Disclaimer:
I have discussed this video with a friend of mine and history buff from Georgia whom I shall call J.D. at his request and this is what we thought of the video. We assumed it would be a neutral take on segregation in the United States. Little did we realize how disappointing it would turn out to be. I will not be discussing minor mistakes, like his mispronunciations of certain names, because the content of the video matters more here.
At the end, I would suggest improvements to the video (this entire post should honestly be considered that). This is no libel intended for Sparty or anyone who worked on the video.
We expected better.
The video:
From our perspective in 2021, WWII might be framed as a war against racist powers.
Why? This is a personal pet peeve of mine, whenever people talk about history from a modern perspective. Tell it as it was in the 1940s, no matter how different the world is now. That is why I transcribe wartime news articles in the forum. I will concede that even in 1942, it was seen as a war against racist powers. However, it was just not seen the same way as expected from the perspective in 2021.
But, we all know that racism is, and was, not a thing exclusive to the Axis.
J.D. initially thought this was a fallacy.
“If you frame WWII as a war against racist powers… and affirm racism is not exclusive to the Axis… then the U.S., and its Army, must be racist.
“Just felt like a potential fallacy to me. It’s not. But, his opening line made me want to go back and look at it again.”
It’s fair to say that, in this war, in the 1940s, there is a huge difference between the racism among the Allies and the racially or ethnically genocidal character of the Axis conquest. Their waves of mass murders are, in many ways, unprecedented.
J.D. said: “Ok. Not really ‘unprecedented.’ History is full of racial and tribal ideology and genocides, but ok.”
Among the United Nations’ Allied countries, a few stand out by not only being racist, but even being powers founded on the premise of racism and exceptionalism. The Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom and her Commonwealth, and France are colonial empires rooted in systemic racial inequality.
“Founded” on the premise? That’s quite the giant leap there.
To create these empires they had caused massive death among indigenous populations, and they continue to exploit their colonial subjects for economic gain.
Interesting that the video then proceeds to show picture of the Amritsar massacre for the former, which was controversial even among pro-Empire people like Churchill in 1919. The Belgian Congo was also just as, if not more, controversial at the time; a picture from the Belgian Congo would’ve made for a better representation of Sparty’s statement.
J.D. had a few issues with the use of the word “colonization”:
“I guess what I’m trying to get at is, imposing governmental will is not ‘colonization.’ I’m griping a bit that every action during the age of empire is classed as that. Otherwise, would you say that Napoleon was ‘colonizing’ Europe? I think not. Now, what’s funny when you think about it is that Hitler was indeed colonizing.”
The United States itself, originally a union of colonialists, has also fought racially motivated wars; including genocide against the Native American population, exploited perceived inferior races through slavery and colonized overseas territories to expand their global power.
J.D.: “He goes into autopilot parrot mode for about 3 minutes there.”
The United States was a union of former colonies, though the use of the term “colonialists” is a misnomer. There was evidently a colonial mindset though – a drive to push inland and control the continental destiny.
The Indian Wars were not racially motivated – that framework is entirely false. Americans never fought Indians solely for the reason of being Indians. It is a far more complicated affair which does not merit a blanket description of the situation as “genocidal.” Indians fought on both sides of the decades-long wars, and the fighting was motivated more by land than by race, even as a layman takes into consideration President Andrew Jackson’s actions following the Supreme Court ruling on Cherokee settlement. I have even noted comments in Sparty’s video calling him out on that.
J.D. is from Georgia, and he explained to me all the complexities behind the Trail of Tears. Maybe someday I would post more about that topic soon if the opportunity comes.
Meanwhile, African-Americans, especially in the Southern states, are still second-class citizens under the Jim Crow laws.
The situation is more complicated than it appears on the surface. Not every state had Jim Crow laws, and even in the states that did have them, the laws often varied on a state-by-state basis.
Many Germans speak of a “Jewish Problem”, many Americans about a “Negro Problem”.
No, just no. That is just plain and simple false equivalence. Whatever the state of race relations before and during the war, the “final solution” among most Americans for Negroes was never genocide, unlike what the Nazis had in mind for Jews. That’s the impression I’m getting from the way the statement was framed and the misguided implication that statement has.
People of color don’t have the same political, economic and social rights and opportunities.
For example, in the 12 Southern states, only two percent of voting age African-Americans are actually eligible to vote.
This is where Sparty starts quoting Donny Gluckstein, a British historian who is an avowed Marxist. “A People’s History” is not exactly the most reliable source to go by for any study on race relations, aside from a Marxist perspective. J.D. read the book and, in his understanding, it was just academic “circle jerking” and so lacking in nuance that even Howard Zinn would blush.
Gluckstein, Donny, “A People’s History of the Second World War” (2012):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt183p5p8.13.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A905e1d8b3465cd38e41318bb514dff27
J.D. and I also noticed how, throughout the video, Gluckstein is quoted quite frequently, more than any other source – there are only two (probably one and a half) other sources used in the video – word for word.
In the 1930s, the Great Depression has exasperated their situation with even higher rates of unemployment and destitution than other ethnic groups.
Nationally, in 1931, black men had a lower unemployment rate than whites. In the cities, it was worse.
Here were the changes a half decade later:
The tables are census data. The author of the Journal of Economic History goes through how the numbers were obtained and how the rules of measurement changed between 1931 and 1937, which makes precise comparisons more difficult. Then he goes into what he calls the “three classes of explanation for the higher unemployment rates of black workers.”
The first focuses on background characteristics and argues that even in the absence of discrimination, black workers were generally less well-educated and skilled due to their historical work opportunities and experience.
Further, the trades they did choose to develop skills in, such as carpentry, masonry, steel and auto work, were all industries that were disproportionally affected by the market contraction during the Depression.
The South, the author argues, was less affected and this explains the relative disparity between the North and urban, as Southern blacks tend to be rural (as opposed to those in the North) and tend to be in agriculture, which did well, for the most part, in the South during the Depression.
It also continues that Northern blacks, who migrated before and during the Depression, also had less time in the industry and with various companies and firms. This explains why they were the “last hired” (as they physically were not there) and “first fired” (as companies would keep longer tenured employees who had developed advanced skills specific to the job over those who had not).
The author then goes into what he calls the “second classification” – which is that labor discrimination was the cause. He quotes a National Urban League study that cites “reports of employers replacing black workers with unemployed whites.” He explains:
“That discrimination should worsen when unemployment is high is an assertion based, to some degree, on the premise that discrimination is costly to employers, so competition between firms should favor non-discriminatory practices when the labor market is tight.
“When the labor market is not clearing, the costs of discrimination might diminish, because any employer of blacks could find unemployed whites willing to replace them at the same wage. Such racial displacement would appear to require that unemployed blacks be unwilling or unable to offer a wage cut sufficient to protect their jobs from white competitors.”
Interestingly, the author goes on to point out that Arthur Ross’ detailed analysis in “The Negro Worker in the Depression”) found that the displacement did occur, but primarily occurred in trades which were considered “Negro jobs”, not industrial work. This was due to the fact that skilled labor for industrial work was too costly to replace. If a worker already knew how to operate the machinery in a profitable way, then an employer was unlikely to replace him with an unskilled worker who would need training. However, relatively unskilled service jobs such as waiters, domestic servants and porters were also impacted by this displacement. He notes wherever this occurred, it was largely in the South.
Furthermore, he found that in industries where blacks had gained employment, such as steel, coal and automobile, their jobs were protected with furloughs instead of discharging employees, mostly due to union contracts.
He continues that in the South, since there was a concept of a “Negro job,” these jobs were protected from white labor competition – a concept that did not exist in Northern labor markets. Furthermore, as blacks were concentrated into certain trades and professions in the South, they had the skills and knowledge that outclassed any white labor competition. So, they were far less likely to be dismissed.
He goes on the third classification, which is that the New Deal had an adverse impact on employment opportunities for less skilled workers. He cites that critics of the era used to call the National Recovery Act the “Negro Removal Act.” Minimum wage codes encouraged employers to replace black workers with white workers who, prior to the codes, would have been unwilling to accept the market-clearing wage.
A common complaint among black activists can best be summarized as such: An employer preferring whites, faced with a mandatory and equal minimum wage for black and whites, would lay off blacks.
They wanted the NRA to have protections against this sort of action, but that was not to be. The author dismisses this though, pointing to the existing disparities prior to New Deal policies.
He continues, based on these arguments, a proper analysis should include occupation unemployment rates. So, he went and did that too.
From the Cambridge Press, Journal of Economic History (1992):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2123118?read-now=1&seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents
When unemployment drops after the massive increase in defense spending as the U.S. prepares for war, and then enters the war, they are still, largely, left out.
Most new jobs are reserved for whites only.
Refer to the explanations above.
However, after the African-American community threatens to march down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issues Executive Order 8802, on June 25, 1941, banning employment discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.
That is a spin on the story by the NAACP. It’s not false, merely exaggerated.
https://history.army.mil/html/books/050/50-1-1/cmhPub_50-1-1.pdf
Although less unequal there than the South, they still face wage inequality, discrimination in housing and education, as well as everyday prejudice and violence.
Once again, even as I get ready to cover some infamous Northern and Western riots next year, it’s a lot more complicated than that, speaking as a Northerner.
In, for instance, Britain, in theory, black people are to serve in the war on equal footing.
“British subjects from the colonies and British protected persons who are in this country, including those who are not of pure European descent, are to be on the same footing as British subjects from the United Kingdom as regards eligibility for voluntary enlistment in the armed forces and for consideration for the grant of emergency commissions in those forces.”
But, in reality, black British citizens from Africa or West India and Jamaica are often held back by racial stereotypes. They are alleged to be sickly, or unable to learn quickly enough, or unable to handle modern weaponry.
The only reason Sparty put this comparison with the British in there is to set up for the controversial Stimson quote, which I will get to later in the post. A “poison pill,” as J.D. put it.
J.D.: “That said, it makes little sense that the Brits would be ‘integrated’ (which he implies) in WWI, but somehow have troubles with it in WWII?”
But, the U.S. Army remains segregated to the point of being two armies – a colored and a white one.
Quoting Gluckstein again:
They were separated by race, but that doesn’t mean they were literally two armies. They still got the same orders from the War Department.
J.D.: “I wrote in my notes that it’s interesting he only really speaks about the Army. Because he only had one source who also only spoke of the Army.”
The vast majority of colored soldiers are lower ranks with only two officers.
Gluckstein quote again:
At least name them. This was from the Army:
In 1940, the total number of black Regular Army officers was five, three of whom were chaplains.
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/diversity.html
J.D.: “Admittedly not the best source, considering it’s a diversity officer, but it’s still a military source.”
The relegation of the active-duty black units to housekeeping chores increasingly left the interwar Regular Army with a cadre of black non-commissioned officers who excelled at garrison duties but who lacked the experience to train and lead new recruits in wartime. This was what the 1922 and 1937 Army reports dealt with – they knew at the time this was a problem. Basically, the 1922 plan was not achieved and that ended up causing a big problem they were aware of. I will discuss those plans and reports later in the post – they are really important.
From a military angle, some of the stuff Sparty talks about is just silly. The question for TG is to please define “lower ranks”, because, in a whole lot of the pictures shown throughout the video, they had more than one stripe.
The vast majority of any army is “lower ranks” – otherwise it wouldn’t function.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the National Urban League continue to argue for black men and officers to be assigned based on merit and not race, more colored officers, access to the Air Corps, and a say in the selective process.
Sparty’s generally not wrong here. The NAACP (mostly) and the NUL pushed for the creation of the units and pushed for more “prestigious” units (for the Air Corps) to be created. But the order was not passed strictly because of them, which you will see later. Remember, they were activists. They would have, and had, exaggerated the role they played. Activists like William Hastie certainly exaggerated.
The share of black servicemen does increase, so that by late 1942, 468,000 African-American soldiers are enlisted.
But, as a relative share of the Army, they will never surpass five percent, still only half of the share of the population. An end to segregation, it will not be.
https://history.army.mil/html/books/050/50-1-1/cmhPub_50-1-1.pdf
If blacks constituted 13.08 percent of the Army in World War I, why would they “never be more than five percent” in World War II? Well, here’s the answer:
Remember the reports I mentioned earlier? Well, here they are!
Here are some good sources that the video should’ve used, courtesy of J.D.:
https://history.army.mil/html/books/011/11-4/CMH_Pub_11-4-1.pdf
There were two interwar doctrines dealing with race. One articulates, for example, that black units must be used in combat as well as service units.
J.D.: “Interesting to see the bigotry of low expectations being challenged even then. Basically the report said, ‘If you think blacks will join without the opportunity to be officers, you’re being stupid. And if you point to poor black officers in WWI, that’s because you lowered the standards and promoted bad officers, not because blacks can’t make good officers’.”
The 1922 plan required:
Remember this from earlier in the video?
In 1939, out of around 174,000, only two percent – or 3,640 – are black, while African-Americans make up close to 10 percent of the population.
J.D.: “Having it being less than 2% doesn’t really make much sense unless something big happened in 1938.”
This was from 1931:
10.73 percent in 1931.
What changed by the late 1930s was simple: People left the Army, though it should be noted, this includes National Guard units. Here’s the issue:
The 1922 plan left the National Guard units up to the states, and only forced unit creation in the Regular Army. Many states did not create black guard units, and for those that did, the units were limited. The report done in 1937 articulated this as a problem, because even when blacks tried to volunteer, there were no peacetime slots available. As a result, blacks stopped enlisting. The Army was not seen as a career path for them because their chances of being accepted were low. So, the question posed by the 1937 report, among other things, was the inevitably major issue in the event of a mass deployment, like in 1917.
If the Army had to mass deploy with a draft, it meant they had to draft, percentage wise, more blacks than whites. The draft was unpopular and the Army knew this. So, they tried and mitigated the impact in their mobilization plans. They absolutely had to plan for it. Basically, their concern was public pushback in the event that 90.55 blacks are drafted for every 9.45 whites. Yes, really.
So, there was a desperate need to get more blacks into active duty service. That was one of the issues addressed in the 1937 plan.
Back with the officers, not only did the 1922 plan require that Negro units have Negro officers, but the 1937 plan took it further by requiring Negro units to have 50 percent more officers.
His “never reached five percent” statement is likely wrong, but it’s based on this: Even in the 1940 PMP (Protective Mobilization Plan), the unit list was 5.81 percent. The Army target was 9-10 percent.
Six National Guard and six Regular Army units – that was all. This was a problem, according to the 1937 plan.
Instead, their units are formed on basis of race, like the colored-only 99th Fighter Squadron and 332nd Fighter Group, stationed at the Tuskegee Airfield from mid-1941 onwards, and led by the African-American Colonel Benjamin O. Davis Jr., who will eventually rise to the rank of General and be instrumental in the racial integration of the U.S. armed forces.
Now with the Tuskegee Airmen, these were the origins:
The 1937 plan articulated that Negro units were to be established for the Air Corps and Signal Corps. It’s possible that pressure from the NAACP accelerated the process, but it was already on the table when they started campaigning for it. Personnel and War Plans were the ones who pushed back against it… or, for it, in deeper analysis. They pushed back against a minor recommendation that the units not be created.
The chief of the Air Corps, in his memos, commented that the issue wasn’t that they were black. It was the way the bill authorizing the Air Corps (and funding it) specifically stated the Air Corps cannot train blacks. Rather, Negro pilots were to be trained by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. He also articulated another problem in that the pilots were officers; having black pilot officers outranking enlisted white mechanics was an issue.
His recommendation was to start the training of necessary enlisted men to be competent mechanics but warned that the process would take years (and it did). So, this was the genesis of the Tuskegee Airmen.
In summary:
-
The Army was considering it for years.
-
There was a lot of support for moving in this direction, they were just having trouble over the methods.
-
The seeds were planted long before we saw fruit (which was exactly what the chief of the Air Corps said would happen).
Asian-Americans will serve in segregated units like their African-American countrymen.*
Only Japanese-American units were segregated, units serving either in Europe or as translators in the Pacific. Other Americans of Asian descent, such as those of Filipino and Chinese descent, were integrated.
Even in the Philippines, where most soldiers are Philippine-Americans, the units remain segregated.
The Filipinos were volunteers to the segregated unit referenced in the video. If they did not volunteer or request that unit, they were assigned to regular white units. Essentially, they asked to be segregated. Furthermore, elements of the Philippine Army that were stranded in the United States after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines were assigned to the unit. Fluency in Tagalog was a requirement. There were some negative incidents though; a few civilians mistook them for the Japanese.
While Hispanic-Americans are, technically, considered white and part of the non-colored units, a few of them will also complain of harassment because of their ethnicity.
Private First Class Norberto Gonzalez, a Cuban-born New Yorker, finds himself at the butt of incessant discrimination in his all-white battalion. His trials and tribulations only end when he is transferred, on request, to an all-black unit, where he will later state that he was welcomed and immediately integrated.
Here is the actual story, from the man himself:
https://voces.lib.utexas.edu/collections/stories/norberto-m-gonzalez
This man’s testimony was vague (being “treated differently” could mean anything), but it was twisted to the point where it’s suggested that he was being harassed all the time, which was just not the case.
Here are some stories this video should have used instead:
“Corporal Alfonso Rodriguez, a Mexican-American born in Santa Fe, New Mexico, said that he first experienced racial discrimination during recruit training. A white soldier once demanded that the Rodriguez and other Latinos stop speaking Spanish and speak English, ‘like Americans’, and Rodriguez was involved in several physical altercations stemming from the incident. Rodriguez was also often referred to using racial insults such as ‘smartass Mexican’.”
“Private First Class Raul Rios Rodriguez, a Puerto Rican, said that one of his drill instructors was particularly harsh on the Hispanic and black soldiers in his unit during his basic training at Fort Bragg.”
“Private First Class Felix Lopez-Santos, another Puerto Rican, said that he observed some racial discrimination against African-Americans, but that he never experienced discrimination himself because of his light eyes and fair complexion.”
Wikipedia is a problematic source (it also misinterpreted Pfc. Gonzalez’s story), but I have talked to people who had corroborated these other stories: