Why did Black Folk fight for the US in the Second World War ?

[Polishprince]

I understood it was the High Brass that fought an integrated army in WWII, and we were at war.

They did not want the headache of integration while in the middle of a war

Why would it have been a "headache"? Besides, it would have shown the Germans that we weren't hypocrites when we talked about how racism was wrong and the Holocaust was a bad policy.

 

[rightwinger]

I understood it was the High Brass that fought an integrated army in WWII, and we were at war.

They did not want the headache of integration while in the middle of a war

Why would it have been a "headache"? Besides, it would have shown the Germans that we weren't hypocrites when we talked about how racism was wrong and the Holocaust was a bad policy.

More ridiculous posts from you.....I am not about to review the horrors of integration with you

 

[Polishprince]

I understood it was the High Brass that fought an integrated army in WWII, and we were at war.

They did not want the headache of integration while in the middle of a war

Why would it have been a "headache"? Besides, it would have shown the Germans that we weren't hypocrites when we talked about how racism was wrong and the Holocaust was a bad policy.

More ridiculous posts from you.....I am not about to review the horrors of integration with you

Integration wasn't "horrible" at all. My school was never actually "segregated" as African American students were always welcome to apply, but none did until I was there. It worked out excellently in every way.

 

[Markle]

Our military is not a social experiment. The purpose of the military, bottom line, is to kill people and break things. Anything, anything that interferes or diminishes that goal is out of place, destructive.

The midst of a World War is not the time or the place for a social experiment. There was no possibility that the integration of our forces would have increased their ability to kill people and break things. There was a much greater chance that it would add to the distrust and angst among the troops.

 

[rightwinger]

Our military is not a social experiment. The purpose of the military, bottom line, is to kill people and break things. Anything, anything that interferes or diminishes that goal is out of place, destructive.

The midst of a World War is not the time or the place for a social experiment. There was no possibility that the integration of our forces would have increased their ability to kill people and break things. There was a much greater chance that it would add to the distrust and angst among the troops.

White troops, especially from the south, were not about to take orders from black leaders. They also were not going to share living quarters

 

[Polishprince]

Our military is not a social experiment. The purpose of the military, bottom line, is to kill people and break things. Anything, anything that interferes or diminishes that goal is out of place, destructive.

The midst of a World War is not the time or the place for a social experiment. There was no possibility that the integration of our forces would have increased their ability to kill people and break things. There was a much greater chance that it would add to the distrust and angst among the troops.

White troops, especially from the south, were not about to take orders from black leaders. They also were not going to share living quarters

I think you are full of crap. Before WW2, in fact all during our nation's history, people moved from one state to another. When young honkies moved from the liberal state of Alabama to seek their fortunes in conservative states like Ohio, they didn't have a problem living with and dealing with black people. The pretense that "Jim Crow" was tattoo'ed on the honky soul is bullshit.

And when the GOP finally laid Jim Crow in his grave in the 1960's, there was no particular discord among southern white people.

 

[Markle]

White troops, especially from the south, were not about to take orders from black leaders. They also were not going to share living quarters

Exactly the same as the troops from the North.

 

[Syriusly]

It seems like an act of faith in something that didn't exist.

At home, the inherent racism of the US denied them the very "freedoms" they were dying for.

They fought in the First War and nothing really changed, they should have learned from that.

Having said that, being bombed in Europe was probably preferable to life in the slave states.

Did black people see their daily lives improve as a result of their sacrifice ?

Wow, don't tell me you are seriously this stupid?

Are you not aware of history?

Slavery was over before the 20th century you dolt.




Conscription - Wikipedia

When the HMS drafts you, did the British say "no?" I doubt it, no matter how they felt about it.

Pretty much the same was true.



You start some pretty dumb threads sometimes.


They went, b/c it was either that or prison.

The ending of slavery was one step on the way. Blacks were still second class citizens in the US. Why fight for that ?

By any objective analysis, blacks lived better under segregation than they do now. Under segregation they had two parent households, little illegitimacy, little crime, no drug use, near full employment, decent schools. They have almost none of these things today.

I am not suggesting a return to segregation, but the facts are the facts.

Under segregation most Americans had two parent households- even in non-Jim Crow states. Almost like the two are not related.
Drug use was common- mostly alcohol but also weed.
Unemployment depended on the area and the time- a share cropper in Alabama was 'fully employed' but didn't mean he could afford shoes.
'decent schools'- really?

There are always those whites who want to tell us how good African Americans had it under slavery, or under Jim Crow.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems like an act of faith in something that didn't exist.

At home, the inherent racism of the US denied them the very "freedoms" they were dying for.

They fought in the First War and nothing really changed, they should have learned from that.

Having said that, being bombed in Europe was probably preferable to life in the slave states.

Did black people see their daily lives improve as a result of their sacrifice ?

Wow, don't tell me you are seriously this stupid?

Are you not aware of history?

Slavery was over before the 20th century you dolt.




Conscription - Wikipedia

When the HMS drafts you, did the British say "no?" I doubt it, no matter how they felt about it.

Pretty much the same was true.



You start some pretty dumb threads sometimes.


They went, b/c it was either that or prison.

The ending of slavery was one step on the way. Blacks were still second class citizens in the US. Why fight for that ?

By any objective analysis, blacks lived better under segregation than they do now. Under segregation they had two parent households, little illegitimacy, little crime, no drug use, near full employment, decent schools. They have almost none of these things today.

I am not suggesting a return to segregation, but the facts are the facts.

Under segregation most Americans had two parent households- even in non-Jim Crow states. Almost like the two are not related.
Drug use was common- mostly alcohol but also weed.
Unemployment depended on the area and the time- a share cropper in Alabama was 'fully employed' but didn't mean he could afford shoes.
'decent schools'- really?

There are always those whites who want to tell us how good African Americans had it under slavery, or under Jim Crow.

The breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs

 

[Blues Man]

I guess no black men were killed at Pearl Harbor...and no black people were worried about the Japanese....in the 2nd world war we fought for our very existence as a nation...I doubt this public schooled nation could be rallied like that today and that is very sad....

How was our existence as a nation threatened during WWII

We could have sat the war out

Germany's goal during WWII was the elimination the Jewish religion., and America has plenty of adherents to Judaism. They would have come here sooner or later.

Germany was incapable of invading England a few miles across the English Channel. How would they have invaded the US three thousand miles away?

Saying we should have stayed out of WW-II is a stupid statement.

How many ships were sunk along our East Coast by Nazi submarines?

How far is Hawaii from Japan?

I never said we should have stayed out of WWII. I just said claiming our very existence was threatened was overly dramatic and just plain stupid

Submarines can’t invade
Hawaii wasn’t invaded

If Europe fell where do you think the axis powers would have attacked next

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

How was our existence as a nation threatened during WWII

We could have sat the war out

Germany's goal during WWII was the elimination the Jewish religion., and America has plenty of adherents to Judaism. They would have come here sooner or later.

Germany was incapable of invading England a few miles across the English Channel. How would they have invaded the US three thousand miles away?

Saying we should have stayed out of WW-II is a stupid statement.

How many ships were sunk along our East Coast by Nazi submarines?

How far is Hawaii from Japan?

I never said we should have stayed out of WWII. I just said claiming our very existence was threatened was overly dramatic and just plain stupid

Submarines can’t invade
Hawaii wasn’t invaded

If Europe fell where do you think the axis powers would have attacked next

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You tell me

We still had the largest Navy on earth plus massive air power to attack any invading naval force. Germany lacked the naval power to invade England. They were in no position to invade the US.....no naval force in 1945 or today has that capability

 

[Markle]

The breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs

As you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

 

[Blues Man]

Germany's goal during WWII was the elimination the Jewish religion., and America has plenty of adherents to Judaism. They would have come here sooner or later.

Germany was incapable of invading England a few miles across the English Channel. How would they have invaded the US three thousand miles away?

Saying we should have stayed out of WW-II is a stupid statement.

How many ships were sunk along our East Coast by Nazi submarines?

How far is Hawaii from Japan?

I never said we should have stayed out of WWII. I just said claiming our very existence was threatened was overly dramatic and just plain stupid

Submarines can’t invade
Hawaii wasn’t invaded

If Europe fell where do you think the axis powers would have attacked next

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You tell me

We still had the largest Navy on earth plus massive air power to attack any invading naval force. Germany lacked the naval power to invade England. They were in no position to invade the US.....no naval force in 1945 or today has that capability

We would have eventually lost if we were alone against the axis powers



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

The breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs

As you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

You are partially correct but you misplace cause and effect

Welfare did not cause the breakdown of families, it picked up the pieces.
When manufacturing jobs disappeared, low skill assembly jobs disappeared. Males without jobs were unable to form families

You are correct in saying welfare contributed to the breakdown of families when it refused benefits to households with an unemployed male. It was easier for single mothers to claim benefits

 

[Polishprince]

Germany's goal during WWII was the elimination the Jewish religion., and America has plenty of adherents to Judaism. They would have come here sooner or later.

Germany was incapable of invading England a few miles across the English Channel. How would they have invaded the US three thousand miles away?

Saying we should have stayed out of WW-II is a stupid statement.

How many ships were sunk along our East Coast by Nazi submarines?

How far is Hawaii from Japan?

I never said we should have stayed out of WWII. I just said claiming our very existence was threatened was overly dramatic and just plain stupid

Submarines can’t invade
Hawaii wasn’t invaded

If Europe fell where do you think the axis powers would have attacked next

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You tell me

We still had the largest Navy on earth plus massive air power to attack any invading naval force. Germany lacked the naval power to invade England. They were in no position to invade the US.....no naval force in 1945 or today has that capability

Apparently, you're ignorant, RW.

Germany and Japan had solid tactical plans to conquer America.
How Hitler And The Axis Could Have Invaded America At The Height Of World War II

 

[MeBelle]

Our black citizens were not allowed to vote in the south
They could not go where they wanted and were restricted from white areas after dark
Jim Crow was as conservative as it gets......it took Liberals to get the laws changed
Conservatives still fight over things like voting rights, affirmative action, integration

I love it when Republicans try to show us how liberal they were 50-150 years ago

Point is that White Supremacy is firmly entrenched in today’s RepubliKlan Party

Fail.

No matter how many times you post this drivel.
DemoKrats failed at African American civil rights.


You must be from the party of white guilt.


btw

did you know that
a member of the Tuskegee Airmen celebrated his 100th birthday by taking a flight
on Dec 9, 2019.


No, you didn't!

Do you know the gentlemen who seek out the Tuskegee Airmen in order to interview them so that their stories can be told in order to preserve history?

No you don't!

STFU with your racist bullshit.
It don't FLY no more!

 

[gipper]

It seems like an act of faith in something that didn't exist.

At home, the inherent racism of the US denied them the very "freedoms" they were dying for.

They fought in the First War and nothing really changed, they should have learned from that.

Having said that, being bombed in Europe was probably preferable to life in the slave states.

Did black people see their daily lives improve as a result of their sacrifice ?

Wow, don't tell me you are seriously this stupid?

Are you not aware of history?

Slavery was over before the 20th century you dolt.




Conscription - Wikipedia

When the HMS drafts you, did the British say "no?" I doubt it, no matter how they felt about it.

Pretty much the same was true.



You start some pretty dumb threads sometimes.


They went, b/c it was either that or prison.

The ending of slavery was one step on the way. Blacks were still second class citizens in the US. Why fight for that ?

By any objective analysis, blacks lived better under segregation than they do now. Under segregation they had two parent households, little illegitimacy, little crime, no drug use, near full employment, decent schools. They have almost none of these things today.

I am not suggesting a return to segregation, but the facts are the facts.

Under segregation most Americans had two parent households- even in non-Jim Crow states. Almost like the two are not related.
Drug use was common- mostly alcohol but also weed.
Unemployment depended on the area and the time- a share cropper in Alabama was 'fully employed' but didn't mean he could afford shoes.
'decent schools'- really?

There are always those whites who want to tell us how good African Americans had it under slavery, or under Jim Crow.

The breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs

I proved this wrong once, do I have to go it again?

 

[Blackrook]

Tommy is a traitorous scumbag who doesn't understand that a soldier fights for his country, even if his country has flaws.

 

[Markle]

The breakdown of black families had nothing to do with segregation or Jim Crow. The breakdown of poor and black families came as black wage earners lost their low skilled manufacturing jobs

As you know, the breakdown of the black family unit was due to President Lyndon Johnson and his failed War on Poverty.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

You are partially correct but you misplace cause and effect

Welfare did not cause the breakdown of families, it picked up the pieces.
When manufacturing jobs disappeared, low skill assembly jobs disappeared. Males without jobs were unable to form families

You are correct in saying welfare contributed to the breakdown of families when it refused benefits to households with an unemployed male. It was easier for single mothers to claim benefits

Wrong, welfare, as it was put forth by the War on Poverty, punished good behavior and rewarded bad behavior. Just because someone has a low income does not mean they are stupid. It quickly became recognized that if you were married, with children, you were entitled to far less economic help from the government. However, if you were SINGLE with children, you were entitled to much more in the way of benefits.

Suddenly it was a great benefit to NOT be married. That rendered the husband not only useless but a detriment to the family unit. Without a family to be responsible for and proud of, that drove the men into other pursuits. How has that worked out?

 

[Blackrook]

Anyway, there's a whole shitload of blacks serving in the modern day military and they salute when they hear the National Anthem.