BS: WW2 made whites-only

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:42 PM

First, let me congratulate the originator of the thread on successfully dragging us off-- both--of the topics he himself brought up: the blacks excluded from the Paris liberation parade and the Aleuts removed from their homes.

As I recall, he was going to tell us just why neither the UK nor France pushed hard for blacks to be included in the parade. As I noted, had they done so, with the strong civil rights groups in the US already pushing for black recognition, there is a good chance they would have been successful. The squeaky wheel....

But it's so much more satisfying to whine about US racism--which obviously did exist-- than to realize that there is actually plenty of blame to go around--as he'd realize if he only read the article he himself started with.



Also, he was going to give us the specific source he has that when the Aleuts were removed from their homes, few ever saw them again. From my reading, that appears to be true, but not because they died before they saw them again, but because the homes often destroyed, sometimes to keep them from Japanese use.   

In fact some Aleuts were captured by Japanese and taken to Japan.   He also, with his perfect 20/20 hindsight-- as the wonderful armchair general he is-- wants to tell us the removal by the US was not necessary at all. In 1942 this was far from clear, and as I noted earlier, a serious military campaign was carried out by the Japanese in the Aleutians.   "In 1942 during World War II, Japanese forces occupied Attu and Kiska Islands in the Western Aleutians and later transported captive Attu Islanders to Hokkaido, where they were held as prisoners of war." Perhaps he'd like to tell us about the Japanese compensation plan for these POWs.

Added to that, as I noted earlier, the campaign in the eastern Aleutians resulted (per Wiki) in at least 3,929 US casualties and 2,300 Japanese dead.

It's not at all clear--and certainly wasn't in 1942--that the Aleuts could have stayed in their homes unmolested.   Perhaps it has slipped the poster's mind that there actually was a rather serious war going on.

Lots more to say, but, again, no more time.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 08:18 PM

Nothing is known of the black people in Bristol.

A lot is known, just not known by whoever you happened to be reading - black history is a big deal in Bristol, there have been many publications and the local museums cover it.

Glasgow does much less well. It didn't have a big role in the slave trade itself, but its entrepreneurs (the guys the streets are named after) profited by the trade in slave-produced sugar and tobacco. And there isn't much locally on show to demonstrate that.

The slave economy was disastrous for the working class in Scotland. Caribbean sugar gradually came to replace domestically-grown starch crops as a source of dietary carbohydrate. This both put much of the agricultural sector out of work (leading to the Lowland Clearances, which were on a much larger scale than the better-known Highland ones) and meant that the Scots led the world in adopting a junk food diet, with horrendous results for public health which have lasted to the present day. And Virginia tobacco finished off what made-in-Jamaica nutrient deficiencies, diabetes, alcoholism and dental caries started.

Probably the city that made most money out of the slave trade was Boston (no, not the one in Lincolnshire). Do they commemorate their specific part in it at all?

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM

This is a rather long post from the introduction to the book, "Blood for Dignity" by David P Colley:


"In early March, 1945, more than 2,000 African American infantrymen entered the front lines in Germany to fight alongside white soldiers in infantry and armored divisions engaged in the final battles of World War II in Europe. Today black combat troops go unnoticed in an American army that has been integrated since the 1950s.
But in 1945 the appearance of these black volunteers in all-white fighting units was a radical departure from military practices dating back to the birth of the nation. For 162 years, from the end of the Revolution in 1783, until the last three months of World War II, blacks served principally in service units and the few who fought were relegated to segregated combat units. The psychological impact of this exclusion on black men was profound. They were deprived of the fundamental right to be men among men.
In the closing months of World War II the army took the first meaningful steps to integrate its combat units by calling for black volunteers and assigning them to various divisions in the European Theater. The high command originally planned to integrate the black infantrymen individually with whites, but, because of feared political repercussions, stemming from long-standing policies of segregation, they were formed into all-black platoons that were integrated into white infantry companies. In March 1945, the first of 52 platoons, comprised of about 50 men each, went into action along the Rhine as the allies began their final push to defeat Nazi Germany.
American military doctrine had long held that blacks were inferior fighters who fled under fire, and who lacked the intelligence, reliability and courage of whites. The combat record of the black platoons in March, April and May 1945, dispelled this notion. The majority of black troops who fought in the integrated infantry and armored companies did so with an élan and courage that deeply impressed their white superiors and comrades. In some cases white officers regarded the black infantrymen as superior fighters to whites. One former white soldier who fought alongside blacks in K Company, 394th Infantry Regiment, 99th Division, characterized these African-American warriors as "courageous to the point of foolishness." He was not alone in his observations. A white officer saw them as more aggressive than whites in combat, more willing to kill or be killed.
After the war the army conducted a study of the performance of the black volunteers entitled "The Utilization of Black Platoons in White Companies." In interviews with 1,700 white soldiers, including eighty-four percent of the platoons' officers, those queried said the blacks had performed "very well." There was not one instance in which the performance of black troops was rated as poor.
Another surprising aspect of this post-war study was that the color line and racial enmity that had existed between whites and blacks in civilian life, and much of army life during World War II, disappeared at the front. Relations between whites and blacks in combat units were judged to be "excellent." By war's end many of the white infantrymen and officers who served with blacks "endorsed the idea of having colored soldiers used as infantry troops."
After VE Day, however, segregation once again prevailed in the American army. Most of the black volunteers were separated from their infantry and armored divisions and returned to segregated service units prior to being shipped home. In at least two cases black volunteers mutinied and demanded that they be allowed to remain with their infantry units. One incident required the intervention of Brig. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis, America's first black general, to defuse the crisis.
The pressure for equality in American life following World War II proved irresistible and, in 1948, President Harry S. Truman ordered the integration of the armed forces. It would be a number of years before Truman's executive order was fully implemented, but the American army, particularly its combat formations, became fully integrated by the mid-1950s. Integration in army combat units began in earnest during the Korean War. Ironically, during the Viet Nam War there were complaints of disproportionate numbers of blacks in the infantry.
It is hard to quantify the impact of the black platoons on the later integration of the American army. Did it speed the process of integration in the military and later in civilian life? Many of the black platoon members believe their service helped the cause of racial equality. Post-war commissions studying the problems of segregation in the military looked to the black platoons as examples of how integration had worked in the U.S. Army.
Blood for Dignity is the first chronicle of the black platoons told mostly by surviving members of 5th Platoon, K Company, 394th Infantry Regiment, 99th Infantry Division. The story of the "5th of K" is supplemented by accounts of black platoon members in the two additional regiments of the 99th, and in other combat divisions. The 5th of K went into the line on March 12, 1945, and was put to the test in its first hours of combat. The platoon was engaged in both heavy combat and in mopping up operations in the final months of the war.
While focused mostly on three months of combat, the story of the men of the 5th of K transcends war. It also relates the story of their courage and determination to achieve success and acceptance before and after World War II. Platoon members began life in a segregated culture that relegated them to the status of second class citizens. Through the post-war years they struggled and persevered and today many are successful and aging warriors of the Great Crusade. Above all they are proud African Americans.
This is the story of the men of the black platoons, mostly in war, but also in peace."

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 06:50 PM

Penny S.,

What is your reference for saying about adult baptism of blacks, "Meanwhile American states were banning such baptisms"? Having read somewhat in American history and in American anti-paedobaptist literature, I was shocked by that. I've never read of such a thing, and am very interested to follow up.

Thanks in advance,

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 11:40 AM

I've been chasing up what happened to free black people in Georgian England. Very little came up, except that feeling against slavery was particularly noticeable in London, where there was a largish community, so I can exclude London from bell ringing. They were more likely to intervene to prevent "slaves" being subject to extraordinary rendition. (Notes on an exhibition in the Guildhall - most interesting bit a possible link between high numbers of adult baptisms and freed black people. Meanwhile American states were banning such baptisms.)

Bristol and Liverpool were more likely to be anti-abolition. Nothing is known of the black people in Bristol. There is a rather negative paragraph which suggests that any intercourse was between sailors and local women and marriage would not be acceptable in polite society, so the community faded away. Or assimilated at a below polite level, I suppose. Family history research is not going to show up any of these people as their origins were not asked for for official documents.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 11:14 AM

Jack Campin did not make it clear enough in his first post that it was French 'colored' troops who were short-gloried.

The BBC made the point clearly enough for me - Black Frenchmen were left out on the orders of the US top brass.

I might have been more explicit about something else I had in mind: the US military claimed at the time that their policies on race were simply fitting in with norms of the time, that it was not their role to be socially proactive. That was a lie. They were attempting to impose social change. Both in the way they they tried to manage relations between Black GIs and the host population in the UK, and in this piece of PR in France, they were strongarming their allies into adopting reactionary American racial policies that both Britain and France had left behind 150 years before.

And it seems like they succeeded extremely well in one respect: the songs of the Black servicemen of all the Allied nations have been erased from history even more effectively than the culture the slaves carried with them from Africa. There simply must have been responses in song and poetry to being dragged though hell on earth while being treated like garbage. where did they all go?

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

I notice that only the cities I cited have come back to me. I expect that those who quote details can supply them - I didn't find any.

On the other side, I do suspect that any bell ringer with access to the tower could do some ringing if they wanted without being paid. Whether they did or not remains to be shown.

What I do remember from a radio programs brief mention of the period is that black people here were seen as part of the servant class, and on being freed married into it. So no problems there with racism. I'll look up that as well.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 02:20 AM

THAT was a post an a half, Robomatic. Beautifully said.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 10:03 PM

"When I was young I spoke as a child...but when I became a man I put away childish things..." oh really?

When I was in elementary school I was given the short story of the American Revolution, our great George Washington, the Battle of Bunker Hill. It wasn't real history, but it was a start. It was directed at my level of understanding.

I grew a little older. I learned that Washington could be deemed a war criminal when early in his career his Indian allies slew a French captive uncer his command, also a slave holder (along with Jefferson).

There's a third stage, the resolution of the glorious heroes of old with their limitations of environment and humanity. I now admire George Washington all the more because of his tremendous fortitude in the long War of Independence and especially the peace that followed, for his surrendering his mantle of Presidential office when he could have been a king, and on his death his freeing of his slaves, which Jefferson did not emulate.

As for the thread, Jack Campin' did not make it clear enough in his first post that it was French 'colored' troops who were short-gloried. American troops of WWII were not for the most part integrated although black troops did serve in combat conditions (I think in the book "The Painted Bird" which is quasi biographical, the main character's first meeting an American is a black sergeant from a tank, who rescues him)

I think it would have occurred to some folks that having non-white troops marching in victory over Nazism might have made a valuable point. Unfortunately such folks did not win their point.

Americans serving in the Pacific Islands were often horrified by the French plantation owners treatment of the non-white natives. In the book "Tales of the South Pacific" by Michener, he makes this point, that an enlightened American general he worked with promoted many unique individuals and gave them positions of responsibility. In the main action of the book, the taking of a Japanese held island, this man is killed, and his replacement is not so enlightened, a lot of the mavericks who starred in the war effort were limited in their advancements. Nevertheless, one of the main themes of these stories, and the central theme of the famous Broadway musical that was derived from this book, was a mature grappling with Americans and their attitudes about race. One of the main characters is an American Lieutenant who is in love with a Polynesian girl but he can't take her home. He is conscious of his love and of his prejudice; he can't resolve them. He sings a brilliant song "You've Got To Be Taught" that lasts all of 90 seconds while it summarizes the entire message. Another character is a young nurse who falls in love with a Frenchmen with mixed race children. She has similar feelings, but she resolves them after a lot of turmoil.

In short, I think America's confrontation with race and racism is one of the main themes of our existence, and has been with us since the beginning, and cannot be summarized by the event of one march through Paris. It is a multi-front engagement of ideas and ideals with many battles, many advances and a few retreats.

It involves every American to this day, and it ain't over.

                        - - - - - - - - - -
I got to visit Oahu, Hawaii about 12 years ago and one of my fondest memories was getting on the small boat that the U S Navy provides to visit the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor. I sat with Japanese and German tourists, and the boat was commanded and operated by a young black female Ensign. The War in a nutshell. American in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:01 AM

Somewhat relevant to this thread as it's drifted. The social position of ex-slaves in 18th century Scotland: Scipio Kennedy.

Wendy Arrowsmith (Mrs Banjiman on Mudcat) thinks she might be descended from him. Her astonishing jet-black ringlets are, as she says, hard to explain without a bit of genetic input from somewhere a lot further south than Scotland. She has a brilliant song about him.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 09:48 AM

Ron Davies appears to have no idea that the ideology of a people and that of their ruling class might be at variance.

I was talking about racism, or the lack of it, in popular culture. I don't give a flying fuck what "the British", construed as meaning the parasite class and their tame government, might have thought about it. (We already know - their ideals were whatever lined their pockets, just as they were in the US).

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:47 AM

"end in 1807."

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:44 AM

Bell ringing".   Try Liverpool, Bristol, and some others. And "it was just the rich" won't cut it. If you don't think sailors, rope-makers and others endorsed this, please do some more research.

And British support of slavery did not end in 1809.   Ever heard of the "Alabama", the Trent Affair, etc?   It also seems clear one of the main goals of the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed no slaves immediately, was to minimize any chance the UK might come in on the side of the South.

As I said, no more time now, but I'll be back at some point with more.

Economics plays a huge role.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 05:44 AM

the bells in various English cities ringing in relief when a bill to abolish the slave trade was defeated--after the 1770's.

Only the rich can get church bells ringing. Of course a large fraction of the British elite profited from the slave trade. Most of the streets in the centre of Glasgow are named after people who made their money that way (in case you hadn't noticed, Georgian street names were not decided by democratic vote).

That doesn't say a damn thing about the social attitudes of the vast majority of the British people, who had no stake whatever in the slave trade and often saw their own class interests as aligned with those of the slaves (see Marcus Rediker's recent book - Rediker is a rather more trustworthy source than a Tory plonker like Thomas, whose uninspiring book I have upstairs somewhere; I gave up on it fairly early on as it was telling me nothing I didn't already know, and for the period I was interested in, was telling me nothing at all).

Certainly by the 1940s, the whole idea of treating Black people as second-class citizens was something you would only EVER hear in the UK (outside elite circles) from visiting South Africans, Australians and Americans, of whom only the Americans had any influence. Even Mosley's Fascists didn't make an issue of it.

Look at "The Petition of the Sharks of Africa" on my website. That anti-slavery polemic from 1792 inspired a humungous riot (on the King's Birthday) in which the Edinburgh mob attempted to burn down the house of the man seen as central to the continuance of the slave trade. They very nearly succeeded. With better weapons they would have overthrown the administration of Scotland over the issue.

I take it you still haven't remembered any delta blues songs about WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 05:20 AM

I've been trying to find references to the bell ringing, but can't set up a sensible search term (no doubts about the facts - last night I couldn't find something in Plato for ages despite what looked like good terms) so would welcome a bit of help with it. I expect Liverpool, London and Bristol to be involved, but not so much in other places.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:55 AM

In 1772 Lord Mansfield ruled that English law did not allow slavery, meaning that a slave became free on entering English territory, and could not be sent overseas into bondage. It would require an act of Parliament to establish legality for slavery. The Act of abolition of the slave trade was enacted in 1807. But to postulate the 1770s is not entirely drivel, because of the Mansfield judgement.

Bell ringing need not reflect the public feeling, need it? As boycotting sugar need not, either.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:07 PM

Hey, ya'll Google "Petersburg, Civil War" of the "Battle of the Creater" and check that stuff out... This was one of the wierdest battles in the Civil War (which is wasn't) where the Union had blown a big hole up in front of well fortified Southern troops and Union soldiers were going to try to invade these well positioned Southerners by climbing down into this hole...

Hmmmmmmmm???

So the 1st plan was for black Union soldiers to do the first assualt until the Union figured out that the first wave was going to be slaughtered...

Now that wouldn't look too good for an army that was supposed to be fighting to free black slaves so white folsk were ordered into the hole and were slaughtered... Kinda an 1864 political correctness thing, I guess...

Some things never seem to change...

"Well, Ralph, if were gonna do somethin' stupid why not do it with good ol' white folks???"

Well, well, well...

What the heck kinda discrimination is this???

Nevermind...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 08:47 PM

"owning slaves in Britain was made illegal long before the slave trade was abolished (officially in the 1770's...)"

The drivel content of that last post is amazingly high.    I recommend the poster actually do some research before sounding off again, lest he have even more words to eat.

Otherwise I'll be glad to straighten him out in a few days--if others don't do it first.   I don't have the time to waste right now.

I recommend a book called The Slave Trade, by Hugh Thomas, to start with. Please don't miss the bells in various English cities ringing in relief when a bill to abolish the slave trade was defeated--after the 1770's.

So sorry that I, a mere colonial, have to play this role.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 08:00 AM

The point is that there was essentially NO racism directed against Black people living in Britain until after WW2. There had been a resident Black population, mainly in southern England, since around 1500, but there had never been anything remotely resembling segregation. Britain did run a large part of the slave trade, but it left Black residents of the UK unaffected. The US white GIs were the first examples most British people would ever have seen of anyone insisting that Black people should not have the same rights as themselves.

Remember that owning slaves was made illegal in Britain long before the slave trade itself was abolished (officially in the 1770s, de facto decades earlier) and there was never any Black slave economy in Britain - a few domestic servants, that was all. (There was, however a white slave economy - coal miners were serfs until 1799 in Scotland, and Thatcher's treatment of the miners was simply the slaveholder mentality in a different sphere).

The situation would inevitably have changed in the post-Empire-Windrush era, but certainly wouldn't have got as bad without the infection of American racist ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 08:53 PM

One must say a suggestion the English had to be taught racism by Americans is . . . novel. Intriguing, really, and worthy of examination.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:24 PM

My interest is setting the historical record straight. I have very little to contribute musically, and am in awe of the musical knowledge here.. Accurate history, however, is obviously a minor consideration for an amazing number of Mudcatters whose dial is always set on "outrage"--and don't want to trouble themselves to actually learn anything.

No particular Catter meant, of course. Perish the thought.



I ran across something wonderfully apropos recently.

Some people mistake ideology for thought.

Sorry, there is a difference.

Perhaps someday even some left of center Mudcatters--not all, some already recognize it--will learn this. Of course some right of center posters need to learn it also. And then there are the just confused--like the ones who want to attribute all the world's ills to--Mexicans, religion, "affirmative action", etc.--you pick the villain du jour.

But a simplistic approach to history serves no one.

Subject: RE: BS: WW2 made whites-only
From: Jack Campin
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 06:35 PM

I take it Ron Davies doesn't know any delta blues songs about WW2 either.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Penny S.
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:18 AM

Link to Listen Again

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 - 06:05 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