PDA

View Full Version : Hispanics speak out over WWII documentry.



Lord Winter
04-10-2007, 06:22
Link (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1607980,00.html?cnn=yes)

A group of latin americans are in thier words "outraged" that a documentry about WWII dose not have one mexian subject. So what do Orgah's think? Do they have a reason. Or is it just a new hight of political correctness.

Personaly I think thier over reacting. I doubt the producer intentaly excluding any one from the film.

Lemur
04-10-2007, 06:39
Massive overreaction. It's a freaking PBS documentary, hardly worth getting exercised over. And do we really want documentary filmmakers looking over their shoulders to make sure they've hit their inclusiveness quota?

I'm sure someone will now make a film about the uniquely Hispanic experience of WWII, and everybody can go home wrapped up in a multi-culti blankie.

Husar
04-10-2007, 10:49
Mexicans were involved in WW2?:inquisitive:

Cronos Impera
04-10-2007, 11:22
I guess for PC we should also make a movie about WW2 Imperial Penguins...

Marshal Murat
04-10-2007, 11:47
If you have such a freaking problem with it, why take it out on PBS?
Or Ken Burns.
It's his work, he do what he wants! I'm not complaining because he didn't include enough Irish contribution, or Canadian-American, British-American, Native American (there are alot of those).

Adrian II
04-10-2007, 11:54
Massive overreaction. It's a freaking PBS documentary, hardly worth getting exercised over. And do we really want documentary filmmakers looking over their shoulders to make sure they've hit their inclusiveness quota?

I'm sure someone will now make a film about the uniquely Hispanic experience of WWII, and everybody can go home wrapped up in a multi-culti blankie.Well well, aren't we tired of being caught with our pants down all the time? How about buying a belt to keep them up, instead of dropping them all over the bloody place?

Of course many people are surprised to learn that Mexicans, other nations and all sorts of minorities fully participated in this war and enlisted in the U.S. armed forces at the time. Not just the Aztec Eagles, not just blacks and natives either, even Japanese who constituted the 442nd Infantry Regimental Combat Team which was among the most-decorated units in WWII and among the liberators of Dachau while their famlies were interned in camps in the States...

During the war, when people all across America needed to be mobilized, documentaries were often truly inclusive. December 7 by John Ford for instance contains an honour roll of the Pearl Harbor dead with pictures including the blacks and Hispanics. Only a handful of war-time films show blacks in fighting roles, however. Newsreels and documentaries made no reference to Indians in the war whatsoever, as if they were non-existent.

After the war non-whites were swiftly removed from the picture. For thirty years or more, nearly all American WWII documentaries and retrospectives were lily-white. Oh, they were infinitely inclusive: they included whites from all religions and creeds, whites from all social classes, educated whites as well as illiterate whites, Southern whites as well as Great Planes whites and Northern whites, big whites and small whites, old and young whites.

Now PBS is making a documentary based on the lives of 40 individuals, and not one of them is Latino. Oops. Caught once more with pants on our ankles, sorry, big misunderstanding, don't know what got into us, won't happen again.

I can perfectly understand that peope who have made it their life's work to record the war effort of Latinos feel a strong urge to vomit. Copiously.

Odin
04-10-2007, 12:50
My first instinct was to label it as a overreaction, but I guess my question is, is who is making the documentary? The article said it was a PBS project and PBS is a publically funded station.

If thats the case then i think the gripe is legit, because why shouldnt Latino americans be able to complain about it? Its thier tax money too, and they were participants in the war.

On the other hand if its a Ken burns project that he funded on his own privately then he should be able to make it anyway he wants, excluding whom ever he wants to.

KukriKhan
04-10-2007, 13:16
According to this Dec '05 article (http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/5787.html) he got funding on his own to produce the piece. The article also points out that he used Library of Congress materials for his project. If the LoC has no (or little) material about Latino contributions to WWII efforts, I'd be dismayed.

Burns has probably finished editing War. And although I think he has no obligation to do so, maybe he ought to look into some of the other sources of info suggested by the protesters. He could always make a 6th episode if he finds he missed some stuff.

Stig
04-10-2007, 13:21
Mexicans were involved in WW2?:inquisitive:
Weren't it the Mexicans who won at El Alamein?
Don't you remember how the Mexicans managed to beat back the Germans at Stalingrad?
Or the Mexicans storming 5 beaches during Operation Overlord?
How the Mexicans dropped 35,000 paratroopers in Holland?
Or how they managed to beat back Jerry during the Battle of the Bulge?
And finally captured Berlin?


hah, the Mexicans will win:
https://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o10/las827/guywilliams14.jpg

Strike For The South
04-10-2007, 13:24
For the record there not mexican there American.

Adrian II
04-10-2007, 13:27
And finally captured Berlin?Russians. Black Mexican Russians captured Berlin.

KukriKhan
04-10-2007, 13:41
Mexicans were involved in WW2?:inquisitive:

They declared war on the Axis after a couple of their boats got sunk in the Gulf of Mexico. They hooked up with US military for training, and put together a squadron or 2 of fighter pilots, who saw action in the Pacific, near war's end.

link to more info from Uni Texas (http://utopia.utexas.edu/explore/latino/narratives/02PEREZ_GALLARDO.HTML)

Odin
04-10-2007, 13:46
They declared war on the Axis after a couple of their boats got sunk in the Gulf of Mexico. They hooked up with US military for training, and put together a squadron or 2 of fighter pilots, who saw action in the Pacific, near war's end.

If memory serves me correctly Mexico was the only nation to condem the Anchuluss with Austria, via the league of nations.

Adrian II
04-10-2007, 14:01
Read the darn article. It's not about Meskins, it is about Hispanic Americans. Yes indeed, they stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima and Normandy. A valiant lot, according to the U.S. Army:


About half a million Hispanics served during World War II. Gen. Douglas MacArthur called the Arizona National Guard's 158 th Infantry Regiment "Bushmasters," "One of the greatest fighting combat teams ever deployed for battle." The regiment was comprised of many Hispanic Soldiers. The Texas National Guard's 141 st Infantry Regiment, in which many Hispanic Soldiers served, fought in France and Italy for one year and suffered thousands of casualties. The entire list of mostly Hispanic units that were cited for valor in World War II would be several pages long. And, countless Hispanic Soldiers served in other integrated units that fought bravely, earning countless medals for valor and bringing victory for the United States and its allies in both the European and Pacific theaters of operation.

Link (http://www.army.mil/hispanicamericans/english/timeline/wwii.html)

KukriKhan
04-10-2007, 14:14
Yes, of course. Hispanic-Americans have served with distinction for generations. I was answering Husar's question specifically about Mexican citizens, though.

Adrian II
04-10-2007, 14:16
Yes, of course. Hispanic-Americans have served with distinction for generations. I was answering Husar's question specifically about Mexican citizens, though.I know, sorry about the unintended mix-up. I was answering the original poster (who got it wrong) and those who take his cue without even reading the article.

KukriKhan
04-10-2007, 14:25
Glad we cleared that up, then :bow:

One good thing about this thread having come up (whether folks agree with so-called 'Political Correctness' or not) is that once this documentary is shown, guys here will have the seed planted in the backs of their minds, to watch for omissions - or at least, I will. :)

Marshal Murat
04-10-2007, 21:38
I think the ability of Hispanic troops isn't questioned, but that same statement could be made about Hawaiians, Japanese, New Yorkers, Minnesotans, or some random Alaskans.

I haven't heard Polynesian outrage about no Hawaiian soldiers depicted. No Japanese anger. It's only news because the Hispanic people in America are try to get legalized, and this is adding flames to the fire.

I also love PBS, since it is the best channel ever. Don't be dissing PBS.

Soulforged
04-10-2007, 22:43
Mexicans were involved in WW2?:inquisitive:
That's why we call them that. Every country was involved in one way or another. Mine supported both sides with provisions and supplies, but remained neutral because Peron hated USA so much. My grandfather was on a recognizement force of brazilian pilots flying Africa.

PanzerJaeger
04-10-2007, 23:11
Maybe Burns didn't find any hispanics that were interesting enough to put in his documentary. It is quite easy to think of 100 heroes from that war that were not hispanic.

Why make the doc less interesting just to fill some sort of racial quota?

Strike For The South
04-10-2007, 23:52
I would like to point out the best mexican soldiers are from TEXAS. There must be something in our water we make everyone look good.

Sasaki Kojiro
04-11-2007, 02:18
If he had chosen 40 people from America at large and none of them were hispanic then we'd have to wonder.


The 14-hour film War, set to air in September, focuses on the lives of 40 Americans in four U.S. cities — Waterbury, Conn.; Mobile, Ala.; Luverne, Minn.; and Sacramento, Calif.

But were there many hispanic people living in those cities? How exactly was the hispanic "rich and unique"? Doesn't seem very clear cut to me, burns obviously isn't trying to pretend it was all whites.

Mooks
04-11-2007, 03:17
We are not going to tolerate this omission," said Antonio Morales of American GI Forum after a meeting with PBS officials.


Lol. They arent going to tolerate it people, prepare yourself. Seriosly, what are they going to do about? They cant do anything, theyre what you call "Race sensitive". Just ignore them.

Marshal Murat
04-11-2007, 03:45
I would hate for PBS to take a backlash. They have the best programming ever. Masterpiece Theater, Arthur, News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

Anyway, I think that Hawaiians should be outraged because they aren't mentioned. Nor Native Americans.

KafirChobee
04-11-2007, 06:10
There have been 37 Hispanic Medal of Honor recipeints. They fought for Texas independance - and it has been largely ignored. That they are once again being ignored in a documentary on WWII should really be of no surprise, but it is a shame.

I won't prejudge a documentary (especially from PBS), but if it does cover mostly Whites, a Japanese-American, and a Tuskegee airman - then maybe the Hispanics have a gripe. Though, as some have already pointed out, if one went purely on the wars' history from films - then it was purely a white american war.

America won it all on their own. If not for us Russia and Britan, would have fallen - except ... it ain't true.

Ask yourself, if someone made a documentary on WWII and downplayed or ignored Americas' role ... would you be upset?

[Have a Brit documentary series that does just that, but I've seen so many US ones that do the same .... what the hey. Saw a French one that showed how they really hadn't been occupied at all - lol]

Csargo
04-11-2007, 06:51
[Have a Brit documentary series that does just that, but I've seen so many US ones that do the same .... what the hey. Saw a French one that showed how they really hadn't been occupied at all - lol]

:shocked:

Adrian II
04-11-2007, 11:13
They cant do anything, theyre what you call "Race sensitive". Just ignore them.Isn't it amazing how quickly and efficiently white Americans have overcome their supremacy complex? After three hundred and fifty years of institutional racism on its soil, white America has magnanimously decided to forgive itself and it wants to hear no more about it. No Sir. It's only the non-whites who keep whining because they are 'race sensitive'.

Strike For The South
04-11-2007, 12:56
There have been 37 Hispanic Medal of Honor recipeints. They fought for Texas independance - and it has been largely ignored. That they are once again being ignored in a documentary on WWII should really be of no surprise, but it is a shame.


In elementray school there are four men you cover at the alamo. William Travis, Davy Crockett, James Bowie and Juan Seguin. The fact that so many people fought for Texas is noted at the alamo and there is a flag for every state and country that fought, including Mexico

Lemur
04-11-2007, 15:11
Isn't it amazing how quickly and efficiently white Americans have overcome their supremacy complex? After three hundred and fifty years of institutional racism on its soil, white America has magnanimously decided to forgive itself and it wants to hear no more about it. No Sir. It's only the non-whites who keep whining because they are 'race sensitive'.
In your hyper-sarcastic way, you've touched on a much bigger issue. A human being can only be responsible for his or her own actions. The vast majority of white Americans alive today have never owned slaves, never joined the Klan, never turned down a job applicant because of race, etc. I don't deny that there are still knuckle-dragging racists in the population, but they ain't exactly common.

Of course there's a four-hundred-plus year history of racism in the United States, and it's not as though Hispanics received the worst that could be dished out; save that distinction for the Native Americans, who were thoroughly and deliberately wiped off the face of the earth. Next would come black Americans, who received all the screwed-up heritage of three hundred years of legal slavery.

But what would you suggest current Americans do about it? What productive steps can/should the white majority take? Reparations? And should the Caucasian population cower and cringe more or less non-stop before anyone who plays the race card? Do the sins of the fathers permanently stain the sons?

I appreciate your Euro-superiority on this subject, and I realize the Dutch never did anything naughty to anyone during their colonial phase, but try to be productive, eh?

To be frank, I find the victim chic aesthetic of the race game to be unconducive for meaningful dialog.

Azi Tohak
04-11-2007, 17:37
Isn't it amazing how quickly and efficiently white Americans have overcome their supremacy complex? After three hundred and fifty years of institutional racism on its soil, white America has magnanimously decided to forgive itself and it wants to hear no more about it. No Sir. It's only the non-whites who keep whining because they are 'race sensitive'.

Isn't it amazing that Europe, after 2000 years of institutional racism against anyone and everyone not from their little piece of earth (tell me again the difference between a Frenchman and a Brit?) has become so wonderfully diverse and multi-cultural, it is incapable of assimiliating its own minorities?

I'm curious about what British documentaries or books say about their colonial troops (South Africans, Indians) helping in their wars. Seems to me that any brown person was kept in the rear while whitey did the fighting. Does that seem fair to you? Being European, aren't you, Adrian, culpable for this idiocy? Or did you decide you're not responsible?

Azi

Blodrast
04-11-2007, 18:59
Well, I dunno, I remember reading stuff where Brit troops were mentioned, and I remember references to both South Africans and Indians... as well as Aussies, NZers...
I don't remember about mexican troops.


Isn't it amazing that Europe, after 2000 years of institutional racism against anyone and everyone not from their little piece of earth (tell me again the difference between a Frenchman and a Brit?) has become so wonderfully diverse and multi-cultural, it is incapable of assimiliating its own minorities?

Not at all. I find it absolutely natural, precisely because, as you point out, you are going against mentalities that have been ingrained for thousands of years.
It's much easier to achieve something with a clean slate, than when you have to go against habits that have been the law of the land for thousands and thousands of years.
So, no, it's not amazing at all. If anything, I find it amazing that such good progress has been made in such a short time. :yes:

As for the differences between, say, a French and a Brit, I think they are best qualified to answer that question, but I am afraid you're underestimating the differences between the various groups/nationalities/regions in Europe. It is NOT like the US at all in that sense.
Why ? I'll tell you why, but you already pointed it out in your post, and so you already know the answer: because they've been different for thousands of years. It's not easy to simply dump all that history and backlog of culture, religion, social habits, philosophies, etc...
Small geographical areas, but huge differences from one region to the other. Yes, I know the US is not "all the same", but the differences are much less pronounced than in Europe - because there's been much less time for these differences to appear.
A person from California will have pretty much the same values as one from Florida, as one from the Midwest, as one from New England.
That does not hold true for an Irishman, an Italian, a Scandinavian, and a Bulgarian, for instance.

You're of course free to accept my statements or disagree with them.

Odin
04-11-2007, 19:12
In your hyper-sarcastic way, you've touched on a much bigger issue. A human being can only be responsible for his or her own actions. The vast majority of white Americans alive today have never owned slaves, never joined the Klan, never turned down a job applicant because of race, etc. I don't deny that there are still knuckle-dragging racists in the population, but they ain't exactly common.

Of course there's a four-hundred-plus year history of racism in the United States, and it's not as though Hispanics received the worst that could be dished out; save that distinction for the Native Americans, who were thoroughly and deliberately wiped off the face of the earth. Next would come black Americans, who received all the screwed-up heritage of three hundred years of legal slavery.

But what would you suggest current Americans do about it? What productive steps can/should the white majority take? Reparations? And should the Caucasian population cower and cringe more or less non-stop before anyone who plays the race card? Do the sins of the fathers permanently stain the sons?

I appreciate your Euro-superiority on this subject, and I realize the Dutch never did anything naughty to anyone during their colonial phase, but try to be productive, eh?

To be frank, I find the victim chic aesthetic of the race game to be unconducive for meaningful dialog.

:2thumbsup:

Bravo, I wish I was able to be as eloquent in my rebuttal's to the seemingly non stop euro moral superiority/lets take a shot at american society reflected here in the backroom.

I am working on it though.

Azi Tohak
04-11-2007, 19:49
Blodrast, when did see that stuff about colonials, did you happen to notice what color the troops were?

Certainly I understand there are differences. Precious little super-nationlism to bind the whole polygot lot together. (Aside from bashing the USA, but I think everyone understands that already.) But the aversion to brown people still stands. For EVERY European country. Yes, and part of that is rather simple. We are more comfortable around people who look like us. Attacking the USA in particular for the same problems every country has (looking past the problems in its history) is enjoyable I'm sure, but also the very definition of hypocrite.

In this case condemning a very respected filmmaker for an oversight I am positive was unintended is preposterous. I was very much interested in WWII myself for a long time, and still remember a great deal. But aside from the Tuskegee Airmen, I never bothered to notice what color the Greatest Generation was. I do not remember even bothering to notice what color troops were in pictures, unless it was noted (e.g. Tuskegee Airmen). In a black and white photo, whites and mexicans look the same to me! Heck, you get both out here in the oilfield (or battlefield for them) for a month, and everyone looks the same anyway.

Azi

Blodrast
04-11-2007, 20:17
Blodrast, when did see that stuff about colonials, did you happen to notice what color the troops were?


Nonono, please read my post again. I said I *read* stuff. That's what I was referring to.
I did watch documentaries, too, but it never crossed my mind to pay attention to the color/race of the dudes, so I couldn't even tell you if they were all pink with green polka dots.

However, from the stuff I read, yes, I remember that the parts that all companies played were pretty much nation- and race-blind.

Also, I am afraid you're generalizing quite a bit there. I'll tell you that quite a few European countries don't have problems with brown (or black, or yellow, or whatever) people because there aren't any (or there are sooooo few of them, it's as if there weren't any).
Trust me on this one. Why aren't there any ? Because, especially in the Eastern Europe, up until quite recently, most of them were as desirable places to settle in as North Korea.
Naturally, this is not the case in Western Europe or parts of Scandinavia.
See, it's just like I said before, huge differences from one part to another, even though the geographical distances are relatively short (at least for North American standards).

Adrian II
04-11-2007, 21:35
In this case condemning a very respected filmmaker for an oversight I am positive was unintended is preposterous.Unintended omissions are still omissions, and omissions of this kind (many of the intentional variety) have been endemic to American documentaries about WWII. Correcting such mistakes has nothing to do with financial reparations to minorities, whitewashing European racism, Dutch superiority or any other unrelated nonsense mentioned by Lemur and others. It has to do with the recognition that the U.S. is indeed the inclusive nation it pretends to be.

As for the argument that today's white Americans are too young to have been guilty of racism or slavery, I would say they still have an obligation to recognize the consequences of those phenomena in today's society.

You can compare this to the obligation we have to someone who has lost his leg. You wouldn't be insensitive to such a man just because his handicap isn't your doing, would you? In a crowded bus, would you remain seated and tell the man "Look after yourself gramps, wudn't my fault you lost your leg" or would you stand up for him and give him your seat?

I think the answer is obvious.

In the same way, recognising Hispanic American soldiers whose contribution to your freedom and mine has long been ignored or belittled is the honourable thing to do. Instead, people in this thread rant off about Mexicans as if they were vermin. It's pathetic.

Sasaki Kojiro
04-11-2007, 22:07
Must every documentery on the war mention every single groups contribution? No. So is a documentery that leaves out a group (regardless of whether that group has always been left out) wrong? No. Should one protest that documentery? No. Should one instead spend ones energy creating a documentery that does explore the contributions of said group? Yes.

Adrian II
04-11-2007, 22:16
Must every documentery on the war mention every single groups contribution? No. Read the article again. This documentary is not just any documentary, is it a publicly funded documentary that purports to be inclusive and be the start of an 'unprecedented national community campaign'. Hence Rivas Rodriguez' comment:


"We can't continue to produce our own documentaries that only we watch," Rivas-Rodriguez said. "If a documentary purports to be an American experience we need to be in that."I keep hearing how Americans have such admiration for the Great Generation that saved the world for democracy. Some of you sure have a lousy way of showing it.

Marshal Murat
04-11-2007, 22:45
There was no spot for 'Hispanic' on forms for the military. It says in the Times article. How can you determine how Hispanic you are, or if anyone there is Hispanic or not, if the records don't admit 'Hispanics' into the group. The black and white picture says the soldiers are Latino, but I wouldn't think they were! They look like any other white American soldier in WW2.

Like I said, a bunch of hubub that wouldn't have made news, except for illegal immigration.

Guy Gabaldon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Gabaldon)

The Navy Cross Marine they mentioned? I would have thought he was a New Yorker just as easily as a Mexican-American.
Unless the person is marked 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' then how can you tell the difference? It's impossible.
It is publicly funded to be shown, but not really produced.

Tribesman
04-11-2007, 23:04
You can compare this to the obligation we have to someone who has lost his leg. You wouldn't be insensitive to such a man just because his handicap isn't your doing, would you? In a crowded bus, would you remain seated and tell the man "Look after yourself gramps, wudn't my fault you lost your leg" or would you stand up for him and give him your seat?



I think the answer is obvious.

Yep the answer is clearly obvious , ask him if he looked down the back of the sofa , its amazing how many things you lose that you can find down there .

Azi Tohak
04-11-2007, 23:06
Nonono, please read my post again. I said I *read* stuff. That's what I was referring to.
I did watch documentaries, too, but it never crossed my mind to pay attention to the color/race of the dudes, so I couldn't even tell you if they were all pink with green polka dots.

Read... saw... what's the difference :sweatdrop:

And I do tend to forget about Eastern Europe (anybody in the Warsaw pact). Bad Azi! But I really doubt that Eastern Europe would cope any better with waves of immigrants than Western Europe has.

But I'm happy to see that you're not so bigoted that you always see what color someone is (personally, I like the grey because everyone looks so dignified). We're all just people ~:grouphug:

Moving on from "Bad Whitey", I do think Adrian is right in that omissions are too common. I don't buy that they were intentional, but if War follows 40 people, at least 1 should be latino, just based on numbers given in the article (16 millions total, maybe 500,000 latinos ~ 1:32). I think the pilot would have been fascinating. But I've never heard of him before.

However, following Adrian's line of reasoning I need to recognize what he did. So I do! But do you really think it is a conspiracy that someone who is rather knowledgeable about WWII knew nothing of him? I don't fail to hold a door open for a disabled person (or elderly or a woman) because I am part of a conspiracy. I just simply don't realize they're there.

By the way, Adrian where are you from? Your english is superb.

Azi

Louis VI the Fat
04-11-2007, 23:15
This documentary portrays forty average Americans from 1940.

In 1940 (http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf), 1 in every 71 Americans was Hispanic. :idea2:

By sheer chance there shouldn't be Latinos in this documentary. Not including them is not ignoring them. The reverse is true. Including Latinos is to artificially rewrite the history of America to reflect its current demography, where one in six Americans is Hispanic.

Nonetheless, this doumentary, especially since it's from the PBS, could be more sensitive to the need to be an inclusive society.
Hispanics did play a part in America's history, and have shared in both the bitterness and glory of its past. America is also a racial society to its very core, historical identification is among racial lines. So the need to include Hispanics is there.

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 00:21
This documentary portrays forty average Americans from 1940.

In 1940 (http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf), 1 in every 71 Americans was Hispanic. :idea2:

By sheer chance there shouldn't be Latinos in this documentary.I am glad you share my opinion, but that number is the wrong base.

According to the U.S. Army about half a million Hispanic Americans served in WWII. That's one in every 20 American WWII soldiers. By sheer chance there should be two in the documentary.

Sure, sheer chance is not the criterium here. One would be sufficient.

Sasaki Kojiro
04-12-2007, 00:56
Read the article again. This documentary is not just any documentary, is it a publicly funded documentary that purports to be inclusive and be the start of an 'unprecedented national community campaign'. Hence Rivas Rodriguez' comment:


"We can't continue to produce our own documentaries that only we watch," Rivas-Rodriguez said. "If a documentary purports to be an American experience we need to be in that."I keep hearing how Americans have such admiration for the Great Generation that saved the world for democracy. Some of you sure have a lousy way of showing it.

Where does it purport to be inclusive? We don't know the format of the documentary (firefox spellcheck is really flaky btw). It could be like protesting "The deer hunter" for only focusing on white *certain religious group* west virginians. "Glory" focused on the black soldiers of the civil war. etc etc. I understand being upset that no documentary has included the hispanics, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with this particular documentary.

Crazed Rabbit
04-12-2007, 01:22
You can compare this to the obligation we have to someone who has lost his leg. You wouldn't be insensitive to such a man just because his handicap isn't your doing, would you? In a crowded bus, would you remain seated and tell the man "Look after yourself gramps, wudn't my fault you lost your leg" or would you stand up for him and give him your seat?

Question: Do you view hispanics and blacks as being crippled because of their ancestry?

The D-day museum in New Orleans gives the number of hispanics as 250k-500k, so your number of 500k is the very top. With 16.3 millions of people serving in the US military, that gives 1 in every 65th soldier as hispanic or 1 in every 32nd. Or rather, somewhere in between.

It seems some critics are ignoring the fact that this documentary is based on people from only four cities - of which Sacramento is nearest the southwest. From those cities, the ratio of hispanic soldiers, and hispanics in the population, was likely even lower.

If they had done something on soldiers from LA, then there might be a point.


"The Latino experience is really rich and very unique. We are very disappointed,"

I'm just not seeing how one man shooting at another man changes with the color of the man's skin.

But maybe I'm not in tune with my self loathing and guilty side for something even my ancestors had nothing to do with, but people who had a similar skin color - and therefore constantly grouped with my ancestors by those who view race as all encompassing - and are now all dead.

CR

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 01:49
Question: Do you view hispanics and blacks as being crippled because of their ancestry?Don't you understand the notion 'figure of speech'? If not, I suggest the Gospels as a primer.

Alexanderofmacedon
04-12-2007, 01:53
They want a piece of a pie that isn't theirs. Or at least they deserve a very small piece!

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 01:59
They want a piece of a pie that isn't theirs. Or at least they deserve a very small piece!QED

KukriKhan
04-12-2007, 02:57
...As for the argument that today's white Americans are too young to have been guilty of racism or slavery, I would say they still have an obligation to recognize the consequences of those phenomena in today's society...

As you've seen, you're gonna have a hard time persuading most of today's white americans that their advantaged positions exist because of past racist practices.

They don't see their positions as "advantaged" at all, but rather normal, natural, the way things are supposed to be, and the way things are for everybody who puts forth a minimum of effort. Any disadvantage suffered by non-whites must therefore come from some other, inherent deficiency, or individual laziness, or media-fueled victim-hood.

The very idea that today's american prosperity was built on native genocide, african slavery, and underpaid immigrant (legal and extra-legal) labor, is anathema to us, because it flies in the face of the preferred concept of smart capitalists making smart decisions, the profits of which trickle down to everyone - "a rising tide lifts all boats". A system protected by law, that also gives, as an afterthought, a bill of individual rights that are cherished by all - advantaged or disadvantaged.

This is why, though it engendered a kind of reverse-discrimination, I grudgingly liked affirmative action programs. They tried to make right, via artificial 'advantaging', over a single generation (which I make to be 40 years), the wrongs of the previous 12, without having one generation make some one-time monetary reparation payment to the descendents of the previously-oppressed. Done well, it really could have 'raised all boats'. But it wasn't "done well", and my fellow citizens have decided that 30+ years was enough of that stuff.

Sorry this turned into a larger piece than intended. :bow:

So here we are, in 2007. And we're no longer arguing about the merits of slavery. All agree that slavery = bad, no matter the economic advantages. And genocide of native populations/any populations? Resoundingly = bad. Under-compensation of extra-legal immigrants? We're still working on that.

And we're still working on the social ramifications of our past (and even recognizing that 'we' have a past). Hence we argue about whether all groups, classes, tribes, heritages... get adequately recognized by a taxpayer-funded presentation of a new history of 1940-1945 america and western europe.

I bet $20 Mr. Burns makes some nod to hispanic and Mexican contributions to dubya-dubya-eye-eye as an epilog to his documentary.

Azi Tohak
04-12-2007, 04:19
As you've seen, you're gonna have a hard time persuading most of today's white americans that their advantaged positions exist because of past racist practices.

They don't see their positions as "advantaged" at all, but rather normal, natural, the way things are supposed to be, and the way things are for everybody who puts forth a minimum of effort. Any disadvantage suffered by non-whites must therefore come from some other, inherent deficiency, or individual laziness, or media-fueled victim-hood.

The very idea that today's american prosperity was built on native genocide, african slavery, and underpaid immigrant (legal and extra-legal) labor, is anathema to us, because it flies in the face of the preferred concept of smart capitalists making smart decisions, the profits of which trickle down to everyone - "a rising tide lifts all boats". A system protected by law, that also gives, as an afterthought, a bill of individual rights that are cherished by all - advantaged or disadvantaged.

sniff... sniff sniff... sniff....

Do I smell self-loathing? Nah...

Anyway, lemme trace my own family history (as near as I can figure it). Tomlinson's that I'm derived from (7 brothers from the UK) showed up as unskilled labor. A few generations later (6 I think), you wind up with me as one of the nuts (he he he!) at the top. I have a BS in Chemical Engineering, working for an oil company and probably making more than... 95% of people my age. Grandpa was a teacher. Dad was an engineer. I'm an engineer. Do I demand something from whomever might have swindled my own ancestors? No. Because of the mainfest fairness of the capitalist system whereby if you can come up with a niche, you can prosper.

Other half the family, Matthaei's. Methodists from Germany. Great-great and great-grandpa were circuit riders in KS (Great-great was just after the civil war). Preachers all the way down (to my generation anyway). And I'm still one of the nuts at the top of the tree. The other 5 up here are... not so prosperous, but I've already talked about me. And my sister is married at 22, with a home, and going to have a degree in accounting.

Sure, I could decide to be a starving artist, or something equally useless, but I knew that ChEs are perennial well paid. And the good Lord sent me here.

What is unfair about what happened to me?

Azi

P.S. Bad Azi! I keep trying to stay on topic but I keep failing!

Lemur
04-12-2007, 04:25
This documentary is not just any documentary, is it a publicly funded documentary that purports to be inclusive and be the start of an 'unprecedented national community campaign'.
It's also the work of an artist. You know, the kind of guy who has a gift for what he does. Does that register on your sublimely sensitive moral scale?

KukriKhan
04-12-2007, 05:01
sniff... sniff sniff... sniff....

Do I smell self-loathing? Nah...



Of course. Every american whiteman can trace his geneology to a non-involved or anti-discriminatory ancestor.

Because they have the resources to do so.

Unlike Jose', or Mgumbe', or Thašųka Witko (Crazy Horse), who just now, in 2007 have been given - if they have: electricity, telephone and internet access - some kinda voice to express their views.

I don't loathe myself, or my history. To the contrary, I embrace my polyglot americanism. My Irish, English, German, Chippawa, and French ancestors demand that I expose, because of the language of our founding document, the truth of both our heritage and its consequence.

PanzerJaeger
04-12-2007, 05:17
As you've seen, you're gonna have a hard time persuading most of today's white americans that their advantaged positions exist because of past racist practices.

They don't see their positions as "advantaged" at all, but rather normal, natural, the way things are supposed to be, and the way things are for everybody who puts forth a minimum of effort. Any disadvantage suffered by non-whites must therefore come from some other, inherent deficiency, or individual laziness, or media-fueled victim-hood.


It is quite natural that the superior race(s) will dominate the inferior.

What we have today - a superficial "equality" among races that does not stand up to any real measurement - is a moral, enlightened position. It is , however, unnatural. We cannot and should not blame our ancestry for following the laws of nature that existed for thousands of years. Stronger human groups dominating the weaker has been the standard practice far longer than the opposite.

We should only be thankful that we have achieved a level of society where every race is equal, despite their obvious lack in natural development. That is, if you subscribe to that sort of thinking.

Blodrast
04-12-2007, 05:30
We should also probably remember that whitey didn't exploit blacks/hispanics/whatever, whitey exploited everybody. All over Europe, during the Industrial Revolution, who worked in sweatshops ? Well, you got it, whitey. Were all the damned Europeans aristocrats with a plethora of slaves from the colonies ? Or a mere few percent, while all the other whites were wallowing in misery and poverty ?
What about all the serfs and peasants tied to the landlord's feuds ? Y'know, the actual population who lived on those lands... they were white. And they were exploited, not because they were white - but because that was the way of the society. What about all the Africans who exploited Africans ? Oh, that must be ok, 'cause they were all Africans. Whites exploiting whites is also ok. But whites exploiting anybody else - OMG, the horror! ...

Puhleaze. The ones at the top of society exploited everybody they could, period. White, black, brown, yellow, striped and purple with a green tinge.
Did they do that 'cause of some inherent bad gene in whitey? Heck no - Chinese at the top of their society exploited the other Chinese, the same with Japanese, the same with all other Asians, all other Blacks, etc, etc, etc... The ones on top always exploited the heck out of everybody else. There's nothing special about whites having exploited non-whites. Nothing.

Azi Tohak
04-12-2007, 05:35
It is quite natural that the superior race(s) will dominate the inferior.

What we have today - a superficial "equality" among races that does not stand up to any real measurement - is a moral, enlightened position. It is , however, unnatural. We cannot and should not blame our ancestry for following the laws of nature that existed for thousands of years. Stronger human groups dominating the weaker has been the standard practice far longer than the opposite.

We should only be thankful that we have achieved a level of society where every race is equal, despite their obvious lack in natural development. That is, if you subscribe to that sort of thinking.

Careful PJ, looks like you're hunting for a warning, spouting off something the liberals will decry as racist. Of course, you know you can say anything and it will be right thanks to moral equivalence. Unless they don't like it. Then they'll attack you.

KK there are too many ways for anyone to succeed for me to feel any sorrow for those that don't. Have I led a very lucky life? Of course! I'm an American, born to two loving parents, and God saw fit to give me a good brain and lousy eyes. I thank Him every day for all four (yup, even the eyes). But He also knows what he's doing with the rest of society too. No, it doesn't seem fair that millions of people struggle to exist even in the wealthiest of societies. But in the USA anyway, it is possible to change your life. Anyone can do it!

Azi

P.S. I can also trace my ancestry back to William Clark. Does that mean I now get to feel guilt for anything related to his expedition with Mr. Lewis?

P.P.S. And now I'm farther off topic. Bad Azi!

Azi Tohak
04-12-2007, 05:40
The ones on top always exploited the heck out of everybody else. There's nothing special about whites having exploited non-whites. Nothing.

Sure there is! Now we get this fun thing called self-loathing invented by guilty white people. :yes: And along with that self-loathing comes moral equivalence! Since our ancestors were obviously bad people, their culture was bad, therefore all other cultures must be good, including those that enslave others. And we dare not criticize them otherwise we will be just as bad as our ancestors. NOOO!

Far as I know, precious few Japanese regret and have to apologize for what they to whoever they ran into during WWII.

Azi

PanzerJaeger
04-12-2007, 05:42
Careful PJ, looks like you're hunting for a warning, spouting off something the liberals will decry as racist. Of course, you know you can say anything and it will be right thanks to moral equivalence. Unless they don't like it. Then they'll attack you.



If they chose to ignore the course of human history and developement in favor of (multi)cultural relativism, then yes, it is thin ice. ~;)

Blodrast
04-12-2007, 05:49
Yup, and see Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia... but all those are not so bad, 'cause it's blacks killing and exploiting other blacks... so even if the victims are in the thousands or millions, oh well, it's Africa. But have a white guy kill a non-white guy over whatever, and the media blows up with racial crimes, heads fall, chiefs of police get ulcers, and headlines focus on this for the whole week!

And besides it's all the colonial powers' fault anyway that Mugabe is a crazy :daisy:, and if it weren't for whites and their colonialism, the likes of Mugabe would have never, ever happened.

Heck, yeah, of course "we" messed up in Africa. I'm not denying that. And we're still messing them up, in different ways. I'm not denying that either. But how about we take our blinders off and see that the big boys are also economically stunting some of the white countries as well ? US, Western Europe, and a few other big players, are making the rules, and, naturally, try to stay on top - which implies preventing all the others from climbing up...
Protectionism doesn't ONLY affect Africa, it affects ALL small players, be they African, South American, Asian or European.
So, again, let's please be realistic, and realize that it's not about race, it's about power.

Sasaki Kojiro
04-12-2007, 06:03
Wow, this thread took an interesting turn.

Blodrast
04-12-2007, 06:05
Nah, it's just me & Azi and we're on a roll.~:grouphug:

Crazed Rabbit
04-12-2007, 06:07
Don't you understand the notion 'figure of speech'? If not, I suggest the Gospels as a primer.

I understand it very well. I wonder why you seemed to imply modern minorities are crippled because of what happened to their ancestors.

The example you used was about a person who suffered in the past - some accident that crippled them - and still suffers from it, permanently, unable to get better. You compared the consequences of past enslavement to permanent disfigurement. Are you saying past wrongs against minorities leave them crippled today? Or was your figure of speech slightly mis-aimed?

What are, to you, the consequences of slavery in America to modern people? I'll grant you racism exists, but only in dark corners of hate among a few, afraid to show themselves. If you are going to respond with something about 'institutional racism', please prove that it exists.


What we have today - a superficial "equality" among races that does not stand up to any real measurement - is a moral, enlightened position. It is , however, unnatural.

The concept of real differences between races, excluding the superficial, does not hold up to scrutiny or study of any sort, much less the concept of race.

Crazed Rabbit

PS Well said, Blodrast.

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 09:54
It's also the work of an artist. You know, the kind of guy who has a gift for what he does. Does that register on your sublimely sensitive moral scale?I have seen his Civil War documentary and I know his reputation. Mr Burns is the documentary maker, all his projects turn out to be monuments of the genre. That's why people expect his six-year project on WWII to include a Hispanic for once. That's not sublime, it is common sense and it is the honourable thing to do.

I see some other posters are on a roll of ad homs and fallacies (blacks can be bad too!) that only confirm what I wrote initially. Don't tell me you are part of that zoo, Lemur. I've always seen you as a keeper of the American seals like Kukrikhan. Who has just won his $20 by the way; real Americans know how to place a bet. ~;) :bow:

Fragony
04-12-2007, 11:17
Hispanics aren't scary, the worst that can happen is that they show up with their essays. Have yet to see one published, all bluff if you ask me.

AntiochusIII
04-12-2007, 12:00
Wow, this thread took an interesting turn. :yes:

At first I didn't like to get involved because, ah, it appears just to be a common attitude which I do not entirely disagree with -- you aren't responsible of course, for what your ancestor have done. But...

Many also miss the point. Adrian asks for recognition; that's not the same with being responsible for the crime or even to feel guilt about it. People are brushing it all away too much similar to the anti-PC attitudes: a hostile response that just goes too far, becoming counterproductive and blind and...increasingly petty-minded even.

"I'm tired of these people bugging me about racism. I'm not racist! [reasonable enough, justified]...I'm very pissed off by this crap so now I'm gonna act racist! [err...]"

Hmm, I found an interesting link in some other forum about "the first black guy in comics'" thoughts on racism. Very interesting. He appears to disagree with affirmative action but also finds "whites" -- a term inclusive to the established people in all the positions that matter -- to be very much susceptible to unacknowledged racism.

linky (potentially offensive, just to be safe) (http://www.digital-priest.com/comics/adventures/frames/chips2.htm)

About the topic itself, I'm not ready to accuse the director of the documentary of racism; that would be petty-minded. I think, however, that the protests themselves serve a purpose: to hopefully influence his decision to include examples of Latinos in the armed forces into the documentary, perhaps. After all, the documentary itself intends to make a statement, one which includes inclusiveness. Such an omission goes against its own statement. Does that mean he must? Of course not.

It's not my documentary, in any case. Do what you want.

Blodrast
04-12-2007, 14:12
I
I see some other posters are on a roll of ad homs and fallacies (blacks can be bad too!) that only confirm what I wrote initially.

I am afraid, my dear Sir, that you are deliberately ignoring and/or misinterpreting the point of my posts, which was that racism, and exploitation of man by man, is not something inherent to a single race (white, in our case), but to humans in general. I gave those examples not to show that "blacks can be bad too", but to show that this is an issue with all races.
I believe an example that supports one's point does not a fallacy make.

Also, if you'll point out what ad hominems you are referring, I'll gladly apologize to you (the only reason I'm not doing it now is because I'm not aware of any. It's kinda silly to apologize when you don't really know what you're apologizing for, imo).

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 15:04
What about all the Africans who exploited Africans ? Oh, that must be ok, 'cause they were all Africans. Whites exploiting whites is also ok. But whites exploiting anybody else - OMG, the horror! ... (..) Yup, and see Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia... but all those are not so bad, 'cause it's blacks killing and exploiting other blacks... so even if the victims are in the thousands or millions, oh well, it's Africa. But have a white guy kill a non-white guy over whatever, and the media blows up with racial crimes, heads fall, chiefs of police get ulcers, and headlines focus on this for the whole week!How does any of this relate to the topic? Why the hystrionics over blacks killing other blacks in Africa in a thread that deals with Hispanic American soldiers in WWII?

I think the only reasonable explanation for this is exactly as stated in my first post.

Lemur
04-12-2007, 15:33
I see some other posters are on a roll of ad homs and fallacies (blacks can be bad too!) that only confirm what I wrote initially. Don't tell me you are part of that zoo, Lemur. I've always seen you as a keeper of the American seals like Kukrikhan.
Keeper of the seals? What sorts of seals are we talking about? 'Cause leopard seals are mean, and I'm not sure I'd want to keep them ...

Adrian, no, I'm not interested in running anybody else's culture or ethnicity down. I don't think Hispanic groups are asking for too much, but I think they're asking it at the wrong time (film is already completed) and in the wrong venue (angry, public complaints to journalists). And I'm irritated that an artist like KB should be subjected to this sort of thing. I do understand the point that the Hispanic representatives are making, trust me. And if this were a film that was focused on the White Conquest of the Nazi threat, I'd get behind it.

But that isn't the case, now is it? It's not as though KB is known for his race propaganda pieces. It's not as though people are confronting a known bigot and demanding change. No, they're going for a soft target, a PBS-sponsored filmmaker. Yeah, that takes guts. After they're done bullying the kid with glasses, I suggest they take on the math nerd, and show him what's what.

In a country that has spent six years under total Republican control, it doesn't take a whole lot of courage (or brains) to beat up on a PBS documentary filmmaker with a PC hammer. I guess that's one of the main reasons this episode nauseates me.

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 16:10
do understand the point that the Hispanic representatives are making, trust me. (..) It's not as though people are confronting a known bigot and demanding change. No, they're going for a soft target, a PBS-sponsored filmmaker. Yeah, that takes guts. After they're done bullying the kid with glasses, I suggest they take on the math nerd, and show him what's what.There it is. That's the seal I was looking for, even if you want to ridicule it. Three hurrays and a .45 Magnum, double action, nickel finish for the Lemur.

Azi Tohak
04-12-2007, 17:06
Still don't know what an American seal is. :sweatdrop:

And I'm glad the thread is back on topic. I am interested in watching the documentary in any case.

I also agree with Lemur. Right idea, but wrong time and place. I like the idea of another documentary made to show the Latino experience. But what about Italian or German Americans and their experience?

Azi

Blodrast
04-12-2007, 17:47
How does any of this relate to the topic? Why the hystrionics over blacks killing other blacks in Africa in a thread that deals with Hispanic American soldiers in WWII?

I think the only reasonable explanation for this is exactly as stated in my first post.

I don't wanna hijack the thread, so, Adrian, I sent you a PM.

Vladimir
04-12-2007, 17:52
Never mind, late to the game...

Adrian II
04-12-2007, 19:40
Still don't know what an American seal is. :sweatdrop: What, did I use a figure of speech? Again? OHMYGOD! :whip:


I am so sorry Azi, I swear it won't happen again. Honest. :embarassed:

PanzerJaeger
04-12-2007, 20:27
The concept of real differences between races, excluding the superficial, does not hold up to scrutiny or study of any sort, much less the concept of race.

Crazed Rabbit



What definition of race are you using?

Crazed Rabbit
04-12-2007, 20:43
PJ -The old 'different ethnic groups or people of different skin colors'.

Adrian - your way of doing things would probably result in no good documentaries ever again.

CR

Reenk Roink
04-13-2007, 16:18
I appreciate your Euro-superiority on this subject, and I realize the Dutch never did anything naughty to anyone during their colonial phase, but try to be productive, eh?

No No No, Lemur, please do not get stuck in this comparing historical pasts rut. Remember the terrible Britain vs. France which imperial power was nicer thread? :rolleyes:

At worst, let the one side continue to spout their arguments. Just ignore it. :bow:


If they chose to ignore the course of human history and developement in favor of (multi)cultural relativism, then yes, it is thin ice.

You must be one of those who really, really gets giddy that your race or ethnic group found a way to plant seeds in the earth. Damn, that "advanced natural development"/"higher culture/civilization"; I just had a spritually-uplifting experience... :laugh4:

Azi Tohak
04-14-2007, 06:12
Since I don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to club your seals! HA!

Anyway, anybody see this?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/4709867.html

Just goes to show, the person shrieking 'racist!' gets the grease. Or something like that.

Azi

Adrian II
04-14-2007, 10:03
Anyway, anybody see this?It's two days old. Cf. #61 where I said Kukrikhan had won his $20.

John86
04-15-2007, 01:15
Mexicans were involved in WW2?:inquisitive:

Yes, they are called Americans. Apparantly they want to segregate themselves.

Adrian II
04-15-2007, 01:19
Yes, they are called Americans. Apparantly they want to segregate themselves.That's why they enlisted in 1941-45. Obviously. :balloon2: