(Calif.) National Guard under fire for anti-Islam display

[Newsjock]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12108904.htm

By Dion Nissenbaum
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - Already under scrutiny for setting up a controversial new intelligence unit and keeping tabs on a Mother's Day anti-war protest, the California National Guard is taking new heat for an anti-Islamic flyer that was hanging in its Sacramento headquarters.

Islamic groups and anti-war activists criticized the Guard on Monday after learning that one Guard soldier had a historically suspect flyer touting World War I General John J. Pershing as a hero for executing Muslim terrorists with bullets dipped in pig's blood to deny them entry to heaven.

``Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq?'' states the flyer that was posted outside a cubicle in the Guard's Civil Support Division. ``The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?''

... Below the Pershing tribute is a second flyer with the wings and tail of a bomber forming the legs of a peace sign with the slogan: Peace the old fashioned way. There's also a cartoon from a Web site known as www.stopislam.com that depicts a Red Crescent ambulance stuffed with weapons and a cartoon figure that looks like the late-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat unloading the cargo.

more

[bluestateguy]

1. and then they wonder why recruiting is down

And that tall tale about Pershing is likley an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm

[Rose Siding]

2. OMG -They needed someone to tell them that was bad?

:cry:

snip>
Initially, a Guard spokesman defended the flyer Monday as ``historically accurate,'' but called back later to say that it had been removed because of concerns raised by the activists.

[Inland]

4. They are getting mixed signals from the admin itself. nt

[Oversea Visitor]

3. Woah

If this get out to muslim nations, not going to be good for the US Army image. Totally wrong message to the Billions of muslims in this world.Mega fuck up here.

[AlCzervik]

5. wow, what the hell? Every week there is a new story about the Ca Guard.

i bet that flyer was from somewhere in fresno.

[pinniped]

6. Yup, and that pig gov. Swartzapig likes to visit Fresno.

.

[MisterP]

9. Nazis never liked Semites, period--in either the loose or the strict terms

[leesa]

7. Well these morons really make me feel safe. Send em to Iraq...now!

Wait a minute, why should Iraq have to deal with our bigoted assholes?

[zapp]

8. And that 'Black Jack' claim is bogus! See snopes.com

[BrotherBuzz]

10. Nevertheless Pershing was a racist....in spades!

Black Jack Pershing thought so much of African-American soldiers, he dumped them the first chance he got. During WWI, the all-black 93rd division, a rag-tag outfit that was initially issued Civil War uniforms, were assigned to French command by General John Pershing. The French desperately needed fresh troops and Pershing was able to satisfy France's needs by getting rid of his own problem - black soldiers. The 93d Division turned in their American equipment and were issued French rifles, bayonets, helmets, packs, and other equipment of the French soldier. They were then organized, trained, and commanded as a French unit, the first unit in US history to serve under foreign command, even though the US sent directives to the French on how to treat them:

"The French were horrified by the segregation, and by all these directives that came from the American high command instructing them not to praise the black troops, not to socialise with or speak to black officers outside of the line of duty," says Gail Buckley, author of American Patriots, a study of African-Americans in war. "The French command apparently ordered Pershing's directives to be burned." http://www.aftermathww1.com/johnson.asp

The 93nd division fought as part of the French army, where, ironically, it found acceptance, respect, and glory, eventually winning the Croix de Guerre, only to return to America and find Jim Crow laws alive and well.

[happyslug]

11. Pershing or the Army and Nation in General?

http://unofficial.capital.edu/students/jwhite/about.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing#Spanish_and_Philippine-American_Wars
http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/arrival.htm

His time with the 10th Calvary (Buffalo Soldiers):
http://www.nps.gov/pwso/honor/pershing.htm
In Cuba with the 10th:
http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical.aspx?pgID=868&id=96&exCompID=32

History of the times:
http://buffalosoldiers.com/AAChronology3.htm
http://www.nps.gov/untold/banners_and_backgrounds/militarybanner/military.htm

Careful reading just adds to the confusion about Pershing and Black Soldiers. My opinion is that Pershing was more worried about how WHITES viewed his interaction with Blacks than anything he had against black Soldiers. In fact Pershing giving the Black combat troops to the French may have been to give the blacks a chance to fight (He refused to do the same with white units unless the situation was disparate which it became in Spring 1918). Thus Pershing by giving the French his Black Troops did two things at once, he gave the blacks the chance to fight AND did not have to force any of his fellow officers to command them in Combat.

Thus the famous quote of Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a late Imperial General "His faults were the faults of his time, his virtues were his own" can be applied to Pershing, his racist comments are the attitude of his time, his virtue was his actions to give Blacks a chance to show they were as good as whites when Pershing gave them to the French.

[BrotherBuzz]

12. You may be partly correct about the Army and nation...

But Pershing, as the General of the Army, could, and should have effected change!!!! Command starts from the top and goes down. Cripes, we had to wait another thirty years for Truman to correct this wrong. I will concede the Army, and the nation in general was partly responsible, but the fact was that Black Jack Pershing made the decision and that indicated to me that he was attempting to distance himself from them because he has no emotional connection with the 93rd Division. The 10th Calvary might have been another story.


Early campaigns with the 10th Calvary were with tested and professional African American troops and Pershing capitalized on that. He may have developed respect toward them, but he also had a Rumsfeld attitude "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had...' - because he had no choice in the troops assigned to him at that time.

Yet Pershing was in a position to make that decision during WWI, and he did. The 93rd Division was a newly organized and untested (largely untrained, too) and Pershing chose not to invest the time working with them. He simple had no loyalty this group of untested African American Citizens Army and chose to get rid of them. The 92nd Division, another African American Division, on the other hand, was further along in their training cycles and were not cast off on the French. Instead, the trained 92nd Division was utilized for plain good old fashion scutt work; work deemed appropriate for African Americans of that day.

"We officers of the Tenth Cavalry could have taken our black heroes into our arms. They had fought their way into our affections, as they have fought their way into the hearts of the American people." Lt. John J. Pershing in referring to the all-black 10th U.S. Cavalry that he commanded during the battle of San Juan Hill, July 1st, 1898

"We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and Black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with the last but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands with them, seek to talk to them or to meet with them outside the requirements of military service. We must not commend too highly these troops, especially in front of white Americans. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment from spoiling the Negro. White Americans become very incensed at any particular expression of intimacy between white women and black men." General John J. Pershing in a secret communiqué concerning Black American troops to the French military stationed with the American army. August 7th, 1918

Amazing what twenty years and and a promotion from Lieutenant to General will do to a man. I'm happy that the surrender-monkey French figured it out and disregarded Pershing's commands. And damn the racists white soldiers egos and Pershing for not doing the right thing!

I must apologize here: I was assigned to one of the last remanents of the 92nd division, a Buffalo Soldier Battalion, so this subject is very dear to me and I may become a little to emotional and testy about it at times, but I am attempting to convey the history as it was taught to me by my proud Batallion.

on edit: Wow, a very bad speiling day!!!

[happyslug]

13. I have found one of the best form of history is stories told by people

These generational memories are often a more accurate history than what is written, for people have to have a reason to write something down AND PRESERVE THE WRITING. Oral history tend to be what people thought when the acts were occurring as opposed to what people wanted to write down. Thus the people who told you what you heard did not have the same axe to grind as the officers and NCOs who did write up the reports most historians rely on.

Saying that you still have to remember the time period; starting in 1890s you had an increase in racism (Thus Plessy vs Ferguson is an 1898 decision NOT an 1880 decision). Prior to 1892 you had a clear policy against discrimination at least on the books, but with the Democratic Victory in 1884 and 1892 you started to see a shift in attitude to a more racist policy (For example while the Civil Rights cases of the 1880s had gutted the Civil Rights Act of 1875, it was still on the books including protection on paper, for blacks to vote, until repealed under Cleveland and his Democratic Congress).

This racism increased in the 1890s and early 1900s (With the KKK reforming on Stone Mountain in 1905). The Democrats were dependent on Southern Votes to overcome the Rural Republicans in the North so the Democrats tend to down play racial protection. In fact when Wilson became President he segregated the Civil Service (The Bureaucracy had NOT be segregated prior to Wilson).

Now Wilson was not an absolute racist (It is now believed that the suppose quote of Wilson in the Movie "The Birth of a Nation" saying the story was "true for it was so accurate" was just made up by the Movie Director for Wilson opposed the attitude of "The South will Raise Again” but was also dependent on Southern Votes to win office and to get things through Congress, so he said nothing about the quote).

Thus you are correct that Leadership starts at the Top, but in the Case of Pershing Wilson was his boss. Thus the key was WILSON not Pershing. Even Franklin Roosevelt made efforts to keep the Southern Democrats on his side. Truman took a very severe chance when he desegregated the Armed Forces something both Wilson and FDR were NOT willing to do. Many of the Problems of the Black Soldiers of WWI showed back up in WWII and even Korea (The lack of Leadership, Training and even Equipment).

Why was the change? First was the reforms of FDR in the New Deal and later the WWII re-armament program. Second was the Greater dependence of the Democrats on Urban Voters as opposed to Rural White Voters (The 1920 Census is the First Census that showed more people living in urban areas than Rural Areas, the 1910 and prior Censuses had more people living in Rural areas than urban areas, as time went on more and more people lived in Urban Areas and only with the 1930s did Urban Areas became the new bedrock of the Democratic Party). Third was the effectiveness of various well lead, well trained and well equipped Colored Units during WWII (and earlier in WWI). Fourth was the fact Truman had been a Soldier in WWI and had opposed discrimination against the Irish members of his old Army unit in the 1920s, and the same justification for discrimination against the Blacks had been used to justify discrimination against the Irish (And thus both were FALSE). Fifth was Truman's hatred of reports of Black US Soldiers being attacked by Racist whites in the South, Truman viewed these attacks as attacks against US Soldiers NOT attacks against blacks. Sixth were the Death Camps and the Justification for Discrimination against the Jews by the Nazis, which tended to cite American Southern Segregation. Seventh was the use of Racism in America by the Soviet Union as propaganda in the Third World about how bad the US was.

All told by the 1940s Racism was in full retreat, for racisms'' peak was in the Mid-1920s but prior to the mid-1920s Racism was on the rise and the increase in racism of the 1890-1925 period was a fact that both Wilson and Pershing had to operate under. Given Wilson's background as being raised in Virginia AND Wilson's need for Southern Votes, I just do not see Wilson giving Pershing the support Pershing would have needed to do more about Black Soldiers of his time period. Thus I would put the blame on Wilson more than Pershing (and more on the time period than on Wilson).

As to Truman, only three Presidents can claim to have lead the Country when it came to the issue of Race, U.S. Grant, Harry S Truman (HST) and Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). Even Lincoln followed the Country when it came to race, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation only after the Army had already embraced the idea that the Civil war was to free the Slaves (Through Lincoln was NOT racist in the Modern Sense of the Term, he opposed Slavery all of his life, but he was NOT going to lead the country on that issue, he armed Blacks Soldiers but only after Congress wanted them Armed, he discussed issues with blacks, he even open the first diplomatic relations with Haiti, but he was more concern about winning the Civil War than in helping the blacks).

The First Civil Rights Act did not pass till AFTER LINCOLN'S DEATH and than over the veto of President Andrew Johnson (This was the Civil Rights Act of 1866). The next Civil Rights Acts, the Acts of 1871 (The Anti-KKK Act) and 1875 were passed after being proposed by President Grant (Who also maintain Troops in the South to guarantee the Rights of Blacks to Vote in the South, who had the first blacks appointed to West Point, expanded the Freeman Bureaus etc, all undercut by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights cases of the 1880s AND the Compromise of 1877 which permitted white Southern to dominate the South).

LBJ pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts (Both of which LBJ said would guarantee the GOP the South for at least a Generation). In between sits FDR and Truman. Truman like LBJ was willing to alienate white Southern to support what both thought was right and needed (i.e. Equal Rights for blacks). For their effort both were viciously attacked. Truman barely won election in 1948 (and probably would have lost in 1952 if he had run do to the lost of Southern Voters do to his stand on Race). LBJ won almost every State in the Union in 1964, but lost the Deep South as he suspected. LBJ was almost run out of DC in 1968 while many of his opponents used the Vietnam War against him, they main objections was the Civil Rights laws he had passed AND ENFORCED.

My point here is Wilson faced a different Voting pattern than did Truman and LBJ. Unlike Truman and LBJ the Urban Areas, while strong, were still Republican in 1920 (It would take the Great Depression to make them Democratic) thus Wilson needed the South to win elections and he needed Southerners in Congress to support him to get his program through Congress. Thus Wilson was NOT in a position to oppose racism even if he wanted to. With Wilson NOT leading on race, neither could Pershing. Thus the problem Pershing faced in 1917 and 1918 was how to use his black Troops without causing problems for Wilson within Congress and the Officer Corp.

Given this background I think Pershing did the best job he could by passing the Blacks off to the French. It gave the French Fresh troops (which the French desperately needed by 1918) AND kept the exploits of the Black Troops away from White American Officers who would object to Blacks being given guns (as had George Washington Objected to Blacks with guns when he took over the Colonial Army in 1775).

[BrotherBuzz]

14. Good response, and I mostly agree....

and your term generational memories, which I call extended memory, does, indeed, apply here. I mentioned the proud battalion history in my post, and I should report that the main source of that knowledge was my top sergeant, 'Top Brown'. He was brown boot soldier in the 92nd Division during the Second World War and was just waiting out his time until full retirement with a unique position of being assigned to the same unit he served in as a young private. Plenty of time and a perfect situation for him to reflect on his long and successful career. He talked freely of his early 'brown boot army' years and the stories that were told to him by the 'old' retread soldiers in his unit that actually served in the unit during the First World War. He was full of wisdom and I was very lucky to be chosen an audience to his knowledge - I was a willing subject, and I fully understand I was learning history from a one-sided perspective.

Now, the other side! It's all about perspective...

I was strolling through the Truman online library where I visited the 'Desegregration of the Armed Services' file when one article, titled "Report on the Negro Soldier," jumped out at me jumped out at me. It was written by my uncle, an white officer assigned to the 93rd Division! It's all the unvarnished truth, albeit from a white officer's perspective. The article is a little prickly, but well worth the read because it paints an accurate pictue of the attitudes of that time.


(first of nine pages)

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1946-12-00&documentid=34&studycollectionid=deseg&pagenumber=1

Happyslug, as I stated earlier, this a subject that is dear to me and I feel I have a vested interest in it; I'm entitled to vent. I view that period of history with a 'would have, could have, should have' attitude and I feel very strongly the Pershing could have made a change. That being said, I am very aware of the strength of the powers that be and the status quo. Still, 'we've come a long way baby'....

[happyslug]

15. I agree that Pershing could have done more.

The real question is not that he COULD have lead, but whether it would have done any good DURING THE TIME PERIOD IN QUESTION.

I am afraid but the Country was not ready for desegregation during WWI, thus if Pershing would have lead, he would have failed. More a difference of opinion than any real argument.

[Kraklen]

16. Yes, the practice predates Pershing.

It dates back to at least Victorian India. And the practice backfired, leading to the Great Rebellion of 1857.

[happyslug]

17. No not a factor during the Great India Mutiny of of 1857

From the late 1600s till 1830 the British used the Brown Bess Flintlock Smooth-bore musket. The "round" for the Musket came in a linen cartridge consisting of a Lead ball and black Powder. You loaded the weapon by first biting the Cartridge tearing it open and than priming the pan of the Flintlock and than loading the rest of the Powder and the ball down the barrel (And than using an wooden than than iron ramrod pounding the ball onto the powder). At that point you cocked the flint lock and hopefully the musket fired (Misfire rates appears to have been as high as one out of six rounds). These weapons were all smooth-bore firing a lead ball a little smaller than the barrel. The reason for this is that if you did have a misfire you could clear the weapon in 20-30 seconds by simply turning the weapon upside down and leaving the ball and excess powder fall out of the barrel (unlike a rifle where you had to pull the ball out of the weapon when it misfired which could knock out a rifle for up to five minutes).

Now in 1830 the British replaced the Flintlock system with the more reliable Percussion System (misfires in an 1830 test had been one out of a Thousand rounds fired compared to the one out of six for the Flintlock in the same test). While the firing mechanism was changed the 1830 musket was still a smooth-bore weapon. In 1848 a French Officer by the Name of Minnie invented a lead bullet for Rifles. This lead bullet was smaller than the bore of the barrel so could be loaded like a smooth-bore musket, but it had a hollow bottom with a wooden plug in the hollow. Upon Firing the wooden plug would pushed against the lead walls of the hollow base to engage the rifling. Thus you had a rifle that could be loaded as fast as a smooth-bore musket and with the percussion firing system you no longer had to worry about to many weapons being out of order do to misfires (in 1854 the US would adopt the same system but drop the wooden plug, the US found it was not needed, the powder itself would expand the hollow base to engage the firing).

Now the Minnie Ball concept had been invented in previous centuries, but never adopted do to the problem of the Rifle being out of actions do to misfires. The Percussion cap solved the problem of Misfires and once solved the Hollow Base Bullet was the next logical adoption.

I went into the above because the adoption of the New Hollow base firing Percussion Rifle in 1856 was the trigger mechanism for the 1857 Great Indian Mutiny. When Britain adopted the Minnie Ball in the early 1850s the British first issued them to their Regular Units. These new Rifles were found effective in the Crimea War of 1854. With the success of the New Enfield Rifles the British decided to issue the new rifles to their Indians units. It was this issuance that sparked the Great India Mutiny.

Now the cause of the Great Mutiny was more complex. Britain had less conquered India than moved in and took over. During the 1700s and early 1800s Britain thought nothing of using its Army to take over India and to put down any local who objected to British Rule. Given that the British ruled through the British East India Company, the British prefer to rule through local India rulers (Including the Great the Great Mongol Sitting in New Delhi, some of these Rulers, but Not the Great Mongol, survived till Indian Independence in 1947).

Now Britain wanted trade more than it wanted tribute, thus it rule was lighter than previous foreign rulers (But it also did less for the average resident of India than previous rulers, even permitting many of them to die if that was the best way to keep cost of Government down).

At the same time previous to the 1850s most British living in India tended to stay in India they whole life often marrying into the local population. In the 1840s and 1850s things started to chang as more and more British in India were they on temporary assignments AND BROUGHT THEIR FAMILIES ALONG. Thus you had less and less interlocking families connections between the British and the Local population.

Foreign threats had also diminished over the previous 50 years given that the French had finally been kicked out of India during the Napoleonic wars and England ruled India alone (except for the Portuguese Colony on the West Coast, but Portugal was a loyal Ally of England so not a threat). The British East India Company's primary concern was making money NOT ruling (but did run the country for that was the best way to make money). Thus you had a situation were India was still technically ruled by the Great Mongol in New Delhi but in fact all of the important decision were being made by his "Assistants" from the East India Company (Except in the areas of India independent of the Great Mongol where the British East India Company ruled through the technically Independent local Maharajahs).

To back up the East India Company the British Government maintained troops in India, but the East India Company over the previous 100 years raised it own local troops AND taken over various Troops from not only the Great Mongol but the other "Independent" Indian States. These Indian Units were both Moslem's and Hindu and retained a good bit of their connection to the population the troops were raised from. The British had had previous Mutinies but these had always been local units and Britain could also rely on Muslim units to put down Hindu Units and Hindu units to put down Muslim units. Thus the Mutinies were NOT effective. The Great Mutiny saw BOTH Muslim and Hindu units working TOGETHER for the first time in the British History of India. The underlaying cause was the misrule by the British but the trigger was the introduction of the New Enfield Rifle.

As stated above the Enfield Rifle Introduced in 1857 had been in use since the early 1850s in British Units in Britain and the Crimea. The British when it adopted the new weapon modified the traditional Cartridge, instead of using plan linen the British started to Encase the paper Cartridge with a coating of grease. Britain had just started to use corn base grease which was much cheaper than grease from Pigs and Cattle. The new Corn based grease was so cheap that the British believed the extra cost of coating the Round to improve their water proof-ness was worth the extra treatment. It was these nw Grease Cartridges that was to be the trigger for the Mutiny.

When the Indian Units were issued the new Enfield Rifles in 1857 a rumor started to go among the Troops that the Grease used in the Cartridges were from pigs and cows. The Moslem's in the Units were offended by having to BIT into the Cartridge and thus taste pork. The Hindus units members were also offended for by biting a Cartridge their believe their would be tasting beef. This caused various Muslim and Hindu Units to Mutiny and than unite and march on New Delhi to restore the Great Mongol to his rightful position as absolute ruler of India.

Thus the reason for the Mutiny had to do with British Mis-rule, the Grease was only the trigger. Now once the trigger had been pulled the resentments of the previous 50 years came to the surface and many of the same units that had revolted do to the Grease, used those Enfield Rifles in the subsequent revolt. Thus the point of this letter, pork/beef was NOT the cause of the mutiny, but only the trigger but it was a trigger that caused Britain to reform and re-think its rule of India. The real effect was to cause Moslem and Hindu units of the East India Company to act TOGETHER against the British, something the units had NEVER done before and would not do again.



A very anti-British site regarding the above (More extreme than I would go in evaluating British Rule of India but a good source of Data regarding British Rule):
http://members.tripod.com/INDIA_RESOURCE/hist-2nation.html

List of Indian "Independent States" prior to 1947 Independence:
http://rulers.org/indstat1.html

A very pro-Mutiny view of the Great Mutiny
http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/greatlkings/jhansi/page11.htm

A BBC presentation on the Great Mutiny
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/indian_rebellion_01.shtml

A soldier's personal Recollection"
http://www.manfamily.org/PDFs/Indian%20Mutiny.pdf#search='The%20Great%20Indian%20Mutiny'

A brief background on the Mutiny:
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/1857.htm

Other Readings on this subject:
http://www.eblanchette.com/_supportdocs/History%20Britain%20and%20India/Indian%20Mutiny%20Background.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/haywardlad/indianmutiny1.html
http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/1857.html