4 ms·

I'm glad WWII vets aren't alive to witness this disgrace that has been created during the peace they fought to create. But they are rolling over in their graves

I'm glad WWII vets aren't alive to witness this disgrace that has been created during the peace they fought to create. But they are rolling over in their graves.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
Meanwhile the article cites one of those veterans in the interest of balance: 'Yet, the man responsible for the paintings, Arthur Sherman, seems somewhat optimistic about the decision. When asked about the removal of his murals, Sherman responded, "That’s a good question. Time goes by and things change."'
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  The article does point out that the murals may be accurate: > "It's important to note that Blacks and other servicemen of color returning to the states during that time were prohibited from taking advantage of the GI Bill, despite that being a promise to them at discharge." It also looks like the services wouldn't desegregate until at least Korea, or even the mid-1960s: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 - https://web.archive.org/web/20100723014433/http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-24.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100723014433/http://www.histor... > "Originally a follower of civilian society in racial matters, the armed forces moved ahead in the 1950's and by the mid-1960's had become a powerful stimulus for change in civilian practices in some areas of the country." more of the same at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24333207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24333207
  - rbecker 6y ago
    The US was also 90% white at the time [1], so one shouldn't be surprised murals would be "predominantly white", even if it wasn't for segregation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
    - emerged 6y ago
      Also, black soldiers were significantly less than the population percentage. Even if racism is to blame, the fact is the overwhelming majority of US soldiers were white.
      - rbecker 6y ago
        Were they? The wikipedia page is full of [citation needed] around the numbers, so I'm having trouble confirming this.
        emerged 6y ago
        I'm seeing mixed information too, now that I've started looking deeper. I suppose it was a tangential point in the first place, but now I'm really curious.
        082349872349872 6y ago
        inductions (rough parity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II#One_million_African-American_inductions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_ar... enlistments (far below): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II#African_American_enlistments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_ar... The WP text seems to quote the following directly: https://history.army.mil/documents/wwii/minst.htm https://history.army.mil/documents/wwii/minst.htm > "The reasons why relatively few Negroes enlisted during World war II were numerous. The principal one, however, was the severe restrictions placed against Negro enlistments by the armed forces, which, in some periods, amounted to complete prohibition."
    - rbecker 6y ago
      Perhaps more relevant than overall US demographics, would be ones for Rhode Island specifically: in 1950, it was 98.1% white, and 1.8% black: https://web.archive.org/web/20100327163842/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab54.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20100327163842/http://www.census...
- animationwill 6y ago
  I suspect he's self-censoring his real opinion to avoid cancel culture. He basically gave a non-answer.

I'm glad WWII vets aren't alive to witness this disgrace that has been created during the peace they fought to create. But they are rolling over in their graves.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

Meanwhile the article cites one of those veterans in the interest of balance: 'Yet, the man responsible for the paintings, Arthur Sherman, seems somewhat optimistic about the decision. When asked about the removal of his murals, Sherman responded, "That’s a good question. Time goes by and things change."'

082349872349872 6y ago
The article does point out that the murals may be accurate: > "It's important to note that Blacks and other servicemen of color returning to the states during that time were prohibited from taking advantage of the GI Bill, despite that being a promise to them at discharge." It also looks like the services wouldn't desegregate until at least Korea, or even the mid-1960s: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981 - https://web.archive.org/web/20100723014433/http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-24.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100723014433/http://www.histor... > "Originally a follower of civilian society in racial matters, the armed forces moved ahead in the 1950's and by the mid-1960's had become a powerful stimulus for change in civilian practices in some areas of the country." more of the same at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24333207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24333207
- rbecker 6y ago
  The US was also 90% white at the time [1], so one shouldn't be surprised murals would be "predominantly white", even if it wasn't for segregation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
  - emerged 6y ago
    Also, black soldiers were significantly less than the population percentage. Even if racism is to blame, the fact is the overwhelming majority of US soldiers were white.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      Were they? The wikipedia page is full of [citation needed] around the numbers, so I'm having trouble confirming this.
      - emerged 6y ago
        I'm seeing mixed information too, now that I've started looking deeper. I suppose it was a tangential point in the first place, but now I'm really curious.
        082349872349872 6y ago
        inductions (rough parity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II#One_million_African-American_inductions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_ar... enlistments (far below): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_armed_forces_during_World_War_II#African_American_enlistments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_the_US_ar... The WP text seems to quote the following directly: https://history.army.mil/documents/wwii/minst.htm https://history.army.mil/documents/wwii/minst.htm > "The reasons why relatively few Negroes enlisted during World war II were numerous. The principal one, however, was the severe restrictions placed against Negro enlistments by the armed forces, which, in some periods, amounted to complete prohibition."
  - rbecker 6y ago
    Perhaps more relevant than overall US demographics, would be ones for Rhode Island specifically: in 1950, it was 98.1% white, and 1.8% black: https://web.archive.org/web/20100327163842/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab54.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20100327163842/http://www.census...
animationwill 6y ago
I suspect he's self-censoring his real opinion to avoid cancel culture. He basically gave a non-answer.