|
-- Michael Kelly: African-American Casualties --
Thanks Connie, and Roger that on not stopping with
"Bloods."
The 1% difference between Blacks
as casualties and Blacks as a part of society
is very small by any measure. And, much of it can be
attributed to something Wallace Terry and
others never seem to acknowledge, and that
is the fact that many Blacks were very
patriotic and voluntarily enlisted in
the military specifically for the
Infantry.
That was particularly true at the
start of the war when Army infantry
(and particularly airborne) units where
comprised of Black enlistees far above
their % of the population, though less so
toward it's end, I would say.
But given the
nature of society at the time; that the long term effects of
racism and other factors had condemned a
very disproportionate number
of Blacks to
the lower economic rungs of society with the military being
one of the few perceived escape routes
from that lower shelf, the amazing
thing to me is
that the disparity between those
percentages isn't much
greater!
If in fact
at one point Blacks were 23% of the dead, yet in the end were
only 12.5% of the dead, then that raises
some interesting questions
and observations.
For
one thing, our society and the war should be viewed in the
long term, I think, and it speaks volumes about a
society's health and its compassion
if
it was true a minority was dying
disproportionately during part of a war,
and that society acted to correct the
imbalance and succeeded by its end. Can
we ignore that noble act?
On the other
hand, how was that imbalance corrected (or should it have
been corrected if the playing field was
otherwise level)? For a minority's
casualty rate to have been reduced by
more than half over an 8 year period,
that could only have been accomplished if
troops other than Black
Americans were pushed to the fore of
combat in disproportion to their
own numbers! In other words, for at least part of
the war, the scales
must have
been dramatically tilted to ensure
Black Americans from
combat. It is otherwise
a mathematical impossibility, I
think.
If you look at the war only as a
slice of one of those years when
Non-Blacks were dying at disproportionate
rates, then it would appear that it was
the majority that was being discriminated
against! Ain't that a bitch?
The
really surprising thing to me in the data I compiled was that
Black Draftees only made up 13.5% of
all Draftee deaths. That one blows my
mind and throws the long accepted
myth that Blacks were drafted
inordinately during our war into some
disarray. Not sure how that can
be
explained...
I'm puzzled by the stat you
cite putting the total participation of Blacks in
the active duty military at 9.9 percent.
I have official DOD stats that put it
at
15% in 1971, a point in time when Black
participation was likely at its
lowest.
My
experience and other things I've read have told me that Blacks
were nearly 20% of the military
during the early years of the war. It's also true
that only a few years ago, Blacks
were 33% of the all volunteer Army and
yet today are near 30% of
it!
What would would historians be saying
today if the Gulf War had been a blood bath for
Americans? 30% of the dead would have been
Black Americans and imagine how that would be
interpreted? On its face,
one could conclude that the US was
more racist in the 90's that during the
60's, but I think it's fair to say
that was not at all the case.
Something
else was going on in the period of the Gulf war, and that
something else, whatever it was, was also at
work during the Vietnam War
to
one degree or another; which is my
way of saying one has to be very
careful about attributing very small
statistical variances to racism alone.
In
any case, the 9.9 % participation figure you cite really seems
odd given
the fact it was apparently much
higher in 1971, a time when one would have
to otherwise surmise that Black
participation would be approaching its
lowest point. Wallace Terry even says 14%
of the military was Black during
the War years. So, I'd say something
is wrong with that figure or
my understanding of it.
Michael Kelley
|