The WELL: inkwell.vue.332: Brendan I. Koerner, Now The Hell Will Start

#94: cyndigo (cynthiabarnes) Thu 7 Aug 08 19:33

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:33:00 PDT

Brendan, it's been a pleasure! Thanks so much for sharing so much interesting info, and for undertaking the NtHWS in the first place. I'll keep checking in too, and your book is at the top of my gift list for a couple of (OK racist) history buffs in my fam. [Read entire topic]

#93: Mark McDonough (mcdee) Thu 7 Aug 08 16:06

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:06:00 PDT

Yes, it was really a pleasure! [Read entire topic]

#92: David Wilson (dlwilson) Thu 7 Aug 08 15:10

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:10:00 PDT

Brendan you are one of the most gracious guests to appear here. Please check back and don't go away. [Read entire topic]

#91: Steve Bjerklie (stevebj) Thu 7 Aug 08 13:55

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:55:00 PDT

Brendan, thank you for giving us your time and knowledge. I appreciated your thoughtful, thorough responses to all of our questions very much. [Read entire topic]

#90: Brendan I. Koerner (brendankoerner) Thu 7 Aug 08 13:36

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:36:00 PDT

Thanks a million for having me, Dana. Really enjoyed this, as evidenced by the fact that I checked the conversation for updates about 50 times per day!

Thanks, too, to everyone who participated, and to Cynthia for moderating. I'll keep checking back if any of y'all want to keep the dialogue going.

In the meantime, I hope newcomers and casual perusers will pay a visit to the "Now the Hell Will Start" website:

http://www.nowthehellwillstart.com/

And if anyone ever wants to drop me a line, I'm eminently reachable at brendan AT youthrobber DOT com. Cheers to all. [Read entire topic]

#89: Dana Reeves (dana) Thu 7 Aug 08 13:27

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:27:00 PDT

We're turning our Inkwell spotlight to a new conversation, and I'd like to thank Brendan and Cynthia for leading a fascinating discussion these last two weeks.

Just because we're focused on a different conversation doesn't mean this one has to end, though. You're welcome to stick around and chat as long as you like. [Read entire topic]

#88: Brendan I. Koerner (brendankoerner) Mon 4 Aug 08 11:21

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:21:00 PDT

Mark, Kipling certainly wasn't the only unlikely candidate to hold a sharply different opinion than the leaders of the Jim Crow Army. I was really surprised by the plaudits that Gen. Pershing offered black members of the American Expeditionary Force after World War I. True, Pershing was still a segregationist, but he didn't buy into the racial science hooey that led to the "SOSing" of so many African-Americans during World War II. (SOSing refers to the practice of relegating black troops to Services of Supply units--that is, battalions and regiments charged with behind-the-frontlines chores like road maintenance.)

I've often wondered how the carnage of WWI affected intellectual attitudes in the 20s and 30s. People were obviously stunned at how technology had enabled such mass slaughter, on a previously unimagined scale. But wasn't there also an optimism that, having been through that horrendous experience, mankind's penchant for reason (and, by extension, science) would save us from another such cataclysm? I think that may be why racial science enjoyed such a vogue during that error--it enabled bigots to couch their fears in "scientific" terms (e.g. all the nonsense about cranial capacities and heel lengths). Because science would supposedly save us from giving into our basest, most violent instincts.

As a result, the Army became very systematic in its efforts to racially cleanse its ranks. One of the most depressing stats in my book is about the racial makeup of the Army in the late 1930s--it was just 1.5 percent black, and there were only four black officers (and three of them were chaplains). It's crazy to think how many willing Army lifers were turned away simply because they were black. [Read entire topic]

#87: David Wilson (dlwilson) Mon 4 Aug 08 07:07

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:07:00 PDT

In France bigotry takes the form of chauvanism rather than race-based hatred. <captward> is right about it being about culture. The more you speak, eat, pray, and have families like the French, the more you are accepted. The one exception, I would say, is the Arabs. Man do the French hate the Algerians. They call them "rats" among other colorful terms. When I lived there, when an Algerian woman was walking on the street in traditional dress, you could see the disgust on people's faces. When a Vietnamese or Cambodian woman in traditional dress, was walking down the street, she would get looks of appreciation.

Like most things French and American, they don't like to admit that they are like us and vice-versa. In the US we had our "peculiar institution" and thus our trouble dealing with blacks. France's adventure in Algeria, while way different than our slavery, did imprint them in a similar "peculiar" way. [Read entire topic]

#86: Ed Ward (captward) Mon 4 Aug 08 01:58

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:58:00 PDT

Racial tensions in France aren't racial because of skin color primarily, although that factor does eventually enter in. It's more about culture (Muslim vs. Catholic) and economics. A lot of those discriminated against don't want to integrate into French society -- the headscarf brouhaha, for instance, or the animal sacrifices around holidays -- and thus are at odds with the majority culture. It's just incidental to the central conflict that they're pretty easily spotted by their skin color. [Read entire topic]

#85: Mark McDonough (mcdee) Sun 3 Aug 08 15:27

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:27:00 PDT

>...blacks didn't possess the biological knack for combat.

Irony abounds in this whole area of thought. Rudyard Kipling, not exactly the most politically correct observer, certainly reached exactly the opposite conclusion about the black ability for combat.

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Fuzzy-Wuzzy%22> [Read entire topic]