Memorializing Second-Class Soldiers
Memorial Day is the time to memorialize all the brave individuals who served our country throughout its history, and sometimes paid the ultimate price for doing so. But, in particular, this year I'd like to focus on all those who did their duty for their country, and fought for the American ideal of equality for all citizens -- even while they did not enjoy such rights themselves, either in the military or in American life at the time. These second-class citizens, one would think, would have even less reason than citizens accorded full rights under the law to risk death on a foreign battlefield, and therefore would not have volunteered to do so. One would be wrong in thinking this, however.
The best example of this is a study in extremes. The 442nd Infantry Regimental Combat Team (now known as the 442nd Infantry Regiment) was the most-decorated unit in all of World War II. You may not have heard of them, but their motto has entered such common usage that the phrase is now universally-understood: "go for broke." This was originally pidgin English used in Hawai'i to describe making a big bet, perhaps on the throw of the dice. The unit adopted it, and they were known as the "Go For Broke" Regiment, because many of the soldiers in the unit were from Hawai'i. Others were from the mainland. What made the unit different from others is that it was composed of Japanese-Americans.
The military, at the time, was still segregated by race, of course. But the 442nd was, in a way, the most segregated unit of the entire war. Because while America had no problem sending soldiers of German or Italian ancestry to fight in Europe, Americans with Japanese ancestry were barred from serving in the Pacific theater.
Even with these restrictions, they more than proved their bravery. Over and over and over again. They would have been the first American soldiers to liberate Rome, except that they were stopped 10 miles short -- so that the newsreels could show white soldiers liberating the city instead. They were among the first to liberate the camps at Dachau, but again, they were largely kept out of the photos and out of the press.
Their feats of bravery were legendary on the battlefield, though. In particular, the rescue of a unit of the Texas National Guard in France, who were surrounded by the enemy. The 442nd suffered over 800 casualties in their fight to rescue a little over 200 men in "The Lost Battalion" -- one of the most poignant stories of heroism during the entire war.
These were men who, at the start of the war, were classified as unfit for combat, due to being "enemy aliens." The volunteers from the mainland came straight from our own "concentration camps" -- their entire families were living behind barbed wire while they were fighting, due to being of Japanese ancestry. They didn't let this stop them; they fought hard anyway. By the end of the war, they had earned another nickname, since (as noted) they were the most-decorated unit in the entire war -- "The Purple Heart Battalion."
Then there are the hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who have served our country -- in every single war we've ever had. Everyone knows the story of Crispus Attucks being one of the first to die for the idea of America at the Boston Massacre, but few know that blacks also fought on both sides of the American Revolution. As they would in every subsequent combat, even though up through the Korean War they were segregated and discriminated against by the military. They fought anyway. Even though they returned, after fighting, to institutional racism in American life -- after experiencing institutional racism in the military.
But that didn't stop the Buffalo Soldiers, or the Tuskegee Airmen, or any of the others from doing what they saw as their duty to their country, flawed as America may have been at the time in terms of the ideal of equality. Hundreds of thousands of blacks served with distinction and honor in both World War I and World War II, even though they did so as second-class citizens both within the military and without.
Women are still struggling to serve on an equal footing with men in the United States military. Although the ranks allowed women in three decades ago, it wasn't until a few weeks ago that women were allowed (for instance) to serve on U.S. Navy submarines. The path to full equality is a long one, at times. Second-class status is tough to overcome, not just in integrated units, but in the entire military culture. It takes years, and sometime decades (or even centuries) to overcome.
Today, the political battle rages over allowing gay people to wear the uniform of the American military, and not have to lie about who they are. Some urge caution and restraint. Some say the military shouldn't engage in social experimentation. The thing is, they've always said this. General Omar Bradley gave a speech right after President Truman had signed a presidential order integrating the military, in which he said it would essentially destroy the Army. Truman's order was signed in 1948, but the military didn't fully integrate for years afterwards -- most of which happened during the Korean War.
The most eloquent statement I've ever heard on the subject came from a fictional general, however. "Admiral Percy Fitzwallace" was the African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the television show The West Wing. In one episode, he walks in unexpectedly on a group of military men having a meeting with White House staff over the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Here's how the exchange went:
ADMIRAL FITZWALLACE: We're discussing gays in the military, huh?
MAJOR THOMPSON: Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE: What do you think? [No response.] I said what do you think?
THOMPSON: Sir, we're here to help the White House form a possible...
FITZWALLACE: I know. I'm asking you what you think.
MAJOR TATE: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
FITZWALLACE: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
TATE: No sir, I don't.
FITZWALLACE: 'Cause they pose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
TATE: Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE: That's what I think too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
TATE: Yes sir.
FITZWALLACE: The problem with that is that's what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... beat that with a stick.
Beat that with a stick, indeed. But I'm not here today to make a point about the current political situation or future political battles about the military, gays, or what policy our country should have. That's a discussion for another day.
Today, instead, is about memorializing those who have come before us. Which is why, today, I hung an American flag outside my house. That flag is up in memory of all those who served this country, but in particular this year my thoughts are with those who served this country with honor and distinction even though our country was simply not living up to its lofty promise or ideals with respect to them. For black soldiers who served America while slavery was still legal. For women who volunteered and served in the only peripheral roles which the military allowed them to serve. For the 442nd, who not only taught the rest of us the phrase "go for broke," but fought more notably than any other unit in the entire war -- even while many of them were writing letters "back home" to their relatives who were being humiliated by being forced to live in camps, behind barbed wire.
Our country put obstacles in the way of these brave individuals who wanted to serve. America made it harder for them to do their duty than it did for the majority. America sent them the message that they were clearly not as worthy of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship as others, and that when they got home from the war, they could also expect to continue to be treated as second-class citizens. Black soldiers returning from World War II were beaten, and sometimes murdered, after they had risked their lives for America's freedom -- just for being soldiers. In just about every way, we -- as a nation -- were telling these people: "you are not as good as the rest of us."
And yet, still they served. They accepted the slights, minor and major, and they served anyway. They brushed off the humiliation the system was heaping upon them, and they did what they thought was right.
So, this Memorial Day, every person who served America's military who did so as a second-class citizen is foremost in my thoughts -- for doggedly overcoming the obstacles our country put in their path to service, and for fighting just as hard as (if not harder than) the first-class citizens who were fighting next to them.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
WOW...
Excellent commentary, CW... Truly excellent..
Because of this, I hesitate to make one minor teensy weensy point...
But I will..
I think it's important to mention that, while in the past, segregation of the military has been over discriminatory and racist attitudes, I honestly and truly believe that the current issues of segregation you bring up (women and gays) are not so much based on any sexist or homophobic issues, but rather the real and pressing issues that such desegregation would force on the military..
In other words, having women in combat or women on subs present a unique set of challenges to the military beyond the sexist or "Me Tarzan, You Jane" mentality that the lesser informed might assume is in play. (See Demi Moore's G.I.Jane as a fictional example)
Having openly gay men and women serve in the military also would present a unique set of challenges to the military beyond the redneck homophobic attitude that the lesser informed might assume is in play.
Me, personally??? I don't have a problem with serving with gay men or women. I am sure that, in my military career, I DID serve with gay men or women. If I have a gay man checking out my ass while in a firefight with the Taliban (which is usually the fear of choice that the lesser informed ascribes to those who oppose the repeal of the DADT by those who support it's repeal) I would feel flattered, if I cared at all..
BUT...
But I (and ya'all as well) do have to respect those who WOULD have a problem with that.
Eventually society will outgrow such silliness as being uncomfortable with gay people just as it outgrew the racist and bigoted attitudes against black Americans and orientals et al.
But that level of uncomfortableness in the here and now is very real and it MUST be acknowledged and considered when determining if gays should be allowed to serve openly in the US military.
And yes, I know.. The same argument was made against racial desegregation. But I still maintain that we have a more unique set of circumstances in the here and now than we did back then. The competence and effectiveness of the US Military is a lot more important to our daily lives in the here and now than it was back then.
OK, so this wasn't such a teensy weensy point.. :D
But the summation will be.. Promise..
To sum up, I think it is important to acknowledge that in the current discussion of segregation in the military the issue isn't one of racism or bigotry, but rather of real and pressing issues that could be a detriment to the US military as an effective fight force..
On the other hand I am sure that those people back in the days of racial desegregation thought that their reasons were "real and pressing" as well.
In 50 or 100 years time, people will look back on us regarding the issues of women and gays in the military and will think of us in the same manner as we think of those who fought segregation of black Americans in the US military..
"Hwiiy'lou g'tu hwiiy" :D
-Old Rihannsu proverb
Michale....
You would think that the military would want the best person for the job. Regardless of race, sex, or color.
The only argument I've heard so far against gay people in the military seems to be something along the lines of "They shouldn't be in the showers with straight men."
It's always phrased in different ways, but when you start probing and asking questions, this is usually what it comes down to.
As if somehow all the straight men are going to be raped or somehow turned gay by the presence of a gay person in the showers.
This is ridiculous. And counter-productive.
Whether you're gay, straight, black, white, etc, shouldn't matter. It should be about the best person for the job. Period.
-David
DAVID!!! :D
Good ta see ya... I had gotten so bored around here I had to take advantage of CW's BANTER links for some intellectual stimulation!! :D
Anyways, to business...
You would think that the military would want the best person for the job. Regardless of race, sex, or color.
"You would think so, yet... Here we are."
-Homer Simpson
:D
The only argument I've heard so far against gay people in the military seems to be something along the lines of "They shouldn't be in the showers with straight men."
It's always phrased in different ways, but when you start probing and asking questions, this is usually what it comes down to.
As if somehow all the straight men are going to be raped or somehow turned gay by the presence of a gay person in the showers.
Your argument can also be used with women..
Why not have men and women together in the showers??
Whether you're gay, straight, black, white, etc, shouldn't matter. It should be about the best person for the job. Period.
What if the "best person for the job" would be grossly detrimental to military cohesion??
Then, all of the sudden, they are not the BEST person for the job, are they??
I mean, what is your criteria for determining "BEST"?? Simply competence in the chosen field?? Interpersonal relationships??
A LOT of things come into play when determining "best"...
You want the "best" person for the job as a team leader. But what if the best person in the field is a bear to work for and simply doesn't get along with others.
Then he or she would not be the "best" person for the job, now would they??
Don't get me wrong. I see what you are saying. But I think you are being too simplistic in your approach and are not allowing for the feelings and attitudes of others..
YOU may not have a problem with gay people. But you have to allow that there will be people who do have a problem with gay people. And their feelings and attitudes must be respected..
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale.....
Michale -
Warning, this is a trick question.
Do you think the Israeli Defense Forces are a professional and modern fighting force, facing not just a threat to their country, but a downright existential threat to the future of their country?
With recent events, that is a tricky question indeed, so I'll even moderate the question -- did you think the IDF was a professional fighting force ONE WEEK AGO, before the whole flotilla thing happened?
The IDF allows gays to serve openly.
Please address this point in your subsequent comments.
David, and most especially Michale -
Didn't the film "Starship Troopers" show the future of the American military, with co-ed showers? Do you think we'll ever get to that point? Just curious.
-CW
CW-
Starship Troopers ... great movie. Starship Troopers II ... not so good.
Also trying to remember if the new Battlestar Galactica showed co-ed showers.
I can't see the American military getting to this point though to me it seems a more mature position. That is, viewing people as adults rather than children unable to control their sexual urges.
Michale-
Seems to me that you're arguing that we should respect the views of those who are uncomfortable with gay people.
To this, I'd say get used to it. If you can't man up and grow up, maybe you don't belong in the military to begin with.
Because the same argument could have been made about allowing blacks in the military. Don't you think there were those at one point (and probably still are) who are uncomfortable having black people in the military?
This doesn't mean we should support their views.
Did allowing black people in the military initially affect "military cohesion"? Probably at first. But people dealt with it. And it was a good change.
And you know what? If their leaders and commanders support change, the troops will too. Not everyone has to like it, but expectations should be set right.
Cheers,
David
CW,
With recent events, that is a tricky question indeed, so I'll even moderate the question -- did you think the IDF was a professional fighting force ONE WEEK AGO, before the whole flotilla thing happened?
Oh boy oh boy oh boy...
Do you REALLY want to go there?? :D
I have always thought that the IDF is THE most professional and honorable military outfit on the planet.
The recent incident with the IHH Flotilla simply re-enforced that belief.
I'll just give ya'all a link, cuz I am close to getting all typed out over the Mavi Marmara incident. :D
http://muslimmatters.org/2010/06/02/slate-is-the-israeli-blockade-of-gaza-against-the-law/?replytocom=68164#comment-68171
The IDF allows gays to serve openly.
Touche.. I have always respected the IDF and that's one of the reasons why. If I recall correctly, gays have always been welcome in the Israeli Defense Forces
But Americans aren't Israelis. When Israel needed to build a fighting force, it was for their very survival and little things like that were over-looked.
It's really not a fair comparison, as the US military has centuries of bigotry to overcome. Things are entrenched and hard to overcome..
Israel has been in existence less than 70 years.
You seem to think that I personally have a problem with gays in the military.
I do not..
I just feel that there are better times to address this issue than when we are fighting two wars etc etc etc...
Didn't the film "Starship Troopers" show the future of the American military, with co-ed showers? Do you think we'll ever get to that point? Just curious.
I had that exact scene in mind when I posed the question. :D I said to myself, I said, "Self.. THAT'S the kinda military I like!!" :D
OK, all perverted droolings aside, here is a bit o trivia for ya'all...
The hot stacked blonde that played Rizz in Starship Troopers also played the Romulan Commander, Donata in Star Trek 10: NEMESIS
David,
Starship Troopers ... great movie. Starship Troopers II ... not so good.
More common ground!! :D
Seems to me that you're arguing that we should respect the views of those who are uncomfortable with gay people.
To this, I'd say get used to it. If you can't man up and grow up, maybe you don't belong in the military to begin with.
So, what you are saying in essence is, "IF YOU CAN'T THINK LIKE I DO, YOU ARE BABY AND NEED TO GROW UP!!!"
Are you really a progressive?? :D Just kidding. I know that is not what you are REALLY saying, but that is what it sounds like..
Would you say the same thing to someone who was agoraphobic or claustrophobic??
Did allowing black people in the military initially affect "military cohesion"? Probably at first. But people dealt with it. And it was a good change.
No doubt...
But the dynamic is much much different now than it was back then..
Back then things were.. ahem.. more black and white (honestly, no pun intended)
What with this war against terrorism, plus two quasi-wars, plus all the other BS pending around, we are in a sea of gray areas...
Do we honestly and truly need to throw ANOTHER challenge our way??
That's all I am saying...
If this does come about in the here and now, it may go real smooth and we will all be happy and gay... Gay as in happy, not gay as in gay..
But, it also could go very badly..
Is the risk worth the benefit???
Sure, it's easy for you and I to say, "Sure it is"..
But we don't have to share in the risk. The US Military does..
I will abide by what the US Military leaders say..
The question is... Will you??
Will the gay community??
THAT is the question before us..
Michale.....
Michale,
Would you say the same thing to someone who was agoraphobic or claustrophobic?
I am a decided anti-claustrophobe. These people should come out of the closet! ("That's a joke, son. Don't 'ya get it! I swear boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball." - Foghorn Leghorn)
Back then things were.. ahem.. more black and white (honestly, no pun intended)
What with this war against terrorism, plus two quasi-wars, plus all the other BS pending around, we are in a sea of gray areas.
What do you mean? You're being obfuscative (though kudos on the b&w pun).
I think there's more parallels than differences. Back then, there were people against blacks in the military. Right now, there are people against gays in the military.
Why coddle these folks? Why not do what is right and let them deal with it.
Why do what's wrong in order to appease those who hold homophobic views?
And I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you can compare claustrophobia with hatred of gay people.
Cheers
David
p.s. And if you need it to come from the military, well said Mike Mullen ...
“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html
I noticed you didn't answer my question.
If the DoD review comes back and says that it is not advisable to change the DADT policy at this time, will you accept it?
I am a decided anti-claustrophobe. These people should come out of the closet! ("That's a joke, son. Don't 'ya get it! I swear boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball." - Foghorn Leghorn)
Now THAT was funny... :D
What do you mean? You're being obfuscative (though kudos on the b&w pun).
It was truly unintentional, I swear!!! :D
What I mean is, we're facing a whole morass of crap that wasn't part of the desegregation of black Americans into the US military.
War was very black and white then. In the here and now, battle-lines change and morph and sometimes aren't even lines..
Now the military will have to deal with sexual harassment in a whole new way. Is there any difference between different sex and same sex sexual harassment? Will a soldier scream sexual harassment when he is swatted on the ass by a TI/DI?
All of these questions plus tons more will all explode in all directions. Not to mention those oh so little piddley issues of not trying to get your ass shot off..
Look, let me say it loud and clear since it is obviously falling on deaf ears..
I AM NOT AGAINST THE REPEAL OF DADT..
I SIMPLY QUESTION THE WISDOM OF DOING IT NOW..
Every response on this issue has been as if I am against repeal of DADT.. I am not.
To put it into a context you will hopefully understand....
I am not opposed to a black man with his white wife walking into a building and asking to use the bathroom. I really am not.. I think it is 1000% perfectly OK for a black man with his white wife to walk into a building and ask to use the restroom..
I really do honestly and truly think it's 10000% OK....
I would simply question the wisdom of doing it during a joint meeting of the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood..
Is the context clearer now??
Jeeesh...
It's like talking to....... ME!! :D
(I knew you would like that one... :D)
And I'm sorry but I'm not sure how you can compare claustrophobia with hatred of gay people.
"There you go again...."
-Ronald Reagan
Did anyone say anything about "hate"?? No one but you.
Again, let me put it into a easier and more understandable context.
This friend of yours walks up to you and confides in you, "David. Ya know.. We have been friends a long time now.. I wanted your help with something. I really am uncomfortable around gay people. I know it's not right, but it is just how I was raised. I get nervous around gay people and I can't work and I can't concentrate."
What are you going to do? Start slapping him around, kicking him and screaming at him that he is a big poopy-head and he better grow up??
My gods, where have all the REAL liberals gone?
“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,”
And I fully and completely agree with the sentiment..
But, I (and apparently I alone) also have compassion for those who come from dysfunctional families and who might not be comfortable with same sex discussions..
And such uncomfortable-ness in combat situations might lead to very saddening results.
But, of course no one cares about that, right?? Who cares that some homophobic jerk got his ass shot off. As long as the gay community get's their agenda, what does it matter, right??
"YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS!!!""
-Chris Rock, DOGMA
Michale......
If the DoD review comes back and says that it is not advisable to change the DADT policy at this time, will you accept it?
They would have to come up with better reasoning then: things are grey and I can't tell you what would happen but it would be bad and people would get shot.
Hogwash.
What are you going to do? Start slapping him around, kicking him and screaming at him that he is a big poopy-head and he better grow up?
If only it were that easy :) ... but I hate to see conservatives cry.
And such uncomfortable-ness in combat situations might lead to very saddening results.
Really? How? How is someone going to get shot because there's a gay person in their company?
I can see how it might lead to an improved military effort. We would not be disqualifying qualified people for their beliefs. It seems to me this would improve our military.
If you're not against the repeal of DADT, when would you repeal it? When the bogus "war on terror" is over? Almost by definition the "war on terror" is never ending. So it seems like this "now is not the time" argument is a big stall.
If we're going to repeal DADT, there's no better time than the present because things will never be black and white again.
Cheers
-David
Really? How? How is someone going to get shot because there's a gay person in their company?
The fact that you have to ask indicates to me that you have never been in the military and you are ignorant of military matters.
This is not an insult..
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything."
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK The Enterprise Incident
This being the case, my explanation will have very little meaning to you.
I can see how it might lead to an improved military effort. We would not be disqualifying qualified people for their beliefs. It seems to me this would improve our military.
Except, of course, if their belief was that being gay is wrong.
But that kind of discrimination and bigotry is OK, right?? :^/
If you're not against the repeal of DADT, when would you repeal it? When the bogus "war on terror" is over? Almost by definition the "war on terror" is never ending. So it seems like this "now is not the time" argument is a big stall.
I would probably wait until we have our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan is where Iraq is now.
But, you do make a good point. There is likely that there will always be something on the line.
If we're going to repeal DADT, there's no better time than the present because.....
.....because Obama's time in office is fading fast and there will never be someone as incompetent and bendable as he is.
This is probably the best (and the most accurate) argument for repealing DADT now.
Michale.....
This being the case, my explanation will have very little meaning to you.
I'd like to hear it anyways. Unless what you're really saying is "I don't have an explanation."
-David
Oh I do...
But it requires an in depth understanding of the military mind-set that anyone who hasn't served in the military.
To borrow a line from James Woods, "It's not what {they} do, it's what {they} are".
I guess the closes analogy that I can give you would be a well-synced and well-oiled sports team. They are the champions of the world (cue QUEEN) and they are perfectly in mesh with each other. But then it is learned that a couple of the guys on the team are gay. And there are a couple of guys on the team who have been brought up ultra-religious and feel that homosexuality is a sin.
All of the sudden this well-oiled and well-synced team falls apart...
It's the same with a military cohesiveness.. Except with a military "team", the result is not just lost games..
It's lost lives...
There is no question that every gay person should be allowed to serve in the military freely and openly, being able to be who and what they are.
There is no question that OTHER militarys have openly gay soldiers and there are minimal if any problems.
But neither of those facts are relevant to the question, "IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO INTEGRATE GAYS INTO THE US MILITARY IN THE HERE AND NOW?"
Sure, if done now, eventually every thing will be hunky dorky and things will work out fine...
I am more concerned with what will happen... what CAN happen in the first few months..
And anyone who doesn't have an agenda, save keeping this country safe, should ALSO be concerned about that.
Is the gay agenda more important than soldiers' lives??
You seem to think it is..
I don't...
That's it in a nutshell...
Michale....
Well, I guess that's one imaginary scenario, Michale.
Or maybe, because it's a well-oiled machine, the religious folks realize that gay people can be good soldiers too.
They did their job before and it wasn't a problem. What difference does it make simply knowing they're gay?
You're not giving religious people much credit, Michale. I know a lot of deeply religious people who do not like much about gay people, but when they found out a co-worker they liked was gay made exceptions to their own rules.
So there you have it. We could act out of fear of some imagined scenario that could never happen or imagine a more positive outcome and do the right thing. My vote would be to do the right thing.
I know this won't change your mind at all, but this is what I believe.
-David
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. -Bertrand Russell