I still do not consider that post or my other post to this thread to be off-topic, I decided that it would be best to respond to questions and comments on another thread that is devoted to that general topic as I have titled it.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 05:50 PM

"degeneration in race relations" in the UK after World War II not totally due to US soldiers' behavior in UK?

Such generosity.   You mean there's a chance UK citizens may have to take some responsibility for their own actions? How about that.



And it seems the thread originator, for reasons known only to himself, may possibly have a grudge against the US

No blacks marching in the Paris liberation parade? It's Ike's fault.

People uprooted from the Aleutians? Pure US racism.

Of course.

If the poster would only read the article he himself linked to re: the parade, he would realize there may possibly be enough blame to go around. Why did the UK not fight hard for the inclusion of blacks?   Why did DeGaulle not do so?   If they had pushed hard, it's unclear what would have happened. Especially since there were already strong civil rights groups in the US pushing for more black recognition.

And the history of racism in the US armed forces is, as usual with incendiary Mudcat topics, a bit more complex than the cardboard cliches fondly held by the poster.

In fact in the 19th century there was far more integration than became the case when Jim Crow became entrenched.   As Mudcatters would learn if they would only do some research--in Rapaire's link and elsewhere. Wilson, partly due to his southern background, did not help--even provided a quote for "Birth of a Nation". But even he came to the conclusion that the KKK of the early 20th century was a serious menace.


Also, from Rapaire's link: "Some countries objected to black soldiers because they feared race riots and miscegenation. Others with large black populations of their own felt that black soldiers with their higher rates of pay might create unrest." Still other countries had national exclusion laws."

And the US military did not always give in on this. "In the case of Alaska and Trinidad Secretary Stimson ordered: "Don't yield".   Sometimes it did: "As for Chile and Venezuela's exclusion of Negroes he ruled that: As we are the petitioners here we probably must comply". Panama wanted a black signal construction crew withdrawn. Stimson said: "...it is ridiculous to raise such objections when the Panama Canal itself was built with black labor." And the crew should stay.

Etc. etc. There's a lot more to be said. It's a question of how much time you want to spend.

And regarding the Aleutians:   it takes virtually no time to find out there was in fact a serious Japanese campaign there.   According to Wiki, at least 3,929 US casualties and at least 2,300 Japanese dead. Perhaps it might not have been a red hot idea for the native Aleuts to stay.

Since the poster does not seem to care for "official histories" it would be nice for him to provide his exact sources that most Aleutians "never lived to see their homes again". So we can see what factors might have been involved. On the off chance that it's not quite as simple as the poster dearly wants to believe.

Don't forget to set your outrage-o-meter on the detail that Les from Hull mentioned--the Poles weren't allowed to parade for fear of upsetting Uncle Joe (Stalin).



And be sure to tell us when the UK elects its first black PM. May be a while yet.

Not that Obama is a panacea. But his election is a start.