Printable View
whatever, there were still 5.1m non-brits fighting against the axis powers, and a great many of them weren't ANZACS.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
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.
^ see above ^Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Oh COME ON!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.
Different times, I hope.
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:
I don't believe the undisciplined angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.
Shameful but not surprising at all. Not to mention this is poltury compared to what the US did on the home front.
wow , you know a lot about history don't you:dizzy2:Quote:
In related news, her majesty's government secures a monopoly of slave trade to the Americas.
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.Quote:
Is September White Guilt month?
Don't you just love the Russians? It's like the 20th century never happened :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Tribesman bait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Yea, I believe it was the whole Jenkin's ear affair where England negotiated control of the slave trade as a condition of peace.
A whole month especially for you , ain't you luckyQuote:
apparently its the month for people who are ignorant of history.
Hmm, tasty. Once again, par for the course.
While we're in self-flagellation mode let us not forget this one. Straight whites only.
This is the first I've heard this story and am speechless....
Self-flagellation? Excuse me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
DISGUSTING!!!
Sometimes i want to travel back in time to beat people up...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hmmm....
1) You (white guy) criticize another white guy based on his acts. -> critique based on individual behavior -> individualistQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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.
I'm pretty sure I did, here, a couple days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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":Quote:
Why would you depict it as just a harmless fad?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I'm not sure about the latter part (um, in fact I disagree) but the meat is in the first part. Hell yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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.