Racial Tension in the U.S.

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm sure America had some racist soldiers in WWII...but they were a small minority.

In fact, WWII played a key role breaking down racial stereotypes and starting America down the path toward desegregation:

Truman desegregated the armed forces three years later to overwhelming approval.

Countless thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat the Nazis, now modern-day Nazis are billing themselves as "peaceful" and "non-violent" and the grandchildren of these vets are eating it up. It's despicable.

Honest question here, and not trying to be a dick - but do you ever feel uncertain when posting about something where are your knowledge is based only on a couple of internet articles? Or do look for something consistent with your own biases, and assume that makes you knowledgeable?

That data you provided actually cuts rather strongly against your point that only a small minority were racist. If you're wondering how that is, ask yourself two questions:

1) What percentage of white Army companies actually had a black platoon at all, which is a essential data point if you're going to extrapolate that data to the military as a whole?

2) What were the attitudes like (according to your own data) in all the units that did not have such platoons, and therefore did not have that attitude-adjusting experience?

Anyway, as oddly phrased as was the point made by @medium baller, the argument that racism was more prevalent then than now would not be disputed by anyone remotely familiar with the history of race relations in the military. Not to mention the widespread public support for Jim Crowd and/or separate but equal throughout much of the country. As opposed to now when such things are overwhelming condemned.

So if your point that only a "small minority" were racist then was actually true, it would mean that a significant smaller minority of white people now are racist. Which was actually his point.

And there were a lot of people in the military, including (but not limited to) some very senior officers, who very strongly opposed integration in the military, and openly despised black troops.

 

[MediumBaller]

No...you guys just like to say that we think everyone's racist. It gives you a quick out to avoid addressing whatever point we're making. This literally just happened in the media bias thread yesterday. Pretty lame and overused tactic; try harder.

In your opinion what does the alt-right believe?

 

[Nathan S]

Honest question here, and not trying to be a dick - but do you ever feel uncertain when posting about something where are your knowledge is based only on a couple of internet articles? Or do look for something consistent with your own biases, and assume that makes you knowledgeable?

That data you provided actually cuts rather strongly against your point that only a small minority were racist. If you're wondering how that is, ask yourself two questions:

1) What percentage of white Army companies actually had a black platoon at all, which is a essential data point if you're going to extrapolate that data to the military as a whole?

2) What were the attitudes like (according to your own data) in all the units that did not have such platoons, and therefore did not have that attitude-adjusting experience?

Anyway, as oddly phrased as was the point made by @medium baller, the argument that racism was more prevalent then than now would not be disputed by anyone remotely familiar with the history of race relations in the military. Not to mention the widespread public support for Jim Crowd and/or separate but equal throughout much of the country. As opposed to now when such things are overwhelming condemned.

So if your point that only a "small minority" were racist then was actually true, it would mean that a significant smaller minority of white people now are racist. Which was actually his point.

My point, which I thought I made clear, was that while many people had racist attitudes as a result of growing up in a racist society, very few remained committed to those racist attitudes after working closely with people of another color. This is illustrated by the results of the survey I posted.

I'm drawing a distinction between people who passively follow societal stereotypes, and people who actively build societal stereotypes. I hate neo-Nazis. I do not hate rednecks flying confederate flags in Appalachia. Is that distinction clear to you?

 

[Tlyons]

I'm sure America had some racist soldiers in WWII...but they were a small minority.

So America wasn't a racist country then if only a small minority were racist, and you can't use racism to explain away all of the problems of modern day black people.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. @Nathan S was talking about a small minority of soldiers and @MediumBaller took that to mean a small minority of America?

Just trying to get some clarity here.

 

[MediumBaller]

Correct me if I'm wrong here. @Nathan S was talking about a small minority of soldiers and @MediumBaller took that to mean a small minority of America?

Just trying to get some clarity here.

If his argument was that a small minority of soldiers were racist (which he still hasn't proven) then I think it's logical to draw the conclusion that the society they lived in had only a small minority of racists. I think the military was at least somewhat representative of the country as a whole, and I don't think they would've been able to create a military that had a minority of racists from a country that had a majority of racists.

 

[Nathan S]

Correct me if I'm wrong here. @Nathan S was talking about a small minority of soldiers and @MediumBaller took that to mean a small minority of America?

Just trying to get some clarity here.

No, I meant a small minority of Americans overall (also a small minority of soldiers). A small minority of Americans were actively committed to spreading and reinforcing racism through the KKK, etc. Lots of Americans passively bought into racial stereotypes, but had very malleable attitudes on race, and (imo) had no deep-seated hatred for black people.

 

[Tlyons]

Thanks guys.

 

[Nathan S]

In your opinion what does the alt-right believe?

The fact that they welcome the KKK into their ranks should tell you all you need to know about their beliefs...

 

[MediumBaller]

The fact that they welcome the KKK into their ranks should tell you all you need to know about their beliefs...

So you don't know what their beliefs are then.

 

[MediumBaller]

My argument was weird, I admit that. My point is this... I believe that saying that WWII veterans would be "rolling in their graves" because of the alt-right is revisionist history.

Look at what many in the alt-right believe. They advocate for a white ethnostate. They want white people to be separated from minorities. They do not support interracial marriages and look down on people who have biracial children. They do not support same sex marriage, they see it as "degenerate." They believe that women should be stay-at-home mothers instead of in the work force.

Those were not extreme beliefs during the 1930s and 1940s. I do not think there's any basis in history for believing that WWII veterans would be "rolling in their graves" because of a group that believes what the alt-right believes.

 

[Nathan S]

My argument was weird, I admit that. My point is this... I believe that saying that WWII veterans would be "rolling in their graves" because of the alt-right is revisionist history.

Look at what many in the alt-right believe. They advocate for a white ethnostate. They want white people to be separated from minorities. They do not support interracial marriages and look down on people who have biracial children. They do not support same sex marriage, they see it as "degenerate." They believe that women should be stay-at-home mothers instead of in the work force.

Those were not extreme beliefs during the 1930s and 1940s. I do not think there's any basis in history for believing that WWII veterans would be "rolling in their graves" because of a group that believes what the alt-right believes.

I get this point; my comment was mainly a jab at neo-Nazis in particular gathering and claiming to be non-violent (and a significant minority of Americans buying into the idea that they're non-violent).

 

[MediumBaller]

I get this point; my comment was mainly a jab at neo-Nazis in particular gathering and claiming to be non-violent (and a significant minority of Americans buying into the idea that they're non-violent).

I'm sorry for being a dick

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

My point, which I thought I made clear, was that while many people had racist attitudes as a result of growing up in a racist society, very few remained committed to those racist attitudes after working closely with people of another color. This is illustrated by the results of the survey I posted.

Dude, I wasn't born yesterday. That was not the point you made, however much you may be trying to backtrack now. Why not just admit you were wrong?

You made a bald, unqualified statement about attitudes towards race in the military as a whole, based on your flawed assumption that such integration was actually widespread:

I'm sure America had some racist soldiers in WWII...but they were a small minority.

That's a broad statement about the actual attitudes of WW2 vets as a whole, not just to that relatively small percentage with a black platoon. And you made that broad point about attitudes within the military to counter the claim of racism among WW2 vets. The revisionism into the far more narrow claim you are trying to make now "well, I was really only talking about that small percentage of WW2 vets that worked in integrated companies" undercuts your entire point about only a small percentage being racist.

However, I do absolutely agree with your point about how working closely with people of another race in the military breaks down racist attitudes.

But consider logically where that takes you - we've now had more than sixty years since Truman desegregated the military. That's sixty years of people of different races working side by side on the military, and not just in specifically integrated companies (all non-combat units in WW2, by the way), but in the entire military.

So that is sixty years of tens of millions of vets serving this country, reducing their racial prejudices, and then bringing those new and improved racial attitudes back into society as a whole.

By your own argument, it is almost possible not to conclude that racial attitudes by whites both in the military and in the civilian world (which also became much more integrated) have improved significantly since the WW2 generation.

 

[Nathan S]

I'm sorry for being a dick

I'm still mad that you compared WWII vets to the alt-right (I have WWII vets in my family and another WWII vet was one of my biggest role models growing up), so I'm not going to say sorry yet, but maybe later

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Truman desegregated the armed forces three years later to overwhelming approval.

Uh....

Most Americans opposed integrating the military in 1948

....Despite pressure, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was never convinced to integrate the military during the war itself. Truman, however, finally moved to integrate the armed forces in 1948.

Military integration was opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans at the time. A 1948 poll found that only 26 percent of Americans favored “having Negro and white troops throughout the U.S. Armed Services live and work together.” Not even white veterans supported the move, despite having recently returned from fighting against Nazism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ilitary-service-today/?utm_term=.bab2ad5dc481