Response to Readings for August 29th
Race and/in War -- Christine Knauer
"Since the 1700s, the military and the U.S. government has struggled with engaging racial minorities in its various war efforts while all too often continuing to uphold racial hierarchies and subordination."
While reading this chapter, I found the hypocrisy exhibited by society and the U.S. government extremely disheartening. Racism has long been an issue in our nation and even after the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, is still prominent. In this chapter, Knauer points out that the U.S. has fought in many wars to secure the freedom of the American people and help other countries earn the right to democracy and equal rights. But on the home front, the U.S. took an improper and ironic stance on the rights of racial minorities. They pushed for African Americans to fight in these wars for freedom for the country, and yet they still suppressed their rights as Americans and segregated them from white Americans. It's interesting how there was this need for more military troops to cover the losses in World War One and yet they would not let African Americans actually fight in the war, saying they were "incompetent" and "lacked the moral and mental strength" despite the great success of many African Americans in the War of 1898. I found it particularly upsetting that the U.S. would loan African American troops to foreign countries such as France, but instruct them to treat them as lesser people so as to not disrupt the system and society in America. Even more upsetting was the fact that these foreign troops accepted and followed these instructions rather than refute them. My question is, how could the U.S. expect these racial minorities to stand up and heed the call to fight for American freedom when they weren't allotted this freedom? How could they find justification in the suppressing of African Americans who accomplished great things in war in the name of the country that was based on freedom and equality for everyone?
“Thus, being minority soldiers took on new symbolic meaning. On one hand, they became the most powerful symbols of racial humiliation, degradation, and segregation, as their service often highlighted the inequalities they faced both in service and at home. On the other hand, they acted as symbols of increasing resistance to white oppression and discrimination, representing prowess and inspired to fight against oppression by their service.”
ReplyDeleteThe readings of this week are full of horrific examples of the segregation and disrespect that African Americans have faced throughout their time abroad in the military and in particular our own country. I found it particularly interesting that the symbolism of the African American soldier was so meaningful to not only the African American community but also to their oppressors within the United States. As we see from the reading being apart of the military was not only the strong or honorable thing to do, it was also viewed as being the role of a true American citizen. When it was impossible nearly everywhere else to be represented as such, African Americans found hope that they could find that representation within the military. Unfortunately, the military did not want the image of a hard working African American citizen to be represented in the media, or representative of the United States military. The military destroys any positive view of the African American soldiers, they slander them as cowards, violent, and unintelligent beings. They make it impossible for those who wish to improve in rank to do so, claiming that they cannot control theirs vices and that they need to be under constant watch. The soldiers are not given the opportunity to obtain valor and fight for their country, but are instead forced to complete hard, sometimes emasculating labor, and when they do have the opportunity to fight they can only do so while burdened with segregation. All of this made it truly impossible for them to be seen as real American soldiers, completely robbing them of this symbol and any chance or hope of respect back home or abroad.
“In defiance of their own public excision from the unfolding visual narrative about the war, African Americans used the double V campaign to create their own, one that included photographs, illustrations, comics, cartoons, and sketches.”
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, the author describes the struggles of African Americans as they dealt with a war on “two fronts”. They were fighting for the United States, a country that discriminated against African Americans. As part of the “negro policy”, black soldiers were limited, and bound to labor units. So, they go to fight a war for to “defend democracy and liberty”, but in the United States, African Americans are the exception to the rule. What I find really cool about this, however, is that the African Americans used this to fight back. The white press wasn’t depicting black soldiers in a good way. For example, they wouldn’t put Dorie Miller, the unnamed hero ion the pearl harbor attacks, in the newspaper. This upset African Americans, and is just another example racial discrimination in the U.S. If the press did use photographs of black soldiers, they were only used to make racial stereotypes. In turn, African Americans made their own press to fight back. In addition, African Americans fought the draft. Some of them just ignored their draft notices. Malcom X made them think he was a drug-induced hipster, to avoid the draft. Also, blacks in the military resisted with strikes and even a few riots. African Americans fought against joining the military, because they didn’t believe in fighting for an unjust country. African Americans stood up for themselves, and fought for what they believed in. The U.S. claimed to fight wars for democracy and liberty. However, it was African Americans who fought for liberty, while the government diminished it.
I'm going to challenge the notion that blacks are "over represented in the military", stated as is from today's class. Furthermore, I'm going to challenge the idea that the military "preys" on minorities. Just from a statistical standpoint from Document 9, there is not a statistically significant percentage increase between the black population (18-39) with a HSDG (High School Diploma) and blacks enlisted in the Army compared to whites following the same criteria. What I mean by this is, there is only a 4% increase between blacks with a HSDG and blacks enlisted in the Army versus a 3% difference of whites with a HSDG and whites enlisted in the Army.That difference is not enough to state that blacks are over represented in the army. Furthermore, and as defense for my claim that the military doesn't prey on minorities, if you take a look at Hispanics, there is a 9% decrease between Hispanics with a HSDG (21%) and Hispanics enlisted in the Army (12%). So this idea that the military is out recruiting minorities is just statistically false.
ReplyDeleteNext I'm going to argue that, now, the military is an avenue for economic and social progression for all races, but especially for blacks. For now, let's just look at the statistics, but I know statistics don't show the whole story, but they prove my point. If you are white, the difference between whites (25-54) with a BA Degree and enlisted Army Officers is -2%, relatively insignificant. With Hispanics and Other the difference is -1%. However, this means that Whites, Hispanics, and Others are more likely not to become Officers in the Army. However, blacks are 4% more likely to stay in the Army and become Officers. Now why is this? The Army says, and I agree with them, that since the AVF (All Volunteer Force), "the Army proved to be attractive to young people because it offered training, steady employment, competitive pay and benefits, and leadership opportunities that were not readily available in the private sector" (1). Here's another very plausible reason: historically, blacks have been lower on the income scale compared to whites and more recently, Hispanics, so the idea of having a steady pay, job opportunities after the army, free or reduced college, healthcare, etc. is very appealing to those struggling economically. However, this is not to say that the Army preys on low income populations either. Thank you for taking the time to read all of this.
(1)(http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/docs/demographics/MRA_booklet_10-ARMY.pdf)