[InterestedInPolitics]

I dont understand it, i just recently watched a documentary about african americans during ww2, and i still dont understand why they went to fight for a country the despised them and considered the less than human. did you know a lot of black americans who returned form the war where lynched even, while they where in their uniforms. so where black americans brave for fighting to protect people who brutalized and lynched them on a regular basis or where the just misguided by american propaganda at the time.

So much for "supporting the troops" eh? There are a lot of brave Americans who got the shaft when they got home and these same Americans did some extraordinary things in the service of their country during a time of war. Yeah, how those black soldiers were treated, was wrong. It's terrible to see how these brave Americans were treated. But you would be surprised at how vets get treated sometimes.

[Godstud]

I think that says a lot about how much those people loved their country, or at least had some faith that it would one day be a country that recognized them by more than their skin colour.

http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/Tuskegee_ ... story.html

Obvious reasons for why black Americans fought in WW2... Germany and Japan threatened everyone. Under Hitler, the blacks would have been exterminated like the Jews were. Options were pretty grim, and some people wanted to do their part to help.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
I didn't say they were able to exercise those rights fully immediately, I said that 360,000 white men died so that blacks would be freed from slavery and could get the right to vote.


1. There is no point in theoretical rights if you are murdered for exercising them.
2. They didn't get the right to vote. I point you again to the Jim Crow laws.

You're saying that getting those rights put into the constitution did not lead eventually to all blacks voting without restrictions? You're saying that before the Civil Rights movement, no blacks were able to vote at all because every single black that tried was murdered?

Your description is hyperbole.

Quote:
To then turn around and describe America as "despising" blacks, and treating them as "less than human", without ANY mention of efforts to give blacks equality


Why are you being so stubborn? Even as late as the 60s, black people were subject to segregation and intimidation in massive numbers.

I don't see where I said that there was no racism towards blacks. I contested the description of America "despising" blacks and treating them as "less than human", as if a civil war wasn't fought to free blacks from slavery, and give them equal rights under the constitution.

It was a one-sided, racist depiction of Americans.

[BassHole]

My description is not hyperbole. Your characterisation of my description is a hyperbolic strawman.

I don't see where I said that there was no racism towards blacks. I contested the description of America "despising" blacks and treating them as "less than human", as if a civil war wasn't fought to free blacks from slavery, and give them equal rights under the constitution.

It was a one-sided, racist description of America.

The civil war was not fought to "give blacks equal rights under the constitution". As was pointed out earlier, the civil war was caused by factors so complex that historians cannot agree on its original cause. The description was neither one-sided nor racist. If blacks were not viewed as somehow "lower" than their white counterparts, they would not have been put into segregated regiments in the Second World War, for starters.

[RonPaulalways]

You're blatantly lying, as can be expected from those who support black racism.

You wrote:

1. There is no point in theoretical rights if you are murdered for exercising them.
2. They didn't get the right to vote. I point you again to the Jim Crow laws.

My characterization of this was:

You're saying that getting those rights put into the constitution did not lead eventually to all blacks voting without restrictions?

^ Referring to you saying there was "no point in theoretical rights".

And:

You're saying that before the Civil Rights movement, no blacks were able to vote at all because every single black that tried was murdered?

^ Referring to you claiming "they didn't get the right to vote", as if Jim Crow laws prevented EVERY SINGLE black person in America from voting, and you claiming that blacks were "murdered for exercising" their voting rights.

Your description was hyperbole.

[BassHole]

You're blatantly lying, as can be expected from those who support black racism.

You're saying that before the Civil Rights movement, no blacks were able to vote at all because every single black that tried was murdered?

If you can tell me exactly where I said that "every single black person that tried to vote was murdered" I will concede the point to you. Otherwise, shut it.

[RonPaulalways]

1. There is no point in theoretical rights if you are murdered for exercising them.
2. They didn't get the right to vote. I point you again to the Jim Crow laws.

You didn't say there were exceptions. You implied that there was no point in getting a constitutional right to vote, since those who exercised it were murdered, and you explicitly stated that blacks "didn't get the right to vote".

[BassHole]

1. I never said there were NO exceptions, either.

2. Since you can't quote me on your second point, I take it I probably didn't say it.

You implied that there was no point in getting a constitutional right to vote, since those who exercised it were murdered, and you explicitly stated that blacks "didn't get the right to vote".

I didn't imply that "everyone" who voted was murdered. As you should well know, intimidation and lynching were commonplace throughout much of American history, post-civil war. For you to deny that is idiocy.

[SpecialOlympian]

RonPaul is trolling. I can see from this and the other thread he's posting in about homosexuality that he just wants to rile liberals. Although this method is a bit more clever since he erroneously believes he's somehow tricking people into making racist arguments. Nice idea, but since he basically has to deny the factual history behind it this plan won't work.

I'll help you out RPA. People in the past did in fact hate black people because I hate black people and I'm pretty sure times haven't changed. Wait, but I'm a liberal so I love black people. But... I'm arguing that I hate black people? I-I-I love, hate, hate, love black people I-We-Socialist-Utopia-Ron Paul's Racist Newsletter----

*Head explodes from liberal paradox*

[Siberian Fox]

[Moderation note: This topic is about the Second World War, please discuss the American Civil War in a more appropriate place.]

I was under the impression that Black people in the US armed forces during WWII were still treated very much as second class and as such were generally not placed in front-line combat situations. Roles would include things like driving the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of trucks needed to keep the front supplied.

[Godstud]

African-American Soldiers in World War II Helped Pave Way for Integration of US Military
African-American soldiers played a significant role in World War II. More than half a million served in Europe. Despite the numbers they faced racial discrimination: prior to the war the military maintained a racially segregated force. In studies by the military, blacks were often classified as unfit for combat and were not allowed on the front lines. They were mostly given support duties, and were not allowed in units with white soldiers.

That changed in 1941, when pressure from African-American civil rights leaders convinced the government to set up all-black combat units, as experiments. They were designed to see if African-American soldiers could perform military tasks on the same level as white soldiers.

Eighty-seven-year-old Woodrow Crockett was a part of that experiment. He was a Tuskegee Airman, the first group of black pilots ever trained by the Air Force. He flew 149 missions between 1944 and 1945, protecting harbors in Italy and American bombers from German fighter planes. Mr. Crockett says the Tuskegee Airman had a lot to prove and did so. In 200 missions they never lost a bomber to enemy fire.

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Bill De Shields, a historian and founder of The Black Military History Institute of America in Annapolis, Maryland, says, "The symbol of black participation at that time was 'the Double V'. in other words, 'Double V' meant two victories: victory against the enemy abroad, and victory against the enemy at home. The enemy at home of course being racism, discrimination, prejudice and Jim Crow."

Mr. De Shields says widespread racial discrimination throughout American society made it difficult for black soldiers. He says the early successes of the Tuskegee Airmen and other black units paved the way towards fully integrating the military.

"The experiment and the participation African-Americans made during war time from World War II right on to the Vietnam War enabled us to make a change in civilian life. It shows you that blacks and whites working together, can work on a integrated basis. It shows that it does not disrupt the morale of the troops," says Mr. De Shields.

Despite orders from President Harry Truman in 1948 to integrate the U.S. military, black soldiers were still kept in separate units during the Korean War, which lasted until 1953.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-1 ... 29177.html