View Full Version : Whites only
Tribesman
09-01-2009, 19:17
An interesting snippet, I don't know if has been posted before...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm
Bad stuff isn't it.
Rhyfelwyr
09-01-2009, 19:27
Yeah, that's pretty sad, but who here would argue in favour of such a decision? :shrug:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-01-2009, 19:28
Disgusting, I'd like to write something about British diplomacy in the face of an uncivilised American Leadership, but to be honest I expect the British were "not bothered" at best.
Adrian II
09-01-2009, 19:29
Ouch. Just.. ouch.
:shame:
HoreTore
09-01-2009, 19:34
Shameful.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-01-2009, 19:37
I've seen that before. Shameful, but not altogether surprising that they did it considering the appalling treatment blacks were given in the Allied armies.
Disgusting, I'd like to write something about British diplomacy in the face of an uncivilised American Leadership, but to be honest I expect the British were "not bothered" at best.
From what I understand the British weren't willing to get into fights over it. They just told any non-white officer (and in WW2 there wouldn't have been too many of them) or NCO that they would not be welcome in a US mess. And to try and be sensitve to US officers who might have a problem with a non-white officer in a British mess, but not throw the non-white out. Ignore the racism for the good of the alliance basically. Besides it's not like the British Indian Army wasn't white officers leading brown squadies. In most cases.
And from other things I've read about segregation in the US military. Walter Bedell Smith was one of it's biggest proponents. Big time rascist that guy.
InsaneApache
09-01-2009, 20:30
The better question would be what the hell where those coloured troops were doing in Europe in the first place.
Just a thought.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-01-2009, 20:47
From what I understand the British weren't willing to get into fights over it. They just told any non-white officer (and in WW2 there wouldn't have been too many of them) or NCO that they would not be welcome in a US mess. And to try and be sensitve to US officers who might have a problem with a non-white officer in a British mess, but not throw the non-white out. Ignore the racism for the good of the alliance basically. Besides it's not like the British Indian Army wasn't white officers leading brown squadies. In most cases.
And from other things I've read about segregation in the US military. Walter Bedell Smith was one of it's biggest proponents. Big time rascist that guy.
I have a personal belief that the (comparative) lack of racism in the British Forces had to do with being under a King, and the belief that anyone outside the Home Counties was uncivilised.
Not so much a lack of prejudice as prejudice evenly applied.
Adrian II
09-01-2009, 20:51
The better question would be what the hell where those coloured troops were doing in Europe in the first place.
Just a thought.It may have had something to do with A. Hitler of 1 Voßstraße, Berlin. Just a suggestion.
Furunculus
09-01-2009, 21:05
From what I understand the British weren't willing to get into fights over it. They just told any non-white officer (and in WW2 there wouldn't have been too many of them) or NCO that they would not be welcome in a US mess. And to try and be sensitve to US officers who might have a problem with a non-white officer in a British mess, but not throw the non-white out. Ignore the racism for the good of the alliance basically. Besides it's not like the British Indian Army wasn't white officers leading brown squadies. In most cases.
And from other things I've read about segregation in the US military. Walter Bedell Smith was one of it's biggest proponents. Big time rascist that guy.
the british indian forces had an indian officer corp for quite some time, but basically you are right; don't make a fuss.
what is a greater shame to me then whitey french divisions marching into paris is that so few british people realise how many people from outside the UK fought in colonial forces against the axis.
~6.0m brits as well as ~5.1m colonials fought for 'queen-and-country' in WW2, and yet history has forgotten the latter group with the exception of the ANZACS.
I don’t know where the author took his knowledge but he should go back to his books:
The Allies never agreed with de Gaulle.
If yes, why the 2nd French Armoured Division, fully equipped, wasn’t employed during the D-Day? Why only a handful of French Navy Commando was use during the D-Day?
For political reason Churchill and Roosevelt decided to deprive de Gaulle to any political gain, so the French shouldn’t participate in any action de prestige.
Paris was liberated because a rebellion of the Parisians (and lead by Rol Tanguy, Communist) was in danger to be crashed by the Germans and it took a man like Patton who authorised Leclerc (who was under his command) to push forward.
By the way, the tirailleurs (from Tunisia, Chad and Gabon) who were part of the 2eme DB didn’t participate to the liberation of Paris. They were engaged in the Vosges, Franches Comté and Alsace then Germany and Austria.
Then after the liberation of Paris, they were stripped of their uniforms and sent back home? Er, in 1944, August, the war wasn’t over. :beam:
So who fought in December 1944 in Strasbourg? And as said before they were in the run to Germany…
In fact the Tirailleurs were in the 1st Army (Operation Anvil) fighting in the south of France…
:book:
Furunculus
09-01-2009, 21:51
as for non whitey's in the british army i submit the King's Commissioned Indian Officer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Commissioned_Indian_Officer
i even have a family photograph of my grandfather and great-grandfathers regiment in india which has an indian officer in the photograph.
and the indian army in WW1 and WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_divisions_in_World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II
Louis VI the Fat
09-01-2009, 23:09
what is a greater shame to me then whitey french divisions marching into paris is that so few british people realise how many people from outside the UK fought in colonial forces against the axis.I fully agree with Furunculus' sentiment above. Which serves to show why the EU is such a splendid institution for Europe and
...wait, conditioned reflex there. I mean:
France has not shown the coloured troops the respect they were due. For example, Félix Éboué was crucial for the development of the Free French in the colonies, for swaying Africa over to the camp of De Gaulle. Which led to such enormities as Black troops fighting white Vichy collaborators in Africa. And, almost as bad, after the war the former not receiving veteran pensions. :wall:
The British and American treatment of their coloured troops I shall leave for others to discuss. Save for bringing up the famous guidelines the Americans spread in WWI, warning the French citizenry not to mingle or seek contact with American Negro soldiers. :smash:
About the BBC article: Mike Thompson, the author, does not get it quite right*. Too many factual errors, too much pushing his story in the direction he wants it too. Thompson bases his article on the findings of Olivier Wieviorka, a French historian, who was apparantly not pleased with how it was presented on the BBC.
Perhaps the full program on the radio gives a better account, I don't know. It is easy for a difficult subject to get sensationalised a bit in an short article that serves to both give a quick, simplified account and to create a bit of controversy to draw listeners.
*Which I gather from sources written, alas, in French, which will not be conducive to further debate here. For example:
Link (http://www.39-45.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=20577&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=d821fd3507aa362c1275f74c53c6885a)
the british indian forces had an indian officer corp for quite some time, but basically you are right; don't make a fuss.
what is a greater shame to me then whitey french divisions marching into paris is that so few british people realise how many people from outside the UK fought in colonial forces against the axis.
~6.0m brits as well as ~5.1m colonials fought for 'queen-and-country' in WW2, and yet history has forgotten the latter group with the exception of the ANZACS.
Well Canada and the other dominions armies weren't colonial forces, we dominions were independant nations by that time, mostly. And that flumuxed Monty to no end. So calling us colonials is a misnomer. :2thumbsup:
May I suggest this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Glory_(2006_film))?
I quite liked it and it definitely deals exactly with what this topic is about.
Kadagar_AV
09-02-2009, 00:06
Well, even today in Sweden immigrants are very very rare in the elite regiments.
The psychologists doing the tests often rule them out as not being disciplined enough. If this is right or not I don't know... I can't believe all immigrants are undisciplined, but then again I understand that the army generally want elite soldiers with, say, a hockey background rather than a criminal background.
I'm not saying all immigrants are criminals, just that they statisticly are over represented... However, this STILL dont quite explain the low number of immigrants in the elite regiments.
That link only serves to highlight how but I am with Metropolitan French. :no:
the british indian forces had an indian officer corp for quite some time, but basically you are right; don't make a fuss.
what is a greater shame to me then whitey french divisions marching into paris is that so few british people realise how many people from outside the UK fought in colonial forces against the axis.
~6.0m brits as well as ~5.1m colonials fought for 'queen-and-country' in WW2, and yet history has forgotten the latter group with the exception of the ANZACS.
Well Canada and the other dominions armies weren't colonial forces, we dominions were independant nations by that time, mostly. And that flumuxed Monty to no end. So calling us colonials is a misnomer. :2thumbsup:
Tribesman
09-02-2009, 00:29
From what I understand the British weren't willing to get into fights over it. They just told any non-white officer (and in WW2 there wouldn't have been too many of them) or NCO that they would not be welcome in a US mess. And to try and be sensitve to US officers who might have a problem with a non-white officer in a British mess, but not throw the non-white out. Ignore the racism for the good of the alliance basically.
Not really, When General Hawes was expectimng his first batch of Black troops to his command in britain he asked for Britain to enforce segregation, they told him to get stuffed.
Sir James Grigg did support segregation but he too was told to get stuffed.
The British home office issued a decree that any attempts to enforce segragation by the US authorities in Britain would result in a withdrawel of co-operation.
It didn't stop some politicians like the conservative Maurice Petherick suggesting that all Black troops should be sent to Italy to fertilise the Italians as the Italians were used to it anyhow, but hey he was just a small town Tory and they never really change do they.
Adrian II
09-02-2009, 00:37
Well, even today in Sweden immigrants are very very rare in the elite regiments.Fine. So what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the black French troops were immigrants (which they weren't) or that they really don't deserve posthumous mentioning, even though they contributed to your freedom, because, well, because certain minorities rarely make it into certain Swedish units? Excuse my 1337 speak, but wtf?
That's what I said. They were going to ignore it. They'd let the US do what they wanted on their bases. Off said bases it was Britains way, but try and get along.
Tribesman
09-02-2009, 00:44
Fine. So what has that got to do with anything?
Look at it this way Adrian , they found they had that problem across the water .
Segments of the population were completely unrepresented in many regiments, notably the British Guards regiments.
They did an investigation into it and found it was due to what they termed institutionalised racism within those organisations.
Adrian II
09-02-2009, 01:03
Look at it this way Adrian , they found they had that problem across the water .
Segments of the population were completely unrepresented in many regiments, notably the British Guards regiments.
They did an investigation into it and found it was due to what they termed institutionalised racism within those organisations.Very well, I'll look at it your way - if only I can find my darn glasses... :brood:
I mean, that post just didn't smell right in this context, like when a dog craps under the table during a dinner party..
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-02-2009, 01:23
However, this STILL dont quite explain the low number of immigrants in the elite regiments.
Well, a combination of factors does. You need citizenship - recent immigrants often don't have it. You need to want to serve the country - if you still have a connection to the old country, you may not want to fight for the new one. You might have a business - do you want to give that up to join the military?
Papewaio
09-02-2009, 01:30
Would we agree that the British SAS might be just classified as a quasi-pseudo-elite formation?
How many of them are sourced from outside of Britain? Say Fiji?
Any Nepalese in Sweden?
Tribesman
09-02-2009, 01:36
Would we agree that the British SAS might be just classified as a quasi-pseudo-elite formation?
Institutionalised racism has never seemed to be an issue with that regiment, they select their soldiers on a strict basis of the individuals capabilities.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-02-2009, 01:41
Institutionalised racism has never seemed to be an issue with that regiment, they select their soldiers on a strict basis of the individuals capabilities.
Primarily their ability not to die during selection.
Look at it this way Adrian , they found they had that problem across the water .
Segments of the population were completely unrepresented in many regiments, notably the British Guards regiments.
They did an investigation into it and found it was due to what they termed institutionalised racism within those organisations.
Well, as I said, anyone outside the Home Counties...
I wonder if they checked the demographics of the Officers to try to see how many came from outside the Aristocracy and the Gentry.
KukriKhan
09-02-2009, 02:05
We (US) didn't fully integrate our armed forces until 1963, despite Executive Orders and DoD Directives to do so - an extremely regrettable delay given the sacrifices and contributions made since even before our Revolution. Shameful. :embarassed:
That the Brits & French followed the american lead during WWII - clearly racist in hindsight; seen as "accomodating sensitivities" at the time - is understandable, if less than forgiveable. IMO.
How do you make up for that? I guess you don't, except to restore pensions denied to the few remaining hundreds of survivors, and officially acknowledge service rendered honourably.
Fine. So what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the black French troops were immigrants (which they weren't) or that they really don't deserve posthumous mentioning, even though they contributed to your freedom, because, well, because certain minorities rarely make it into certain Swedish units? Excuse my 1337 speak, but wtf?
If I may enlighten you, I think he was trying to say that in some countries, in his example Sweden, the situation has not improved a whole lot. Not entirely on topic but certainly related.
Well, a combination of factors does. You need citizenship - recent immigrants often don't have it. You need to want to serve the country - if you still have a connection to the old country, you may not want to fight for the new one. You might have a business - do you want to give that up to join the military?
He said elite regiments, since when does elite regiments mean the army in general? :inquisitive:
I know there are some trends in that direction, like in the US the Rangers are elite, the airbornes are elite, the marines are elite, delta force are elite and the others call themselves mountain division or something to sound more elite. ~;)
Though the way I understand Kadagar he meant elite regiments as in a small and very well-trained minority which apparently has less immigrants(in %) than the normal army in Sweden.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-02-2009, 07:25
Though the way I understand Kadagar he meant elite regiments as in a small and very well-trained minority which apparently has less immigrants(in %) than the normal army in Sweden.
OK, fair enough. I'm sure there's still room to find an adequate reason for this before we immediately jump to racism.
Furunculus
09-02-2009, 07:49
Well Canada and the other dominions armies weren't colonial forces, we dominions were independent nations by that time, mostly. And that flumuxed Monty to no end. So calling us colonials is a misnomer. :2thumbsup:
whatever, there were still 5.1m non-brits fighting against the axis powers, and a great many of them weren't ANZACS.
in no way do i disregard or denigrate the sacrifice of the ANZACS, i merely note that history has forgotten the millions (?) of non-white troops f=who fought for britain in WW2.
Furunculus
09-02-2009, 07:51
That link only serves to highlight how but I am with Metropolitan French. :no:
Well Canada and the other dominions armies weren't colonial forces, we dominions were independant nations by that time, mostly. And that flumuxed Monty to no end. So calling us colonials is a misnomer. :2thumbsup:
^ see above ^
HoreTore
09-02-2009, 08:22
Well, even today in Sweden immigrants are very very rare in the elite regiments.
The psychologists doing the tests often rule them out as not being disciplined enough. If this is right or not I don't know... I can't believe all immigrants are undisciplined, but then again I understand that the army generally want elite soldiers with, say, a hockey background rather than a criminal background.
I'm not saying all immigrants are criminals, just that they statisticly are over represented... However, this STILL dont quite explain the low number of immigrants in the elite regiments.
Oh COME ON!
You still got your conscription, right?
Anyway, there are no soldiers with criminal backgrounds in our forces, Kadagar. If you have a record, you won't get security clearance, and without that you can't be a soldier. A guy in my platoon had to wait 2 months to get his clearance because he committed the horrible crime of riding a motorized bike(moped) at the age of 15. So... As the elite forces draws their recruits from the conscripts, a grand total of zero percent of the potential recruits are criminals.
The reason there are very few immigrants in our elite forces, is the same as the reason why there are so few in our regular forces. First of all, you need citizenship. That rules out everyone except those who are either born here or came here before the age of.... around 12. And that number of immigrants is quite low. Secondly, getting out of conscription is incredibly easy for someone with an immigrant background, all they need to say is "I don't really feel like a Swede", and they're off the hook, they don't need to invent a single medical condition.
Anyway, the only time I've seen "Swedish elite forces", was when I had to throw out a team of them when they were hiding in our showers after they were whupped by some latvians during Cold Response '06.
Vladimir
09-02-2009, 13:22
News Flash: Black Africans were bought and sold as slaves in the Americas. In related news, her majesty's government secures a monopoly of slave trade to the Americas.
Back to your regularly scheduled programing.
Yes, something similar was posted, both here and in the news, for the last 60 years. Thank you for resurrecting a dead topic. Is September White Guilt month? Can't we just roll it into February?
:dancinglock:
Well, even today in Sweden immigrants are very very rare in the elite regiments.
The psychologists doing the tests often rule them out as not being disciplined enough. If this is right or not I don't know... I can't believe all immigrants are undisciplined, but then again I understand that the army generally want elite soldiers with, say, a hockey background rather than a criminal background.
I'm not saying all immigrants are criminals, just that they statistically are over represented... However, this STILL don't quite explain the low number of immigrants in the elite regiments.
I don't believe the undisciplined angle.
From experience I know that some immigrant soldiers wanting to do elite training or officer training was dropped from the course because they couldn't get sufficient security clearance.
As a Sergeant in the army you should know that you need a level 3 clearance (Secret/Hemmelig) to become a leader or elite force soldier.
My friend from boot camp, a Vietnamese kid, was one of the three including me to be handpicked from our troop to do non-commissioned officer training (to become petty officers). He did really well until one day he was told to drop the course because they couldn't give him a security clearance.
As an elite soldier or non-commissioned officer (eg. Sergeant) you get to handle NATO secret stuff like communication equipment classified with Secret. It was a big disappointment for him. I remember that most if not all the "coloured" kids had to drop out because of this.
Apparently the Government had doubts that their Secret stuff would stay secret in the hands of these second/third generation immigrant kids. :no:
I guess the reason was that they "originated" from Nations which are not NATO allies.
EDIT: I guess I should read page 2 before posting. HoreTore got there first.
Strike For The South
09-02-2009, 15:16
Shameful but not surprising at all. Not to mention this is poltury compared to what the US did on the home front.
Tribesman
09-02-2009, 15:26
In related news, her majesty's government secures a monopoly of slave trade to the Americas.
wow , you know a lot about history don't you:dizzy2:
For starters it was His Majesty, then the commonwealth, then his majesty and again his majesty. Secondly it wasn't a monopoly of the slave trade to the Americas
Thirdly it wasn't his majesties government that got it.
Is September White Guilt month?
No, apparently its the month for people who are ignorant of history.
News Flash: Black Africans were bought and sold as slaves in the Americas. In related news, her majesty's government secures a monopoly of slave trade to the Americas.
Back to your regularly scheduled programing.
Yes, something similar was posted, both here and in the news, for the last 60 years. Thank you for resurrecting a dead topic. Is September White Guilt month? Can't we just roll it into February?
:dancinglock:
Don't you just love the Russians? It's like the 20th century never happened :rolleyes:
Vladimir
09-02-2009, 16:06
wow , you know a lot about history don't you:dizzy2:
For starters it was His Majesty, then the commonwealth, then his majesty and again his majesty. Secondly it wasn't a monopoly of the slave trade to the Americas
Thirdly it wasn't his majesties government that got it.
No, apparently its the month for people who are ignorant of history.
Tribesman bait.
Yea, I believe it was the whole Jenkin's ear affair where England negotiated control of the slave trade as a condition of peace. Oh, and once again, watch out for the other trees.
Louis VI the Fat
09-02-2009, 16:20
We (US) didn't fully integrate our armed forces until 1963, despite Executive Orders and DoD Directives to do so - an extremely regrettable delay given the sacrifices and contributions made since even before our Revolution. Shameful. :embarassed:
That the Brits & French followed the american lead during WWII - clearly racist in hindsight; seen as "accomodating sensitivities" at the time - is understandable, if less than forgiveable. IMO.Part of the French criticism I quoted is that the article places the blame all too easily on the Americans. According to the article, the French troops were mixed, were then ordered by the Americans to parade whites only, to which the British grudgingly agreed.
While the criticism on the Americans is fair enough, the article is, however, too easy on the British and the French. Colonial powers, lest the author forgot.
What's interesting is that the Americans mainly had an issue with Black troops. With their own Blacks, and with the role Blacks played in the French forces.
Black African troops were much less of a problem to the French. The Senegalese in particular were popular. Always the most loyal colonials. Seeing the Senegalese troops in France was a comforting sight to French, and uncomfortable to the Americans.
Apart from that, France had many issues with all sorts of non-metropolitan troops. (That is, troops not from mainland, European France). For example, De Gaulle spread and mixed the North Africans over many regiments, with an eye firmly at the period after the war. 'No Muslim regiments, please'. Racism was rampant, institutionalised, and lay at the very foundation of the organisation of the French forces. It didn't take the Americans for France to be unfair on her indigenous troops.
Segregation was American racism. Non-segregation was French racism. Do not mistake 'mixed' French regiments for a sign of less racism. It was meant to keep the indigenous under control.
Edit. Oh, the article does overestimate the importance of colonial troops a bit.
Tribesman
09-02-2009, 16:33
Yea, I believe it was the whole Jenkin's ear affair where England negotiated control of the slave trade as a condition of peace.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
apparently its the month for people who are ignorant of history.
A whole month especially for you , ain't you lucky
Vladimir
09-02-2009, 17:08
Hmm, tasty (http://ticklemykittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/spam.jpg). Once again, par for the course.
Hosakawa Tito
09-02-2009, 18:11
While we're in self-flagellation mode let us not forget this one. Straight whites only (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/01/alan.turing.petition/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn).
This is the first I've heard this story and am speechless....
HoreTore
09-02-2009, 20:36
While we're in self-flagellation mode let us not forget this one. Straight whites only (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/01/alan.turing.petition/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn).
This is the first I've heard this story and am speechless....
Self-flagellation? Excuse me?
I am no racist, and I would never have done anything like this. Why is it "hating myself" when I ridicule my countrymen? What have they got to do with me except being born closer to me than other people?
Kadagar_AV
09-03-2009, 00:02
While we're in self-flagellation mode let us not forget this one. Straight whites only (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/01/alan.turing.petition/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn).
This is the first I've heard this story and am speechless....
DISGUSTING!!!
Sometimes i want to travel back in time to beat people up...
Self-flagellation? Excuse me?
I am no racist, and I would never have done anything like this. Why is it "hating myself" when I ridicule my countrymen? What have they got to do with me except being born closer to me than other people?
One could say that it is assumed that you and your countrymen/the people in the article are of the same race ("white people race" being the scientific term) and thus by saying what they did wrong you flagellate members of your own race which would mean that all the racists will have a lower opinion of you.
In other words, what comes around goes around, yin and yang or I take my goat.
HoreTore
09-03-2009, 09:11
One could say that it is assumed that you and your countrymen/the people in the article are of the same race ("white people race" being the scientific term) and thus by saying what they did wrong you flagellate members of your own race which would mean that all the racists will have a lower opinion of you.
In other words, what comes around goes around, yin and yang or I take my goat.
So... All the people who say that I'm a "self-hater" or whatever when I ridicule my idiot countrymen are racists?
Hmmm....
So... All the people who say that I'm a "self-hater" or whatever when I ridicule my idiot countrymen are racists?
Hmmm....
1) You (white guy) criticize another white guy based on his acts. -> critique based on individual behavior -> individualist
2) Person A says white guys always criticize themselves. -> stereotyping based on race -> racist
You gotta wonder how person A got to 2 based on the individual thinking presented in 1. :inquisitive:
By the way, I don't think Hosa or most others here are really racist in any bad sense of the word, I just wanted to present my thoughts on this. ~D
KukriKhan
09-03-2009, 14:30
DISGUSTING!!!
Sometimes i want to travel back in time to beat people up...
Yeah. But isn't that partly the issue here? We're casting aspersions on decisions made 60+ years ago, before any of us were born. Decisions no one likely would ever make today. Did Gen. "Beetle" Smith don a white hood and burn crosses in front of Senegalese barracks? No. He excluded them from the photographed historical record of an event so it would look like one group of Europeans/white guys had defeated another group of Europeans/white guys, with no discernable help from non-Europeans.
A silly thing, in hindsight. But I've seen sillier: I've been in military parades that excluded anyone under 5 foot 5" tall, or over 6 foot 1", for the sake of some Sergeant Major's sense of uniformity, unit cohesion be-damned.
Adrian II
09-03-2009, 15:34
A silly thing, in hindsight.A disgusting thing, even at the time. It was overt, institutionalized racism. If you were truly detached from that day and age, you would have no qualms condemning it, would you? Why would you depict it as just a harmless fad?
In fact, while this was going on in France, the KKK were burning crosses and threatening blacks in the US. The reason they lost any standing with the American public (and were broken up by the IRS) around this time was not their racism, but the fact that they were against the war effort and that more than a few of them sympathised with nazi Germany.
Both the parade story and the Turing story remind us that it was only an amazingly short time ago that such abuses were politically and socially accepted - even among the victors of that war. In that short time we have come a long way.
KukriKhan
09-04-2009, 14:33
A disgusting thing, even at the time. It was overt, institutionalized racism. If you were truly detached from that day and age, you would have no qualms condemning it, would you?
I'm pretty sure I did, here, a couple days ago (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2326843&postcount=28).
Why would you depict it as just a harmless fad?
Wait. I see the problem. I used the word "silly" to describe the decision, instead of a stronger, more negative adjective. I agree; but I wanted to lead to the next sentence that would rely on "silly":
But I've seen sillier: I've been in military parades that excluded anyone under 5 foot 5" tall, or over 6 foot 1", for the sake of some Sergeant Major's sense of uniformity, unit cohesion be-damned.
to point up (and deride) the tendancy among career military men (like Gen Smith) to place appearance over substance. Which leads us to the observation that they betray their prejudices by making such decisions based on superficial factors. It's s similar symptom of High Commands that mark "success" as total body count, over actual achievement of objectives. That America's allies let him get away with it points up the dicey mili-political balance at the time, and has been explored by our esteemed Brit and French membership here.
If you and I were making that decision, of course the Senegalese would be included in the parade, right up front, along with the comabt soldiers of every description who'd done the suffering - and they'd march proudly in their war-torn mud-encrusted unforms, not spit-shined garrison outfits that look prettier.
... story(s) remind us that it was only an amazingly short time ago that such abuses were politically and socially accepted - even among the victors of that war. In that short time we have come a long way.
Amen.
Adrian II
09-04-2009, 15:21
If you and I were making that decision, of course the Senegalese would be included in the parade, right up front, along with the combat soldiers of every description who'd done the suffering - and they'd march proudly in their war-torn mud-encrusted unforms, not spit-shined garrison outfits that look prettier.I'm not sure about the latter part (um, in fact I disagree) but the meat is in the first part. Hell yeah.
The thing about the ironed uniforms and spit-polished boots, I think, is that they symbolize that the soldiers leave the suffering and the losses behind them, and that they are as fit, disciplined and in high spirits as ever.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.