Racism & U.S. Military
It is a common liberal claim: the U.S. miltary is not only an historically important model of successful racial integration, it continues to be a model for racial integration today. And yet the US military is a deeply segregated institution. Nearly all of its officer corps, all front-line combat commanders, highly skilled or high prestige jobs (pilot, special forces ‘operator’, submariner, and so on) are deeply and thoroughly White, that is, as segregated as the military as a whole was pre-1950.
In a recent column, “Wild Justice” Alexander Cockburn punctures the myth of military racial harmony by way of criticizing the lies and half-truths of the latest Pentagon-sponsored propaganda film, Black Hawk Down.
Now for disjuncture on another front, viz., Somalia, these days touted as a prospective target nation in the war on terror. The new movie Black Hawk Down hails the heroism of U.S. special forces, in the form of the Delta Force and Army Rangers. The reality was somewhat different. Recall that prior to U.S. intervention by Bush I in 1993 Somalia had spent many years under the corrupt sway of Siad Barre, and that the role of U.S. oil companies was sufficiently strong for the postintervention U.S. embassy to be located in the Conoco compound.
But, citing famine in Mogadishu and in the southern part of the country, and an urgent need to restore order, President Bush I sent in the Marines. The United States meant business in Somalia: this was obvious from the location of the American embassy, established a few days before the U.S. marines arrived in Mogadishu, in the Conoco corporate compound.
The “humanitarian” intervention was talked up as one of the first bouts of nation-building of the New World Order, supervised by various nonprofit aid groups and protected by the UN-sponsored military force. Soon ugly stories of murder and torture by Canadian “peacekeepers” appeared in the Canadian press. To efface such unpleasantness the U.S. press whipped up a frenzy about a local warlord called Mohammed Aidid, a sort of mini-Osama, and he became public enemy number-one, target of various bumbling efforts to kill or capture him.
On Oct. 3, 1993, a team of so-called “elite troops” composed of Delta Force and Rangers tried to nab Aidid again, in central Mogadishu. But the American troops became confused. Shortly after, they were surrounded by angry crowds. There ensued a massacre in which somewhere between 500 and 1000 Somalians were killed, along with 18 Americans.
In 1999, Mark Bowden’s book Black Hawk Down appeared. Bowden had worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer and had filed pieces right after the 1993 massacre. As the movie director Alex Cox points out in a recent, excellent discussion of Black Hawk Down in The Independent, “It’s interesting to observe how the story was re-told over that time. An article by the former Independent correspondent Richard Dowden [not to be confused with Mark Bowden] the previous year makes the clear point that US troops killed unarmed men, women and children from the outset of their mission: ‘In one incident, Rangers took a family hostage. When one of the women started screaming at the Americans, she was shot dead. In another incident, a Somali prisoner was allegedly shot dead when he refused to stop praying outside. Another was clubbed into silence. The killer is not identified.’”
Bowden’s original articles were filled with these unpleasant details. They are not to be found in the book. I am reliably informed that the publisher, Grove Atlantic, thought it politic to remove them, preferring an unblemished epic of American heroism. The only blemish that disfigures the release of the movie is the fact that GI John “Stebby” Stebbins, renamed as Company Clerk John Grimes in the film, is now serving a 30-year sentence in Fort Leavenworth military prison for raping a 12-year-old girl.
Cox cites a subsequent U.S. Army investigation of organized racism in the U.S. Army, which concluded the problem was particularly serious in all-white, so-called “elite” and “Special Operations” units. Such racial separatism could lead to problems, the report warned, because it “foster[s] supremacist attitudes among white combat soldiers” (the Secretary of the Army’s Task Force Report on Extremist Activities, Defending American Values, March 21, 1996, Washington, DC, p. 15).
After the massacre, Canada, Italy and Belgium all held inquiries into the behavior of their troops. Canada put some of its soldiers on trial for torture and murder. The U.S. never held such public investigation or reprimanded any of its commanders or troops for the Somalian debacle.
January 30th, 2002 at 12:24 am
Here’s the basic truth that most people have been afraid to mention: elite units in the US military are predominantly white not because of racism, but simply because so very, very few blacks are smart enough to qualify. It’s a matter of IQ, and unfortunately most blacks just don’t quite get there. In almost any career field you care to look at where intellect matters, where the slow poison of political correctness and quotas hasn’t crept in, blacks are under-represented. In elite units, where a lower intelligence level means people get killed, the selection process has picked mainly Whites and Asians. These units are traditionally under-manned and would LOVE to get decent, qualified soldiers of any race, including Blacks and Hispanics - they just find extraordinarily few Blacks who are smart enough to cut it. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. Black soldiers fill a number of important roles in the military, and are generally good troops and make fine NCO’s and officers. I fully support them being there, and wish them only the best. However, the harsh truth remains that in units where sheer brainpower matters, they get washed out - units like Intelligence, Special Forces, aviation, Foreign Area Officer, etc. Some are smart enough to make it - and more power to them. Many, however, end up in line infantry units, or service and support outfits. 18th Airborne Corps had a number of service units (in their COSCOM organization) with 70%-80% Black female demographics at the start of the Gulf War in 1990. Upon activation to go overseas about half the unit suddenly got pregnant - rendering it technically combat ineffective and non-deployable. This is absolute truth. It’s unfortunate, but when we as the US people allowed liberal Democrats to begin treating the military as a social experiment we lost a great deal of our combat effectiveness. The issue of Blacks and IQ is a harsh one, but look at average GT scores, and you’ll see that most black recruits aren’t capable of functioning in a high-tech, advanced military. They can still perform well in many roles - but the cutting-edge, where IQ counts, is going to remain White (and some Asian)for as long as results still matter. Sorry, but that’s the honest truth.
February 2nd, 2002 at 10:53 pm
It’s hard to find the appropriate response to this garbage. But, it is a useful example of some of the stuff Appiah talks about with his intrinsic and extrinsic racism distinction (see my notes on Appiah’s book for details).
I’d say that this fellow, for all his extrinsic racist protestations, is really an intrinsic racist. Note some of the avoidence mechanisms: You can’t point to any blacks “achieving” in careers where “intellect matters” without facing charges that that field has been poisened by “the slow poison of political correctness and quotas”.
It’s also interesting that some Asians get in (due to the “braininess” of Asians, no doubt), but why aren’t they dominating the Special Forces, if the SF is so desparate for qualified people?
Faugh. It reminds me of “arguments” where Blacks can be quarterbacks because it requires “brains”. As usual, it’s the fast and constant poison of racism that keeps Blacks out, not any (non-racist) actual features of Blacks or the jobs.
February 4th, 2002 at 10:33 am
Fantastic, once again the usual no-solid-evidence-but-plenty-of-name-calling liberal comeback. This is what happens all the time. When someone says there are four apples on the floor you people would somehow sneek past it in some ridiculing, no-logic, beating around the bush tactic…..and somehow still convince a lot of people.
Also, do people forget that, for instance, blacks only make up about 12% of the population? Not 60% as you muck-rakers like to indirectly blow it up to be. So come on, tear what I said apart and start your name-calling. Hurry up so I can read it too. Bring on your made up figures and creative statistics, just like they taught you in those wonderfully weak and illusionary coffeehouse magazines.
February 4th, 2002 at 1:23 pm
A few things are especially grotesque about Jamaal Michaels’s comments:
1. he’s an equal opportunity bigot, taking time to throw in some sexist bashing of black women in the midst of his racist jeremiad against blacks in the military
2. he apparently has some kind of statistics fetish, but fails to offer *any* non-circular evidence whatever for his central (racist) claim, that blacks just aren’t smart enough (all but a ‘very, very few’ as he allows, which is really his only concession to reality) to serve in ‘elite units’ — again, it’s worth repeating, he offers *no* non-circular evidence for this claim (which is to be expected, since it’s plainly false).
The segregation of elite units is fairly cross-ethnic, that is, there are very few Asians, very Hispanics, very few African Americans. Now why, from that fact pattern, should anyone conclude, as does Mr Michaels, that African Americans can’t ‘make it’ because they’re dumb? From this fact pattern alone we either have to assume that many ethnic or racial groups are washing out because of low intelligence or there are other causes for segregated units. Mr Michaels is relying on other beliefs or facts, ones he sees unwilling to share with us, largely, I suspect, because they are even *more* racist than what he’s said so far
3. his use of Asians as the ‘model minority’ is a fairly cutting edge racist move; but notice how he demurs on using Hispanics in this way (which is something Bush did in Texas pretty often). I said pretty carefully in my original piece that the US military was hugely segregated *in particular areas* (those that tend to be high pay, high prestige, high visibility), and all Mr Michaels’s can hear me say is ‘there are not enough blacks’. Well, in fact, the truth is precisely as I implied: special forces, aviation, submariners and other ‘elite’ units are almost *entirely* White, with very few African Americans, very few Hispanics, and even fewer Asians.
February 4th, 2002 at 1:46 pm
Hmm. Well, I see plenty of name calling in your response “B Paul” and little evidence of *any* kind.
Indeed, what was the *evidence* in the first post? A “solid truth” that blacks were intellectually inferior. But that was mere assertion. Indeed, none of the statistics supplied had references, and seem rather fantastic on there face.
What the heck is this “four apples on the floor”?
Hmm. “muck rackers”…I *guess* you meant that as an insult
But if there’s muck, better to rake it. And, how exactly, does one “indirectly” blow up 12% to 60% (why 60? what *are* you talking about? pointers please….whoops, I guess that’s *evidence*, sorry).
Are you really taking the first post as serious? Aside from the internal incoherence, it’s hardly a model of citation (still can’t find any 70-80% black female COSCOM service units, much less some that “suddenly” got half pregnent…I guess this is more of the “secret but true” facts that only people like you have access too but the “weak and illusionary” coffeehouse mags conceal from the likes of me).
Thank you though for supplying such a wonderful exemplar of what you distain (name calling without evidence).
February 7th, 2002 at 7:45 pm
Let me clear the smoke and mirrors so I can try to figure out where any truth is in these postings. I’ve been through the selection process, I ve been to the “Q-course” and the minorities that went through selection and completed it were selected. The ones that didn’t make it weren’t less intelligent, they weren’t less motivated…they quit just like the white quitters and the hispanic quitters….a quitter is a quitter…see ya’ come back when you have more heart. The simple fact is that the percentage of people trying to get into SF is overwhelmingly white. What we need to look into is why. Is it a cultural socialization that makes us strive (yes, I’m white) to go for elite roles? Do minorities face barriers caused by residual effects of historical discrimination? If there are barriers, what are we doing to help minorities get an even starting point? More swim training? Better access to educational resources? (This is becoming more accessible through the internet.) Instead of throwing mud at each other and perpetuating the animosity, let’s work towards solving the problems and making our forces stronger with a wider base to draw from. Isn’t this the best solution to our manpower shortage?
p.s. I was in Somalia and one man’s massacre is another man’s survival. Anecdotal evidence is a fancy word for gossip. The Somalis used their women and children as cover since most US servicemen had to overcome ethical dilemmas and shoot so called innocents or be killed themselves by men (I have a hard time refering to them as such) who hid behind them.
February 8th, 2002 at 12:31 pm
Jack,
Thanks for posting.
I don’t know if you “cleared smoke and mirrors” or “figured out where there was truth in these postings”, but it still seems clear that the first comment was, to put it mildly, a total racist fabrication. You seem to confirm that.
(Note, I spent a few hours trying to find *any* mention on the net of *any* Army units with 70%-80% black women. Are there any? I would have thought that would be *big news* even if they didn’t have any troubles! And *half* becoming pregnant?!?!? There’s lots of fabricated statistics floating about the so-called “love boats” during the Gulf War, but even there, the highest figure is 30%.)
I take your point to be that *if* there’s filtering going on, it happens before the immediate testing and training. (I will note that you don’t offer anything more than anecdotal evidence either way.)
A final note: “overcoming” an “ethical dilemma” in order to survive isn’t the same as *resolving* that dilemma. I.e., maybe the US soldiers had to massacre to survive, but that doesn’t make the massacre moral acceptable. Understandable, perhaps, but it really does require a separate argument to make it *acceptable*. After all, even military necessity doesn’t (standardly) override war criminality (just as actual or perceived necessity doesn’t simply override ordinary criminality).
Again, even anecdotal evidence can be evaluated, and a court of inquiry seems like the right place to do it.
February 19th, 2002 at 6:32 pm
You leave out of your discussion the inconvenient fact that Clinton was pandering to the Black Congressional Congress when he commited U.S. troops to Somalia. The Caucus is always bitching about how the evil Jews/Zionists are getting much more in terms of the government gold than are African Americans or Africans (indeed, during the UN racism conference, African Americans made horses’ asses of themselves with their strident whining for individual reparations cheques). The continual harping on the fact that African Americans provide the Democratic Party with one-quarter of their votes couldn’t have been lost on the first Democratic president in a dozen years (the Republicans having controlled the White House between 1969 and 1993 for but four of 24 years).
It was a beknighted operation from the start, and the continual interference of the Caucus, such as its role in denying the ground troops M-1 Abrams tanks, has a large role in the debacle, but of course, your very paradigm of being anti-”white” doesn’t allow for considerations of such inconvenient realities, does it?
February 19th, 2002 at 6:37 pm
Oppose white privilege? In the Army? What privileges does a white enlisted person have in the Army? Of all the functioning organizations in American society (and I leave out universities due to the qualification “functioning”), the military has the least racism of any I’ve been involved with. African Americans can get a relatively fair shake there due to the fact it is a socialist organization (a fact conveniently disregarded by almost all of the people in the military) and due to the active enforcement of equal opportunity programs.
If you haven’t been in the military, you have far less standing to criticize it than someone who has. In other words, you’re cracking walnuts with your ass.
March 11th, 2002 at 8:01 pm
I want to know about the $35 million U>S> Embassy that was built in Somalia in the early ’70’s?
March 24th, 2002 at 2:04 pm
A friend just sent me a review by Jamaal Michaels and it triggered an avalanche of pent up frustration.
I was in Vietnam for nearly two years. There, I was exposed to a document that analyzed the cost of killing the enemy using four different methods (bombs dropped from planes, etc.) The most expensive method (per estimated casualty) was infantry but the recommendation was to use this method because it would solve the integration problem at home.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I am quite certain that this document, written by people drawing salaries from your tax dollars, could be found. It will be immediately understood that black men were deliberately torn from their homes and families and put in dangerous situations so as to reduce their numbers.
Johnson was president when this was written. Though one cannot hold the president accountable for every deed performed during his administration, this document was “eyes only” and I never should have read it, but I did and I have never been the same since.
April 25th, 2002 at 4:57 pm
Combat is surreal. Those young men in Mogadishu were fighting for each other not us; neither did they choose the mission. I think a book and/or a movie can be a dangerous thing as it invariably distorts facts or maybe leaves out some information that we would be appalled with. There was a black NCO with the Airborne involved in that fight in Mogadishu. I’d be interested in hearing what he’d have to say about this.
April 28th, 2002 at 1:03 pm
I stopped by this website again, where I had posted the first reply to Bijan Parsia a few months ago, and was amused to see the trite and all too predictable ad hominem attacks, accusations of racism, and protestations of my “statistics fetish” - in which the critiquer simply delivers a poorly thought-out rant without any evidence of his own. Bijan, Kendall - to put it as charitably as I can, you’re not bringing a lot to the table here, boys.
It’s also immediately obvious that Bijan Parsia, Kendall Clark, et al, have never served a day in the military. Bijan, here’s a clue for you, son - you won’t find any information on the Internet on military unit readiness, particularly from the Gulf War period, because it’s contained in USRs (Unit Status Reports) which are always classified. They’re protected to keep enemies from knowing our unit’s strength, equipment, readiness and activities. (If you ever do find them on the Internet, somebody’s going to jail.) Also, the military is not stupid, and even then realized that the high rate of female pregnancies, seemingly to avoid deployment to the Middle East, was a political and public relations time bomb. Believe it or not - it happened, and people who were at Fort Bragg in that period remember it. Your comments whining about how Whites are monopolizing all the “high pay” jobs also show your ignorance. You get only a small amount more for being in an SF unit. SF troops usually receive some language pay and an additional incentive pay ($110 per month) for being on jump status (parachute duty). It’s a tough way to earn a measly $110. Nobody is in the military to get rich. Almost anyone, particularly people in SF units, could be making much more money in the civilian world, with less risk and hardship. The real issue is how under-compensated the military (of all ethnicities) is when viewed in terms of what we ask them to do and where we send them to do it.
The topic I commented on was why there are few minorities in elite units. Bijan Parsia attributed low minority membership in elite units to White racism; I attributed it to a lack of qualified applicants - specifically, those smart enough to cut it in challenging courses and schools. The military measures intelligence by its standardized test, the ASVAB, where the GT score (General Technical portion) is roughly analogous to IQ. (See Murray and Herrnstein in “The Bell Curve” for an honest discussion of the benefits and flaws of using the GT score as a substitute for IQ.) Until about seven years ago, applicants for Special Forces had to have a GT score of 110 to qualify for the training (along with many other qualifications such as physical fitness, age, health, etc.) The premise was that SF required guys who were smarter and more intelligent than the average soldier. The RAND Corporation, a well-known and highly respected think tank, did a study for the government on soldiers picked for SFAS (Special Forces Assessment and Selection). You can find it on the Internet (free) at: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1042/MR1042.appe.pdf
Evidently, the Army has (back in 1995 to 1996) lowered the GT score requirement for SF applicants from 110 to 100. The following are quotes from the RAND study. You can whine, cry “racism,” or snivel about a “statistics fetish” all you want. Your refusal to face reality changes nothing.
“the GT score cutoff was waived from 110 to 100, making a higher proportion of minorities, particularly blacks, eligible for SFAS. In fact, the number of new black candidates more than doubled in FY97 (from 38 in FY96 to 85 in FY97).”
“Fourteen percent of white officers voluntarily withdrew from SFAS,compared with 10 percent of minority officers, but a higher proportion of the latter were dropped involuntarily (21 percent compared with 14 percent of white officers). Most involuntary drops result from a failure to meet standards.”
Look, I think ANYBODY in the service should be congratulated and thanked for what they’re doing for our country. There’s no job in the military that’s not important. ANYBODY, regardless of ethnicity, who steps up to the challenge of applying for elite training and units should have a fair chance. But the standards are there for a reason. Special Forces requires guys who are tough, capable of learning a foreign language, can jump out of airplanes, and have the IQ and mental fortitude to survive in extended ground combat. There’s good soldiers of all ethnicities in SF and other elite units, but the fact is that the GT score requirement of 110 kept a lot of Blacks out. As stated in the RAND Corporation study above, many more Blacks were able to qualify for training when it was lowered to 100. Are Blacks who make it through the SF course with a GT score of 100 as well qualified as those who needed a 110? Maybe. Is it important to have a SF soldier with a score of 110, rather than 100, on a paper test? I don’t know - maybe 110 was an artificially high requirement. But lowering standards to accomodate minorities is an ominous trend, and one we’re seeing all across U.S. society, particularly in academia. When Blacks don’t do well on standardized tests, they complain that the tests are biased and racist. Some complain that Blacks have “different types of intelligence” and “don’t test well.” When Blacks can’t meet the standards, too often they want society to lower or throw out the standards so that the “right” proportion of Blacks can get in. The all too common disdain of some Blacks for education as “inauthentic” and “acting White” is never mentioned. The unintended consequences of this are devastating - yes, there are more Blacks admitted, but many are not as qualified as their peers. Those that are as qualified are still seen as being there only because of racial preferences. The double standard reaches absolutely absurd limits in selections for elite academic programs, such as law school, where in some places equally qualified Black and White students have a 95% versus 3% chance of being admitted. (See the Washington Times at http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020425-89481291.htm).
Let’s be clear about this and what it’s doing to our country. This is NOT equal opportunity - it’s social engineering to achieve an artificial distribution of jobs, positions, and opportunities. It’s political and ethnic tribalism that demands lowered qualifications, racial preferences, and ’social justice’ rather than equality and fairness. It’s the same old bias and racism we claim to dislike in our society, camouflaged and tolerated because it benefits mostly Blacks. Racism and bias are just plain wrong, no matter how you disguise it or who it benefits. This hate-filled website (www.whiteprivilege.com), with its truly bizarre and racist definition of white privilege, is a prime example of one of the most grotesque kinds of racism in the US today. We rightly and correctly condemn vicious racists like David Duke and the KKK. However, those preaching the politically correct and ‘proper’ forms of racism (e.g., anti-White male) are tolerated. Think of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan. Their speeches just drip with venomous hatred and poisonous racism. They constantly remind us that they’re not really racists, since they only hate the ‘proper’ groups. The hypocrisy and arrogance are breathtaking. An interesting point to consider is that there may be fewer minorities in elite units precisely because those minorities with higher IQs have tremendous opportunities to go to college. The military is a less attractive life option to people who can go to college, and it’s a well-known fact that most colleges and universities vigorously recruit (and offer scholarships to) high-achieving, high-IQ minorities when they can find them.
I’ll say it again - any soldier of any ethnicity should have a fair chance at getting into any elite training and unit he qualifies for. I know for a fact that these elite units would love to get more qualified soldiers, and really couldn’t care less what skin color a soldier has as long as he can do the job. But lowering standards, if done solely to accomodate minorities, invariably lowers unit performance, morale, and combat effectiveness. It’s a quick way to get people killed in combat. An SF team’s most valuable asset is the absolute trust and confidence the team members have in each other. Anything that detracts from that trust, like racial preferences, is a detriment to the unit, the military, and to the U.S. It also does a disservice to that minority soldier who will carry the unspoken stigma that he may be there only because of a lowered standard - even if he’s fully qualified. This is the corruption and rot that political correctness, racial quotas, and lowered standards inevitably bring to everything they touch. And, sadly, it’s just as true in other parts of society as it is in the military.
I’d also like to respond to Incense, who posted above. I respect the fact that you served two years in Viet Nam. I’ve also seen the study you mentioned, which analyzed different ways of fighting the VC and NVA in terms of cost-effectiveness. I’m pretty sure it was also a RAND study, done for McNamara. It was NOT “Eyes Only.” Your conclusion about the reason for using infantry is wrong and was not in the original study. I don’t know if you misremember it, or if somebody showed you a study that had been altered. The military sent over infantry, not to solve the integration problem at home, but because the other methods were militarily ineffective against a tough, smart guerrilla force fighting an unconventional war in mountains and jungles. B-52 bombers can’t take and hold ground. Your perception that Blacks were sent over to Viet Nam as cannon fodder to die in disproportionate numbers has obviously festered in you like an unhealed wound for almost three decades. It’s unfortunate, because you were lied to. The reality is that Blacks suffered FEWER combat casualties, proportionately, in Viet Nam than Whites did. See the commentary below, quoted from, http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/perazzo/2002/jp03-20-02.htm
“Whites comprised 88.4 percent of those who served in Vietnam, 86.3 percent of those who died there, and 86.8 percent of those killed in actual battle (as distinguished from those who died from accidents or illness). Blacks, he added, comprised 10.6 percent of those who served in Vietnam, 12.5 percent of those who died, and 12.1 percent of those killed in actual battle. Finally, he pointed out that 13.5 percent of our country’s military-age males during the war years were black - meaning that there is no basis upon which to claim that a racist American government was indiscriminately rounding up large numbers of black men to be used as cannon fodder in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The National Archives and Records Administration, the Vietnam Helicopter Crew Members Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) confirm these statistics. In their meticulously researched book Stolen Valor, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley also corroborate (these) numbers. It is necessary only to clarify that according to the VFW, Hispanics, who were originally counted as whites, comprised about 170,000 (or 5 percent) of the 3,403,100 personnel who served in the Southeast Asia Theater - Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. They also accounted for 3,070 (or 5.3 percent) of the casualties.”
Basically, the demographic group that died disproportionately in Viet Nam was young white males from Southern states. Young infantry lieutenants, mostly White, were particularly likely to be KIAs. There was talk during the Vietnam conflict that Blacks were being sent to serve in combat in disproportionate numbers as a way of controlling racial unrest in the US. This false story was summed up by the quote a lot of Black anti-war activists used then, and which you may remember, as “Put a Nigger Behind The Trigger.” As shown above, it just wasn’t true, and was another lie used by extremist liberals to incite and deceive Blacks. It’s also interesting that the Soviet Union had a carefully organized, well-funded denial and deception operation that also deliberately spread this propaganda. (See Ronald Radosh at http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/radosh/2001/rr06-19-01.htm)
Incense, you’ve been living for more than 25 years with the pent-up frustration you described because you were lied to. You were lied to by liberals, by Democrats, and by other Blacks. I am sincerely sorry that you felt pained by this issue, and felt that I was demeaning your service in Viet Nam. I was not, and would not. Yet I also have to wonder what other liberal lies and calculated distortions you’ve swallowed over the years. What other Democratic Party deceit and hatred do you now take as fact? You’re obviously an intelligent man, and have access to the Internet so you can do your own research. You don’t have to live with this built-up anger and bitterness. Put that avalanche to use and think for yourself! Question things, do some research, and reevaluate your long-held beliefs. You’ll find, if you’re honest, that much, if not most, of what you’ve been told by Democrats and extreme leftist Blacks over the years has been pure, unadulterated lies and misdirection. Truth to liberals is like sunlight to vampires, and for much the same reason. Liberals can’t stand up to the harsh light of reality and logic any more than fictitious vampires can supposedly withstand the noon sun. Liberals will always try to evade or run from discussions based on facts, reason, logic and analysis, because they know they’ll lose, and that many of their views and ideas are deeply and inherently flawed. Try it for yourself - getting a Democrat to discuss a substantive issue rationally is like trying to nail down a drop of mercury. All they can do is fall back on lies, emotionalism, hyperbole, and attacks against the other person, not his ideas. The most common way Democrats do this is to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a homophobe, etc. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not - things have gotten so bad in this country that the accusation alone, or even the threat of it, is enough to silence honest discussion and open examination of issues.
I’ll be interested to see any replies to this post. Hopefully any replies will be more logical, original and valuable than the drivel that some people responded with before. I’m glad that I’ve been able to show at least one person, Incense, that the lie he was told by leftists all those years ago, and which has been torturing him ever since, was just another Democratic Party fabrication. Unfortunately, there’s plenty more of them out there. The lie of “white privilege” in our society is just one of the more grotesque.
Jamaal Michaels
June 23rd, 2002 at 3:14 pm
Once again it seems that the real point has not been made. Military personnel, as they are called in the great 20th century, those brave souls who are directed by the similarliy euphemistically named Defence ministers, are essentially hired killers; Ergo the essential question is not whether the US armies hierarchy is racist, but rather why are Black, Hispanic or Asian people joining such outfits. To put it another way, anyone dumb enough to join the army should be allowed to do so (and this goes for homosexuals as well). As the great Jonny Pineapple once said, ‘Case fuckin closed’.
June 28th, 2002 at 3:01 pm
“its the same old bias and racism we claim to dislike in our society, camouflaged and tolerated b/c it benefits blacks”–actually, white women are the number one benefactors of the affirmative action programs of the last 30 some odd years–and since the vast majority of white men marry white women, you could say that white men are benefiting from affirmative action…also, IQ is not a measure of intelligence, b/c how does one put a number on intelligence? How could one devise a test that is free of bias cultural bias? IQ tests are a better indicator of the individual’s ability to regurgitate white North American bourgeios cultural assumptions than of some magic intelligence #…i.e. if you are living with eskimos and you dont speak their language, then what is your knowledge of suburbia and prime time television going to do to keep you warm? or to help you survive? who is more intelligent in that context? you or the eskimo? The idea that a quantifiable intelligence could be shown on a hierarchy based on (lack of) skin pigment is equally preposterous…
July 14th, 2002 at 2:39 am
Ok, i’m serving in the army at this very moment and here is the truth, “elite” forces are not all white! The truth is that not many blacks “choose” to go into Special Operations (as shooters), not because “WE” are unqualified because of GT scores. This Jamaal fellow is using stats and a whole bunch of other crap, but the fact is that you don’t have to be Einstein to be in Special Forces. I know alot of white soldiers who got to “tryout” when they lowered the GT scores and the real reason they lowered the GT scores was because the ranks were thin, not because of race and all that other stuff, but because they needed personnel no matter what color they are. Also, i know plenty of blacks in the Special Forces ranks and i do know that there are some in Delta Force. The percentage does not matter, because look at how many make it into Delta anyway, very little. You have to want to be part of this unit and go through hell to be in it, most blacks choose not to go in it, simple as that. People join the army for various reasons and not everyone wants to be a spec ops operator, white or black. All this talk about racism and blacks not being smart, is all crap. There are intelligent whites in the military and there are not so intelligent whites in the military, the same goes for every other ethnic group. That is the basic truth and that is the way it is, just live with it and stop trying to make it into something that you believe from a political point of view. Politics belong in the civilian world, not in the armed forces. You have to earn your way with blood, sweat, and pain to be part of the military family, whether you are black, white, oriental, or hispanic. We have stanards and if they are not met, you don’t make it.
June 10th, 2003 at 2:33 am
Mr. Michaels,
You seem very Intelligent, and Extremely Eloquent in your answers backed by statistics…good.
It’s a well known Fact, that Statistics show favor of that presenter’s view point, That doesn’t make it Reality, just True. Don’t confuse the two.
Example, The Constitution of the United States
Freed the Slaves in 1864. Fact on paper, but in Reality, No.
I am a Viet Nam War area Vet. I served in both the Marine Corp., the Army’s 82nd. DIV. and the 18TH. Airborne out of Fort Bragg. I witnessed a high Pregnancy rate of Young Single Women in Units at that Post (Fort Bragg) while in the military.
That’s because the most Homely of Young Inexperienced Ladies become Queens in the mist of Wolves, They fall prey.
But I never heard nor do I know anyone that ever heard or know of a unit composed of even 30 percent Black Women let alone 80 percent in any Military
unit, that’s a Ripley’s award.
As for SF and some other elite units.
Most Blacks know what units they’ll be welcomed in.
And as for Racism. If you’ve been in or presently in the Military. you know the answer to that Question without a question.
Somethings you just don’t have an answer in black and white. You simply know it when you see it. No Military personal speaks of it to civilians (unspoken Code an all). “He slipped in the preverbal shower” thing.
And if it’s not evident by now, I’m Black. And I don’t consider myself a Racist, But a Realist. Racism exist in the all walks of life, so why not in the Military.
July 30th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Overt racism does exist in the US Army I have seen it and been a victim of it. For example: My white company commander said to me that he has racist feelings but he is trying to work through it. The battalion commander said, “At least he’s honest.” Then live ammunition was found on my military vehicle while parked in the motorpool.