The Strangeness of Ken Burns' Latino/Hispanic WWII stories

[bajamary]

I was just trying to participate in the Live Discussion on the WAPO with Ken Burns about his 14 1/2 epic PBS special "The War". Alas, my question which I submitted the night before and during the "live" discussion never made it to the light of type BUT they did allow one question about the lack of Hispanic/Latino stories in his very long documentary. But what a curious answer Ken gave.

For over 20 years I headed the MacArthur Foundation Library Media Project, and my late father was the head of all media funding at the MacArthur Foundation until his death in 1990. He was also a veteran of "The War". I believe my father, William Kirby, would also have been deeply disturbed by Ken Burns' response to ligimate (non politically correct) questions about why he excluded all of the Latino/Hispanic stories in his version of "The War, especially because one of the cities Burns selected was Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento, CA has had a significant Latino/Hispanic population throughout the 20th Century, so how did Ken's 14 1/2 hour well funded epic miss these Americans?
From his rather limited response the to one WAPO allowed question on this subject, he said they included stories from people "who came forward".

Here's the discussion:

Washington, D.C.: Ken,
Many of us viewed with some sympathy your efforts to placate the Hispanic Caucus and Latino pressure groups but at the same time felt that selecting one ethnic group as a featured segment was an arbitrary surrender to political pressure. What was the numerical justification, if any, for the inclusion of Latinos? What percentage of the U.S. forces were they? What about blacks (which I thought was well enough covered, briefly but with all attendant ironies and ambiguities)?

Ken Burns: When we set out to do this film we made a pact with ourselves not to seek out any particular ethnic group. In the course of our five years spent in each of our four towns a diverse number of people came forward. Unfortunately, no Hispanics did. At first, we resisted making any editions to the film we finished in early 2006 but we realized that art has an obligation to transcent petty politics, even though many of those criticizing us had not seen a fram of our film and therefore cound't understand that we were not trhing to be definitive. We decided to transcend the situation, to rise above the politically correct bickering and to produce new content that would not in any way compromise our original vision but would go some distance toward honoring the concerns of this group.

I would like to know what precisely was the process that Ken Burns & his team followed to "get people to come forward"? Did they put out an announcement in their choice of local newspapers? OR just have a brief advert on the local PBS station? or maybe have a list of family/freinds/acquiantences that they ask to "come forth".
If "step forward" was the criteria for all of the stories being told in a series called "The War", shouldn't it be correctly be named "Stories from Those Who Came Forward".

One hallmark of Burns' well funded films is their very thorough research of documentaries and documentary footage on a given subject which often yields brilliant images and moving stories.

Did he or his staff see "Hero Street USA" which aired on PBS? . The Department of Defense in Washington, D.C, that there is no other street of comparable size that has had as many men and women render service in WW II to the Armed Forces of the United States of America then the 1 1/2 block long street in Silvis, IL called "Hero Street USA".

Granted Silvis, IL wasn't one of the focus cites, but there are several resources (films & the DOD) that show the important contributions of the Hispanic/Latino military personnel in WWII. And gosh, Sacramento, California must have had many Hispanic/Latino participants in "The War".

It's been said that "History belongs to those that tell it". Perhaps "The War" will be best remembered not for the stories it told, but for those it failed to even see.

[Warpy]

1. One of the stories covered an Hispanic man from California

who said he hadn't had much contact with Anglo culture and they certainly hadn't had any contact with his culture and he had to struggle to prove himself. Which he did.

He appeared later on, talking about the death of his best friend.

Hispanics weren't deleted.

Edit: pedantic prissiness prevailed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Yeah, but that section was tacked on later.

Apparently this has been a real controversy for some time.

[Swamp Rat]

2. Él habría podido hacer un anuncio en Univision

[MadHound]

3. Actually he is following the stories of a couple of Hispanics

Granted, that's not the same number as African Americans(I think that I've seen four), but I think that number is in proportion to the actual numbers of Hispanics in the US at the time. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I believe that during WWII, African Americans were the largest minority group, follow distantly by Hispanics.

But there are a couple of Hispanic marines whose stories they're following.

[pop goes the weasel]

5. those were inserted after the fact

And only after a strong campaign led by Hispanic veterans.

[puebloknot]

10. But they are there now. And they are done with compassion and grace.

After "The War" ended last night, there was a documentary here in Santa Fe about Hispanics who served in WWII, with special emphasis on the ceremony that takes place here every year honoring those who were in the Bataan Death March -- those who died and those who survived.

If Ken Burns had time and money, there are thousands of stories he could devote a whole documentary to, such as the one above. He could devote a whole series to each of the varying communities across the nation -- the Irish, the Germans, the Poles, the Italians, the Hispanics, the Native Americans ...

He touched only briefly in the first segment on the Sullivans, who were Irish. Should I get up in arms because I'm Irish and he didn't devote more time to soldiers of Irish extraction in his first segment?

If Mr. Burns agreed, after a strong campaign led by Hispanic veterans, to include more information about Hispanics in the war, then why would there be a complaint that he only did so after the fact? If Hispanic veterans were able to have an impact on inclusion of more Hispanics in the documentary, that seems like a victory to me -- not something to be disgruntled about.

The documentary that Mr. Burns made is, of necessity, only the tip of the WWII iceberg. The telling of that tale will go on for many years to come. I'm grateful for the small contributiion that Mr. Burns has made to this vast story.

My father fought in WWII -- from Omaha Beach to the Bulge. He's from a small town in Texas. I did't see any special emphasis on the role of Texans in "The War." I think the intent of the film is to give us a broad overview of the impact of the war on the whole of America's diverse population.

Another thing: So far there hasn't been huge emphasis on the participation of Native Americans in the war. But reference was made to the Navajo Code Talkers. I think the story is just too huge to give more than passing reference to any one group.

I, for one, am grateful for *all* the people who gave what they had to give to overcome fascism in the WWII period. Too bad it is raising its ugly head once again in the country. This Gringa was very touched last night by the stories of Hispanic people from New Mexico who stepped up to the plate and gave back to the country more than it has given to them, during WWII. That documentary claims that New Mexico sacrificed more of its people, per capita, than any other state in WWII.

What I see here in New Mexico is that Hispanic people of the older generation have a lot of dignity. They gave more than they ever got, more than they ever expect to get, because it was the right thing to do to honor their strong tradition of family love and loyalty. As to the younger generation of Hispanics: They're just as good or as "snarky" as any other group of young people. Some of them, like a young man I know, is everything I'd ever want to see in a young man -- intelligent, friendly, hard working. He came and shoveled me out of a snowstorm this winter, just as a friendly gesture. Other young Hispanic people here are just like young people of any group: Some of them feel entitled to the world, without giving much, and they resent anyone who has more than they have -- assuming that anyone who is doing better than they are must have taken it in one Reconquista or another.

It isn't a just world; life isn't fair. Was it ever? I doubt seriously that the Hispanic veterans who fought in WWII held their fingers to the wind before enlisting, trying to decide if they would be treated equally in the military, or in the country when they returned. The part of "The War" I saw last night paid homage to Hispanic contributions, as far as I could see. Many references to those who served did not specify their ethnicity.

I think the film does a good job of honoring those who served in a broad overview. Ken Burns would spend the rest of his days, and maybe his next incarnation, trying to cover, with absolute equality of time spent, the contributions of every ethnic group to the WWII effort.

My thoughts, with good will to others of good will!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Calling it "petty" doesn't strike me as compassionate or grateful.

[puebloknot]

20. Who called *anything* petty????????? It appears you are stuck ...

... in a position and will not be moved.

I'm going to spend my valuable time watching the rest of Ken Burns' fantastic documentary about WWII -- and all who fought therein.

[EFerrari]

30. Hi, puebloknot. Burns called the concern petty. It's in the OP.

[puebloknot]

41. I think Burns has a good point. He also didn't include the services ...

... of dogs in his documentary because it was beyond the scope of what he could do with one documentary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Now you're comparing hispanic veterans to dogs?

Yeesh. Talk about petty.

[puebloknot]

44. Not at all. I'm saying Burns, or any documentarian, has to edit...

... his final product down to manageable size.

Having watched "The War" so far, I see respectful references to Hispanics who served in the war.

I think some people get out of bed in the morning with a determination to be put upon. I'd rather spend my time more productively. And that means I think you and I have exhausted any meaningful exchange we might have had.

Bye!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Yes, and those references were added after the fact.

And after Burns got pissy about it.

"And that means I think you and I have exhausted any meaningful exchange we might have had.

Bye!"

It's hard to have a meaningful exchange, pue, when you don't even read the OP and chastize the people that do.

[EFerrari]

50. Yes, you did compare Latino vets to dogs. Whether you are aware

of that or not.

That's disgusting.

[EFerrari]

49. Yes, that poster is. And that's not petty. It's something else entirely.

It's just petty to notice it, I guess.

[EFerrari]

46. I'm going to pretend I never read this. n/.t

[fishwax]

62. wow

:wtf:

[YankmeCrankme]

35. Great post

Good overview of the limitations of documentaries, especially ones that are so vast in scope. Thanks for your perspective.

It was pretty neat of your local tv station to follow up the documentary with a one specifically about Hispanic service in WWII, using Burns' general piece as a springboard for further instruction/education of the audience. Hopefully, other communities can do the same with regards to their individual cultural contributions.

[puebloknot]

178. And another one followed "The War" tonight ...

... about a local (New Mexico) Hispanic poet and author who was a tail gunner in WWII. Unfortunately, I was taping "The War," backed it up quite a bit, and missed this one. I can find it at my local PBS station.

[MadHound]

23. And your point is?

Let's see, he's covering minorities, he's responsive to outside opinions, what, exactly is your problem here? That he didn't do this on his own? That he doesn't have more Hispanics represented?

I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[pop goes the weasel]

28. simple...

If you look at the documentary in its present form, you wouldn't know why there was controversy. It's good to know the background of how something came to be. It's also good to know that a well orchestrated campaign can result in positive changes. Did I say anything bad about Ken Burns? No? Then don't imply that I did.

[MadHound]

40. Sorry, but your tone in your original implied that you were upset with Burns

The hazards of the internet, you can't convey the nuances of meaning that you can face to face. Peace:hi:

[pop goes the weasel]

186. 's all cool. Peace out --nt

[EFerrari]

6. His answer makes no sense and also manages to be

condescending. What a shame.

[Exultant Democracy]

7. How does he filmed the people who came forward make no sense?

[EFerrari]

8. Because if I don't notify anyone, then I have no business

talking about people coming forward to answer a call I didn't make. That's how.

[Exultant Democracy]

15. There is no information here on the notification process.

But it would be my guess that he went to the VFW for his volunteers.

[EFerrari]

16. You may be right about that. n/t

[Bombero1956]

9. the segment that aired last night was added well after the fact

the segment with Pete Arias and Bill Lansford only came about after pressure from the American GI Forum and Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, a University of Texas journalism professor.

[goodgd_yall]

11. It's good this was done. Thanks to those who put on the pressure. n/t

[brentspeak]

12. Sounds like Ken Burns is being unfairly targeted by the PC police

[EFerrari]

18. Nah. If you look at his work, he's done this before.

According to his piece on jazz, there was none of us around then, either. It's sort of creepy.

[puebloknot]

26. With due respect, I can't figure out what you're referring to here.

"None of us?" Pray tell, are you Hispanic? Is that your concern?

[EFerrari]

29. Yes, I'm a Latina. And, my brother is a working jazz musician.

There's a short rant floating around called "A World without Latinos" that addressed this aspect of Burns' vision.

[puebloknot]

43. Thanks for clarifying!

My daughter and I loved Burns' Jazz documentary. It's a vast subject.

[goodgd_yall]

152. Apologies

sfexpat. I recently referred to you as a "he." I wasn't assuming, but I was misremembering your profile; I didn't bother to double-check before I wrote.

[Shakespeare]

52. VERY true. It was woefully limited, at best, and relied far, far too much on ....

...the commentary by the Marsalises. His baseball documentary had similar limitations, which Keith Olbermann rather infamously picked apart.

Burns' heart may be in the right place, but he's not quite as good as the hype that surrounds him.

[EFerrari]

54. Jesus, are we now in a culture that doesn't admit of crit?

We're in trouble.

[pop goes the weasel]

187. he does have a rather fanatic following

When Burns' Civil War series premiered, it revolutionized documentaries. No one can ever take that away from him. But he isn't perfect by any means. I don't think he has improved on his documentary style as much as others have from then til now, and he does rather infamously take a majority-view of his subject matter. I also don't think he is very aware of racial, class or gender issues, especially their sociological implications, and is defensive about his blindspot. Perhaps the tempest over The War has provided him the sort of critical feedback he's been needing but has resisted. Burns isn't DW Griffith, but even DW Griffith spent the rest of his career trying to overcome his own (astonishingly!) unconscious racism. If the director of Birth of a Nation could do that, then certainly Burns can.

But I maintain that the real lesson here is not for Burns but for the rest of us--that a coordinated, dedicated campaign can still affect changes. We have all been dispirited by the failure of the Congress to confront the administration. What can we learn from Defend the Honor and GI Forum? They didn't achieve as thorough-going changes as they wanted in the documentary, but they seem to have gotten real attention to Hispanics as part of US history. I admire and appreciate what they are achieving, and how they are dedicated to the long haul. We need to not just emulate their organization and drive; we need Hispanics--and blacks and Native Americans and Asian Americans, and from all economic classes--in leadership positions in the drive to take back our government. Unless there is real unity and appreciation for diversity, we can always be easily set against each other by those whose racism and classism is not unconscious but calculated.

[JuniperLea]

73. They didn't think white people contributed to jazz either

but I guess it would be really horrible of me to point that out.

[EFerrari]

81. Have you seen the thing?

I try not to just jump on bandwagons, but this one has merit.

[JuniperLea]

87. I've watched Jazz twice...

As far as I can tell, it was from one man's perspective. And although I appreciate Marsalis' talent as a musician, I think he missed the mark, imho. From watching, you'd think only Black men are capable of producing jazz, or had anything to do with it at all.

[EFerrari]

91. I loved Jazz because I love jazz. Don't know how may times

I watched it.

My little bro is a big sax and when he gets excluded, that's just wierd.

[JuniperLea]

95. I agree

And my Welsh father played a mean trumpet, all jazz all the time when I was growing up. He's as white as it gets... and more and more his efforts are meaningless only because he is white.

This world is fucked up.

I can't wait for the day when we've all mingled to the degree that you can no longer look at someone and know his ancestry. Shoot... my son is dating a Latina... and she says we eat more Latino food in our home than she does in her own... and she's shocked at the authenticity... shoot... I grew up 2 hours from Mexico, fcol! Half the kids I went to school with were Hispanic, and I ate at their houses all the time, shopped where they shopped, grew to know the good tortillarias in town... learned from their folks how to cook... I love the Latino feel of Los Angeles... shoot! Even the name!

I'm sick of all forms of bigotry. Just sick. Fucking sick. But I'm a white bitch, what the fuck do I know? Seriously. My thoughts don't count around here... I'm not directing that at you, sfexpat2000... I've seen you post very thoughtful and wonderful things. I'm just sick to death of all the shit around here lately. And I'm sick of people trying to tell me I don't know shit because I'm a white chick, so I couldn't possibly know.

Just a bad day... week... year or so on DU...

[EFerrari]

96. Go listen here:

www.geneburkert.com

Jazz will survive!

lol

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

103. Man! Now that's what I'm talking about!

LOL!!!


:hi:

[EFerrari]

104. Please don't tell him he's good because it makes him so much harder

to handle on weekends and holidays.

lol

:)

[JuniperLea]

108. Deal!

Our little secret!

[misanthrope]

174. He's pretty good at instrumental R&B...

...Has he ever delved into jazz?

[EFerrari]

194. It's the other way around, actually. He has those clips up

because the last CD is an R&Bish album, something he's never done before. I forgot about that. :)

[Duppers]

204. WOW!!!

Brilliant! You must be proud.

Yes, I can fault Mr. Burns too for leaving out the Latino influence in the evolution of modern jazz.

[Shakespeare]

98. You too!

I found myself yelling at the TV that there's more to jazz than the Marsalis family. Very frustrating documentary to watch.

[EFerrari]

100. I'm glad the thing was made but the scope sucked. n/t

[JuniperLea]

113. I really loved Marsalis...

Until then... it wasn't nice at all. Jazz is an American thing... and Americans come in a lot of varieties. So does jazz.

[mitchum]

119. But the Marsalis family are the official arbiters of jazz, didn't you read the amendment?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

121. That's the thing with that documentary.

I've also heard it's "museum"-style diction complained of. I think All About Jazz does a nice job on commenting on how JAZZ, while clearly done with tis heart in the right spot, "puts jazz up on a museum shelf," or something like that, rather than celebrating its living, beating heart.

[misanthrope]

176. He pretty much ignored guitarists, too...

...I remember him mentioning Django. No Charlie Christian, Barney Kessel, Jim Hall, Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery, none of them.

I also have other beefs with the work but I realize they come from my status as an aficionado.

However, that doesn't completely invalidate the work in my opinion. It's aim was to try and interest the average citizen in a somewhat esoteric art form with an incredibly broad history. I think he accomplished that admirably and successfully brought focus to something that merited the attention. Perhaps the individual curiosities sparked will carry people on to greater depths of exploration.

[puebloknot]

206. "Perhaps the individual curiosities sparked ... "

That is exactly what Ken Burns' Jazz series did for me. I'm a "war baby," and grew up hearing the music of the 40's, hated a lot of the fluff I heard in the 50's, but am really pretty unschooled when it comes to music, in general. I can whistle a lot of classical music, but I can rarely identify it! :) My interests have always been more in the direction of literature and films.

But along came a daughter who is a swing dancer and loves music of all kinds. She turned me on to the Jazz series, and I loved it. You're never too old to learn new things!

I think what you've said has equal application to Ken Burns' new WWII documentary. He can't tell the whole story because it's too massive. He does manage to convey the message that *everybody* in America was touched by the war, and it is a part of our mutual heritage that deserves further exploration. Because my father fought in that war, I'm more aware of what it all meant than a lot of younger people, but I'm seeing a lot of things in the Burns film that I didn't know about, and which will definitely cause me to look further into it.

Inquiring minds and all that! :)

[Duppers]

203. well, he also

left off the great contributions that Mississippi and Memphis blues music had on jazz and that bothered me. When I protested post-production, I was told he had to cut many things.

I think the same principle applies here. Not enough time.

:(

[Retrograde]

207. 9 Hours on Baseball without a mention

of the Pacific Coast League. Methinks he can sometimes be a little provincial in his outlook: it was as if nothing existed west of the Rockies.

The Civil War was groundbreaking and effective, but I've been so-so on his works since then. I thought the series on The West was excellent, but he was the producer rather than the writer/director: that came out pretty balanced.

I haven't seen The War yet, so I won't comment. I'm sure a lot was left out: compressing the experiences of 150 million people over 5 years into a few hours is bound to leave some important areas uncovered no matter what he does. Maybe a little less sweeping a scope would have been better in this case, e.g., "Four Communities at War" instead of the whole country.

[misanthrope]

210. That's why the beginning of each episode...

...in "The War" features a statement saying exactly what you just did. There is no pretension of it being all-encompassing and they explicitly say it is about the experiences of citizens from four average towns because the subject is just too broad to do anything else.

[Duppers]

214. indeed, misanthrope

but don't ya know that people don't listen to what he said. Bashing's too much fun. :)

[puebloknot]

217. He makes the point at the beginning of every segment that the story is too huge ...

... to cover in its entirety, and the four communities are simply a sampling, if you will, to try to represent the general spirit of what was happening all over the country.

He could also have made a documentary about four Hispanic communities impacted by WWII. Or four German-American communities.....and on and on.

I'd love to see him do a whole documentary devoted entirely to the Japanese-American community that suffered at the hands of their native land, America, and what happened to them after the war was over.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. My father's story:

He signed up for the marines in 1943 in his senior year of high school when he was still 17. In boot camp he got his first whiff of racism in the military - against latino types. He saw plenty of it against Jews and Blacks. He talked about these huge backpacks they were suppose to put on before they went out on exercises (full gear) and that it took "the buddy system," to get them on, with soldiers pairing off to help one another. He said he never got anyone to partner with him and he learned to put it on by himself. But, he said, that he got respect for doing things alone, without help. Which is how he raised us. (That was a family anecdote to push the family motto.)

Also, he was called an "anomaly" because of his good grades, but was denied a leadership role because he was too short and, of course, he didn't finish high school. (So, there is some truth to that height prejudice)

Anyway, he was assigned to the 17th Artillery Battalion and placed in the perimeter defense squad. He was hoping to see action, but he figured out on his own that the guns in his battalion (155mm) would overshoot the small islands in the Pacific and that their only useful purpose was an invasion of Japan, which, obviously, never happened. He did have a temporary assignment with the Second Marine Division, and tried to get permanently assigned with them. But, back then they actually looked after the young hotheads and he was told that that they weren't looking for "heroes" who would storm out on their own individually. They wanted team players who would focus on the mission and protect their buddies and follow orders. I guess back then, the purpose of the mission was more defined than it is today. He was assigned back to his permanent Battalion and with them, made it to Guam in March 1945. Three months later, he was back stateside and his Battalion disbanded.

[OzarkDem]

17. Welcome to DU

yawn.

I must say the GOP have really outdone themselves on this smear. Quite creative, but not satisfying.

[EFerrari]

37. What in the world does the GOP have to do with this?

:silly:

You know, Norman Mailer is a gorgeous writer and a misogynist. Those two facts sort of exist. Ken Burns is a great documentarian and like most craftmen, he has a blind spot. That's not really a smear but observable fact.

[OzarkDem]

118. I disagree

and am not inclined to jump on that "bandwagon".

[EFerrari]

167. Then you might want to familiarize yourself with both Mailer

and Burns work.

[SoCalDem]

19. they ran ads in local papers and on local radio.. and apparently had

advance people go to those towns to get the word out.. In "The making of".. they showed the ads.. they were not small ads, and just asked anyone who had anything to contribute, to show up..

It took them YEARS to put this together, so i doubt they deliberately excluded anyone.. People had plenty of time to respond.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Yeah, I've a hard time buying that argument.

They covered every WWII diversity cliche in the book. Tuskegee airmen, Navajo code talkers, interred Japanese, nisei enlistees, women in the work force, rural migration to the cities... yet somehow they missed a million hispanic armed service men and the entire Bracero program. That's either a major omission or they didn't do their homework. Combined with Burns bizarre defensiveness it certainly leaves him open for criticism.

[goodgd_yall]

150. And if they just did not come forward

to tell their stories, it was Burns' responsibility to seek Latinos out. It doesn't matter what the Latino population was then. NOW, we have a large Latino population in the United States and it behooves a documentarian to include them.

[peaches2003]

21. As always Burns is terrific

Last night's episode was terrific and I found the Latino's story particularly moving. Would you rather Burns remove the Latin sequences? Be glad they are in there and I'm sure there will be more. Latino soldiers suffered nowhere near the discrimination during WWII that blacks did, so be thankful of that. WWII is everybody's story (I am old enough to remember the latter part of the war), so quit griping and enjoy this epic story.

[oasis]

22. Burns has always done excellent work. Was there an official classification of

hispanic/latin people by the Army during WWII? Was there a box that a recruit would checkmark his ethnicity?

[peaches2003]

24. No Latino breakdown of population then

I looked up population figures for 1940 and there is no separate breakdown of Latinos as there is for Caucasians, Negroes, American Indians, etc. This is now and 1940 was then. The Latino pop was very small in those days, so the number of WWII Latino vets (and that are even still alive) would be very small to begin with, so the number of vets Burns could even reach would be very small. I think OP is thinking of a Latino pop serving in the war as a % close to today's while it was so small it isn't even calculated on most population charts.

[EFerrari]

31. That's probably not true for Sacramento. Latinos where there

before just about anyone else. :)

[EFerrari]

32. SF Chronicle: The War' omits Latino contributions

The War' omits Latino contributions

Ruben Navarette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune

Thursday, May 3, 2007

DISCRIMINATION takes many forms. It's not just the denying of opportunity, it can also be the denying of history.

That is what's happening at the Public Broadcasting Service, which is preparing to release a lengthy documentary on World War II that ignores the contribution of Latinos to the war effort. PBS has acknowledged the omission but has also refused to take any meaningful steps to correct it. The same goes for respected filmmaker Ken Burns, producer of the 14 1/2-hour epic, "The War."

Talk about a blind spot. Latinos take tremendous pride in their military service to the United States, which dates back at least to the Civil War and which has produced more Medal of Honor recipients as a percentage of the population than any other ethnic group. Latinos are especially proud of their stint in World War II, which helped spark the Latino civil rights movement of the 1960s. That generation fought in Europe and the Pacific, then returned home to fight for fairness and respect.

It's a great and wonderfully patriotic story, and it's a shame that Burns and his associates at PBS missed it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/03/EDGEBOS9G11.DTL

[EFerrari]

34. DemocracyNow!: Why Shun Latinos

Friday, May 11th, 2007
"Hey, Ken Burns, Why Shun Latinos?" - Juan Gonzalez on PBS WWII Doc

A coalition of Latino organizations have reached an agreement with the filmmaker Ken Burns on a forthcoming World War II documentary that had been criticized for ignoring the role of Latino soldiers. The 14-hour film, “The War,” initially included no interviews with any Latino veterans even though over 500,000 Latinos served in the war. Democracy Now! co-host and New York Daily News columnist, Juan Gonzalez discusses the controversy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/11/1719227

[puebloknot]

48. Again, I watched a really great documentary on PBS, right after ...

... the first segment of "The War," which was targeted solely toward the contributions of Hispanics in World War II. Burns, or any big name in filmdom, is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Not *everything* is about a decision to "dis" someone by not giving them enough of a presence in a given project. Granted, "The War" is a big project, but as Burns states, he tried to narrow it down to a manageable size.

As I stated elsewhere, I haven't seen any particular focus on the contributions of another set of downtrodden people -- the Irish. There was a passing reference to The Sullivans, but no diamond focus on what the Irish did for the country in WWII, and the continuing fight for respect they have had to wage.

There is no doubt that Hispanics have had to fight for respect in this country. Sometimes, they've also had a need to learn to give it. I live with that particular conundrum every day here in Santa Fe. What I've seen is that people who intend good will generally get it back, regardless of their ethnicity. There will never be any way to level the balances over whose ancestors did what to someone else's ancestors.

[EFerrari]

51. And you wouldn't have had the privilege of watching that doc

unless hundreds of us spoke up in protest in the first place.

[puebloknot]

179. You don't know that. It was made by UNM and presented by PBS.

There are constantly ongoing programs here about New Mexico's history, and that by its nature includes major, major emphasis on the Hispanic presence here!

[EFerrari]

193. Yes, I do know that. Google for the flap involving PBS

There are plenty of articles documenting it. In fact, I posted two of them to this thread.

[puebloknot]

205. I have been watching programs on PBS for 14 years here in Santa Fe ..

... revolving around all things Hispanic. I don't need to "Google for the flap involving PBS" because I know from my own experience what the programming has been here for years. That there may be other issues of the sort we've been discussing with the Ken Burns film would not surprise me.

I think this is a good place to insert this comment: It is perfectly coherent to support Ken Burns in any decision he might have chosen to make to include or exclude Hispanic issues in his latest documentary, and to, at the same time, feel great concern for the way Hispanic people are being treated in this country. We have to have immigration laws, just as Canada has to have them. But they must be *just* laws. And it's going to take the wisdom of Solomon to find the way to that justice. I'm aware that civil rights have generally come about through a certain amount of belligerence, hopefully peaceful belligerence. I just think it's important not to lose sight of who your friends are when attempting to gain advantages for your community.

For your consideration: One of my best friends is a Hispanic immigrant who came to California legally years ago with his family. His wife had been an accountant in Mexico, but here she took up cleaning houses to make ends meet, while he started his own moving company. It was when he was hauling my worldly goods from pillar to post that we first became acquainted. He and his wife put their son through medical school through these means. They are very involved in helping people coming across the border, legally or otherwise, in their own private "sanctuary" program. This man has intelligence, dignity, and honor. Thoughts of him kept coming to me as I participated in this thread with you and others, over the last 24 hours, as the perfect antithesis of the shrill accusations of racism that have been directed at me and others in this thread.

[AutumnMist]

164. I Agree

and please (To the rest that disagree) don't flame me. We are a country established upon so many ethnic and diverse cultures. We will never be able to establish which one culture has made or broken what we consider the United States. The American Indians founded and claimed the land before white British culture came into the east coast. The Latin culture was here before California was even California. They were owned and held by the Latino government. We are a whole nation that is based mainly upon immigration. As it should be. We have different names and different skin colors. We are truly a boiling pot of civilization that started in the modern world with Ellis Island (not with immigration as a whole but with documentation) and has never ended. I dont think that Ken Burns himself should represent or speak for every culture that has come into the United States. It would be impossible to do so. To expect it would be even more impossible.

I am of Irish descent. My great great great grandmother came here to live a better life. And all people because of the simple patriotisms that were fed to ALL cultures in the early forties by Roosevelt had something to fight for in WWII. And that anger in essence was fed by the other countries led by Mussolini and Hitler. Japan. So it led to our war on the home front in those small towns. It led us to defend what we perceived to be a threat to our freedom. But it wasn't until most saw the pictures of the concentration camps of Hitler that we honestly knew just how brutal war and dictatorship could be. Did Burns represent all cultures? No he didnt...which in my opinion he didnt have to do so. He is making a documentary of the war itself.

[puebloknot]

180. Thanks! Every film or book covers certain territory, and must leave ...

... certain things out. Protesting someone's artistic/practical vision is pointless. If something is coming on television that isn't all I think it should be, I have the option of changing channels.

Even if Ken Burns' documentary about the war is incomplete, it is a starting point for many people to do further research. I've always known about the war because my father was in it, but in watching this series, there are *many* things that are new to me.

My attitude is gratitude!

[puebloknot]

156. "...just about anyone else" except ...

SACRAMENTO AREA TRIBES

Agua Caliente Tribal Council
Alturas Rancheria
Barona General Business
Benton Paiute Reservation
Berry Creek Rancheria
Big Lagoon Rancheria
Big Pine Reservation
Big Sandy Rancheria
Big Valley Rancheria
Bishop Reservation
Blue Lake Rancheria
Bridgeport Indian Colony
Buena Vista Rancheria
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians
Campo Band of Mission Indians
Cedarville Rancheria
Chicken Ranch Rancheria
Chico Rancheria
Cloverdale Rancheria
Cold Springs Rancheria
Colusa Rancheria
Cortina Rancheria
Coyote Valley Reservation
Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians
Dry Creek Rancheria
Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians Sulphur Bank Rancheria
Elk Valley Rancheria
Fort Bidwell Reservation
Fort Independence Reservation
Greenville Rancheria
Grindstone Rancheria
Guidiville Rancheria
Hoopa Valley Tribal Council
Hopland Reservation
Inaja - Cosmit Band of Mission Indians
Jackson Rancheria
Jamul Band of Mission Indians
Karuk Tribe of California
La Jolla Band of Misssion Indians
La Posta Band
Laytonville Rancheria
Lone Pine Reservation
Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians
Lytton Rancheria
Manchester/Point Arena Rancheria
Manzanita General Council
Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Middletown Rancheria
Mooretown Rancheria
Morongo Band
North Fork Rancheria
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
Picayune Rancheria
Pinoleville Indian Reservation
Pit River Tribal Council
Potter Valley Rancheria
Quartz Valley Reservation
Ramona Band of Indians
Redding Rancheria
Redwood Valley Rancheria
Resighini Rancheria
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
Robinson Rancheria
Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria
Round Valley Reservation
Rumsey Rancheria
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
San Pasqual Band
Santa Rosa Rancheria
Santa Rosa Reservation
Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
Santa Ysabel Band of Mission Indians
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Sherwood Valley Rancheria
Shingle Springs Rancheria
Smith River Rancheria
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
Stewarts Point Rancheria
Susanville Rancheria
Sycuan Business Committee
Table Bluff Rancheria
Table Mountain Rancheria
Timbi-sha Shoshone Tribe
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Trinidad Rancheria
Tule River Reservation
Tuolumne Me-wuk Rancheria
Twenty Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
United Auburn Indian Community
Upper Lake Rancheria
Viejas Tribal Council
Yurok Tribe
Ione Band of Miwok
Augustine Band of Mission Indians
Enterprise Rancheria
Sheep Ranch Rancheria


That dastardly Ken Burns didn't bother to find out how many of these Sacramento area residents might have contributed to the WWII effort! I cry "FOUL"!!!! It's racist!

[Garbo 2004]

172. That covers considerably more than "Sacto area" unless the "Sacto area" extends throughout CA.

And it doesn't.

[puebloknot]

177. Take a look at this link:

http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/ca/sacramento.html

This list has not been updated recently, but is probably still pretty accurate. It specifically lists Sacramento area tribes.

But to address your comment: What if only *some* of these tribes are and were directly in Sacto and the immediately surrounding area, the principle still applies. The Native Americans were already in residence in the Sacramento area when the Spaniards arrived. Many Native Americans have continued to live in the Sacramento area since time immmemorial, and were in residence there during WWII. Their contribution to the war effort is just as important as that of Hispanics living in the Sacramento area.

If Ken Burns did not focus strongly on either Sacramento group in his documentary, it is because of exactly what he said at the beginning of each segment of his documenary: The war was so vast that no one documentary could possibly cover the contribution of everyone who was involved. The mature attitude is to understand that he attempted to make a film that covered the *spirit* of everyone's participation, and the national trauma that happened to *everyone* regardless of ethnicity. There was not *one single segment* of American society that was not touched by WWII.

That he may *not* have featured a group of people, places, sentient beings, or things does not constitute willful refutation of the value of those entities.

[Garbo 2004]

211. Check the actual locations. That list is a list of reservations in California.

Not limited to Sacramento geographic area or natives indigenous to the Sacramento area. "Sacramento Area Tribes" does not refer to tribes actually in the Sacramento geographic area. It refers to those tribes within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento BIA Regional Office which has jurisdiction over all of California. http://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/childwelfare/icwa/bia_offices.htm

More info regarding the list you posted and what it represents : http://www.kstrom.net/isk/maps/ca/california.html

[puebloknot]

216. All right. I yield to your bureaucratic research. HOWEVER ...

... the point in question is that Hispanics were not the "founders" of the Sacramento area. Native Americans were already living there when the Spanish arrived. Native Americans still live in the Sacramento area, and it really doesn't matter a bit how many of those tribes listed from that web site still live in the *Sacramento* area. Some do.

The Sacramento area is like the Santa Fe area, where I live now: There are three major ethnic groups here, Native Americans (the original inhabitants of this area, and every area in the U.S.); Hispanics, who are generally the descendents of the Spanish conquerors; and for want of a better designator, "Whites," or "Gringos," as Hispanics like to call us, who are generally descendents of those who conquered the Spanish, and created a resentment that continues to this day. Conquerors don't like being conquered, or having those they've conquered rise up in revolt, as the Natives did here during the Pueblo Revolt. That's a very broad-brush look at the population here, and in Sacramento.

But all of this is pointless. Except it isn't, because the simmering resentment that took birth hundreds of years ago still goes on. My original post was to refute the claim that Hispanics founded Sacramento. They were one factor in Sacramento's going from land occupied by Native Americans to today's modern city.

The issue in this thread had originally to do with whether Ken Burns deliberately avoided featuring Hispanics in his magnificent documentary, "The War." Anyone still making that claim really has a "crucifixion" mentality, in my view, and would have an axe to grind if Ken Burns made a documentary devoted *totally* to Hispanic involvement in WWII. Such a documentary was featured here in Santa Fe, on PBS, immediately after the first segment of "The War." It was well done, and very enlightening to watch.

There are none so displeased as those who are determined to be displeased!

[Duppers]

212. Ken Burns said to Keith Olbermann

Transcript:

In our third story on the COUNTDOWN, Iraq plays no part in what is undoubtedly the finest television documentary series of the last decade or more. But for “The War” by Ken Burns, it is inevitably backdrop. With or without that context, the quality of the work cannot be overstated. By narrowing the focus, Ken Burns has permitted us to see the big picture the way Americans saw it 65 years ago as it happened, the story of the most cataclysmic event in the history of the free world, over seven episodes, using the experiences of the people of just four American communities, documenting both the battle stories of the boys fighting overseas and the folks at home who suffered right along with them.

Six years in the making, it premiers on PBS this Sunday. It’s author, Mr. Burns, joins me in a moment. First the preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM HYNES, VETERAN: I don’t think there is such a thing as good war. There are sometimes necessary wars. I never questioned the necessity of that war and I still do not question it. It was something that had to be done.

PAUL FUSSELL, INFANTRY VETERAN: The real war involves getting down there and killing people and being killed yourself or just barely escaping. It gives you attitudes about life and death that are unobtainable anywhere else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: A great pleasure now to be joined by the producer of “The War” and of “The Civil War,” “Jazz,” “The Brooklyn Bridge,” and so many others, Ken Burns. Delighted we can finally visit, my friend.

KEN BURNS, PBS PRODUCER: Thank you. Glad you’re back.

OLBERMANN: I only read this the other day and I was amazed by it. I’m amazed at the story of what prompted you to do this series. It was provoked by a high school history survey you saw?

BURNS: Yes. First I heard that we’re losing 1,000 veterans a day in the United States, and then I learned too many of our graduating high school seniors think we fought with the Germans against the Russians in the Second World War and this sort of double hemorrhaging compelled us to sort of throw off an early conceit, born of the suffering we experienced in the “Civil War” series to not go to war again. But we had to when we heard that.

We just couldn’t let these folks pass away knowing that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren had no idea what went on when they were 17, 18, 19 years old, a time when most of us had the luxury of inattention and narcissistic self-involvement. They were helping to save the world.

OLBERMANN: As ever, the stories are amazing. The footage is amazing. The juxtaposition of all that is amazing, but the genius of your work, I’ve always thought, lies in the people telling the stories, who were the most amazing still. You have begun this series with a veteran named Glen Frasier, who talks of talking his captors out of decapitating him while he was in a POW camp under the Japanese. There was Sam Hynes, who we heard in that clip there, who speaks like a poet, and Quentin Annonsin (ph) from Lavern, Minnesota, who speaks like the relative you want, and Katherine Phillips of Mobile, who seems like every smart, wise cracking southern relative you ever had or wish you did. Where do you consistently find these people?

BURN: It’s just, Keith, the luxury of time. We chose four geographically distributed towns, Waterbury, Connecticut, Mobile, Alabama, Sacramento, California, and Lavern, Minnesota. We went there and spent years. We got to know the people. We talked to more than 600 people, finding, weeding out those who were too reticent to talk, couldn’t yet talk, maybe were too practiced in their talk, to find those incredibly humble, amazing people who had real stories to tell.

We decided we weren’t going to have any Shelby Foots. If you weren’t in this war or waiting anxiously for someone to come back from the war, you’re not in our film. It permitted us to clear out all the debris that calcifies around the Second World War studies, you know, that it’s the good war, that it’s all context and no intimacy, or if it’s intimate, there’s no context.

We are not interested in celebrity generals and politicians, or strategy and tactics, or armaments and weaponry, or all things Nazi. We’re interested in what so-called ordinary human beings did. And so we just listened for them. And we went in there not with, can you get us from point A to point B on page 23 of episode two, but tell us what you did. How did you feel? What was it like to be in battle?

Because, as we know from Iraq, as we know from the Peloponnesian Wars, the experience of wars is essentially the same; I was scared, I was bored, I was hot, I was cold. My officers didn’t know what they were doing. I didn’t get the right equipment. I saw bad things. I did bad things. I lost good friends. That’s been the same since the beginning of human history and it will be, I’m sorry to say, the same until human beings are no more.

OLBERMANN: But there are, of course, context to every war and differences between them that are striking and the little preview segment that we showed begins with that issue. And I guess Sam Hynes answers your question about certainty, that the war was just and it was necessary. There is a war now. The nation seems divided into those who would use those same words and those who absolutely believe those words are inappropriate. What is the value, do you think, to current society of seeing the certainty of World War II during the time in Iraq?

BURNS: That’s the main question, is it not? We’re not going to get the past back. And we don’t study the past just for its own sake. History is the set of questions we in the present ask of the past. And so it is informed by our own anxieties, our own dreads, our wishes, our hopes and dreams. And though this film was begun before 9/11, though Sam Hynes uttered those words before we invaded Iraq, this film resonates, of course, with all of the differences between those same wars, as well as the similarities.

We now have a separate military class that suffers its losses apart and alone from the rest of us. There wasn’t a family on any street in any town in America during the Second World War that wasn’t actively involved in this effort. We knew what was going on and we understood a fundamental truth, that in shared sacrifice, we were going to make ourselves richer, not just spiritually and communally richer, but financially, materially richer.

Today we’re all independent free agents. We were asked nothing at 9/11, except to go shopping. And so we have squandered the opportunity to participate this. We say this is a huge struggle for the very survival of our civilization, and yet nobody’s asked to do anything here. We are six years out from the 9/11. We could be free of a dependency on foreign oil. We could have solved an infrastructure problem. Our bridges would be standing. Our levees would still hold.

I think there’s a lot to learn from the Second World War, even though in this film we weren’t interested in scoring any points. We didn’t have a political bone in our body. We just wished merely to bear witness to the extraordinary service that these men and women gave so long ago.

OLBERMANN: We are asked to shut up and agree now, and one of the things—when we’re asked to do that, the Second World War is invariably invoked, in terms of censorship, and there was no negative reporting. Straighten us out about this, as I know you do in the series.

BURNS: Well, you know, it does come back to us that there was censorship and there was a lot of censorship. Guys weren’t allowed to reflect their position in their letters. They couldn’t keep diaries or journals. In the beginning, the news was carefully censored. We didn’t know until after the war the exact toll at Pearl Harbor, the thing that started it.

But along the way, we began to understand that a Democratic people had to know what was going on. They had to know the sacrifices their young men were making, and why we at home were making those sacrifices. And so we began in ‘43 to show pictures of American dead. We began to show later on that same year motion picture footage, graphic motion picture footage, in a film created by the United States government, to tell its people what its young men were going through, and the idea that it would increase enlistment didn’t happen. But it sure brought people to buy a lot more war bonds.

We saw caskets coming back. Today, in order to find out a sense of what the real cost of war is, you sort of feel like a pornographer on the Internet. You have to search out these desperate sites, because we do not have a media in this country that is willing to say this is what it looks like.

OLBERMANN: Ken Burns, the creative genius behind “The War,” which debuts on PBS this Sunday night. I’ve seen it. It is—it is extraordinary, and it requires you to pay attention, which good television, good entertainment or good information does. And it is worth the effort. Congratulations, Ken. Thanks for your time tonight.

BURNS: Thank you so much, Keith.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20907197/




I had read criticism on another forum that Burns didn't show what had happened in Europe before the war, the lead-up, or what the Europeans had experienced during the War. Too bloody bad he didn't spend the rest of his life making 365 episodes too, then perhaps he could have made everyone happy.

[Retrograde]

209. or maybe not

while Moraga explored and named the area in the early 1800s, and Native Americans lived there for centuries, the city itself was largely the product of John Sutter, a Swiss immigrant, in the 1830s-40s.

[goodgd_yall]

155. I don't think it matters what size the Latino population was then

The fact is there is a large Latino population in this country today and they deserve to have their story of service in WWII told and we non-Latinos deserve to learn of it.

[Zookeeper]

166. Well, we have a large population of Somalis where...

I live. Why don't they deserves to have their story told, even if there isn't much to tell?

I'm NOT saying that Latinos don't have stories to tell about serving during WWII. But, their percentage of the population and servicemen, does make a difference.

Back then there were plenty of divisions between European Americans, too. My German-American Step-Grandmother, born around 1910, *always* made distinctions based on ethnic origin. ("I work with a little Polish girl." "Well, he's BELGIAN, you know!") And in the North, the Southern whites that came north for jobs were totally despised.

It would be just as relevant to tell the stories of the Belgian-Americans, or Greek-Americans, as the Hispanic Americans.

You just can't rewrite history, to fit today's reality.

[puebloknot]

181. All references to any ethnicity in the Burns film are very brief. The focus...

...is on the war, itself, and the personal stories are intended as backlight to the whole story.

There is a large Japanese population in this country today (and back in WWII), and I was about 35 before I ever heard about the Japanese internment camps during the war. And I have an inquiring mind that wants to know, yet I never heard that story in high school or college. We all deserve to learn more about that, too -- which I think is probably the most serious "ethnic" story we need to know about with regard to the war, and the stain of that occurrence on this nation.

Hispanics were no doubt discriminated against during the war, but at least they were not hauled off to internment camps. Burns gives that more focus in the film than the stories of any other ethnic group, but still his references to it are merely the tip of the iceberg -- of necessity.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. Yeah, why celebrate a man when it's more fun to tear him down for not being PC enough.

Gee, he didn't have a huge section devoted to gays in the military, either. And he rarely mentioned twins. And what about midwesterners? As far as I'm concerned, he didn't focus on midwesterners enough, especially ones from farming families.

I guess he's just a giant sack of shit, so fuck his documentary. Its every second isn't precisely what I want it to be, so he must clearly be an evil, bigoted, prejudiced pile of shit.

Showing white people in a WWII documentary. What a fucking asshole.

Fucking historical revisionist.

Fuck him.

[puebloknot]

27. Tonight I watched a documentary on PBS about a group of...

...black men who were a segregated part of the 82nd Airborne Division in WWII. They were referred to as "Nickles from Heaven" and I came into it late, so I never figured out that reference. Anyway, after unparallelled service in the war, they were finally given their own designated unit, and finally a bit of the respect they deserved for the service they gave the country -- well, *some* respect, anyway.

Given the complaints some people are making about the Burns documentary, perhaps they could turn their wrath on a piece like that, where the *whole* focus was on blacks, with no Hispanics mentioned, no whites, no women. Because .... that was the focus of that particular documentary.

First, Burns is vilified for "glorifying war," and then he's kicked on down the road a bit farther because he didn't spread that inglorious happening (in the view of some people) over a great enough ethnic spectrum!

Maybe we could hire Code Pink to camp out in front of his house!

[EFerrari]

38. I don't see a problem with legitimate criticism.

If you're going to offer a work to the public (as I'm sure you know), you need to be prepared for the public to respond. They always do, the bastids.

lol

edit: ack

[Rabrrrrrr]

109. Legitimate criticism, sure.

I don't think this is.

Did Burns make mention of the Apaches or other native Americans? Irish-Americans? African-Americans? Japanese-Americans? Chinese-Americans? Did he make any mention of the extra special efforts that the German community in America made in trying to fight this war, to help show that they were patriotic Americans? I do realize that at the time of WWII, German-Americans were white and thus not worth much regard, but as a community they went above and beyond - shall I go kick Burns' ass for not giving them enough credit?

Or shall I just cowboy up, show some intellectual integrity, accept the documentary for what it is, and say "Wow - that was a big war with a shitload of people, and Burns interviewed only volunteers, and even in 14 hours one could never, ever, ever hope to cover every fucking possibility that might offend someone by not being included."

Personally speaking, unless the shitbag gave a whole episode to our brilliant mathematicians who cracked codes and invented new ones, he can go fuck himself. I'm sick and fucking tired of mathematicians being glossed over and their contributions being ignored.

[EFerrari]

117. If you can't find a Latino vet in **Sacramento**

you need serious help.

But, thanks so much for thinking this through. I really appreciated your thoughtfulness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

124. Uh, yes.

Burns covered Navajo code talkers, nisei enlistees, african americans, irish catholics, italian americans, German Americans, women in industry, and so on.

Pretty much every cliche out of every day History Channel documentaries.

[puebloknot]

126. Exactly the point I have been trying to make all through this thread ...

... although I was ill-advised to make reference to the contribution of our canine friends in the war because a translator,or perhaps a deity, was needed to explain the subtleties of that reference.

Before even getting into the matter of whether or not Hispanics were sufficiently honored in the Burns film, the assertion was made that the documentary was a "glorification of war." That's another PC trick these days in which those who are *for peace* like to look back over their shoulders and second-guess what the whole damned country, as well as the whole world, was doing to try to avoid succumbing to fascism during WWII -- all this while some of today's critics were still in diapers, or perhaps going through an adolescence which has lasted far, far too long.

Burns created a documentary which came from his own sensibilities, his own artistic vision. Every time we see a film or read a book, we have to know it's colored by the worldview and experiences of the creator of the piece. Even *documentaries* are much more than "just the facts." The facts are colored by human interpretation, and "the facts" with regard to almost any subject are too numerous to include in a given piece. I remember an old physicist boyfriend once telling me, about the scientific method: "There are some questions you do not ask." I didn't agree with that, but I see the practicality of it -- the necessity of limiting an experment to a given parameter.

There are many Native Americans here in the Santa Fe area who disagree, at Fiesta each year, with the artistic portrayal of the Spanish reconquest of this area, after the temporarily successful Pueblo Revolt. That "morality play" here is strictly from the point of view of the Hispanic population.

By golly, that's just not right. That whole week of historical celebrations should be retailored to include all of the players. The Hispanics totally dominate this local celebration. Maybe your mathematician friends could do a historical survey of the ethnic proportionality of the time, and be sure that there are exactly the right numbers of members of all the pueblos here, as well as the descendents of the reconquering Spaniards. But then we get into the problems with all the mixed-blood people who are a little of this and a little of that. If there were any justice in this world, the Pueblo peoples here would stop their weaving and their flute-making and take to the streets to demand their rights for equal representation!

Well...they did that, during the Pueblo Revolt back in 1600 something or other. They used knotted ropes, each knot to stand for a day, and runners took them to all the pueblos. When they reached the seventh knot, it was time for action. They rose up and threw the Spaniards OUT!!!!

It's clear that if we are ever going to get to impeachment, we're going to need to stop arguing and intentionally misunderstanding each other at DU, and start making some of them knotted ropes! :patriot:

[EFerrari]

127. We need to stop arguing when someone compares

our forefathers to dogs.

Nope.

You owe the Latino community on DU an apology. A gesture you seem to be incapable of making.

[puebloknot]

128. No apologies are forthcoming for something I didn't do!

By saying Burns didn't include the participation in WWII of dogs, all the while writing in this thread that Burns also didn't give a lot of time to Irish participation, I guess I just called my own Irish foot soldier daddy a dog! For shame.

You're for peace, right? Why don't we just agree to declare a truce?

[EFerrari]

129. By saying Burns didn't include the participation in WWII of dogs

"By saying Burns didn't include the participation in WWII of dogs, all the while writing in this thread that Burns also didn't give a lot of time to Irish participation, I guess I just called my own Irish foot soldier daddy a dog! For shame."

I really don't care how much you abuse your people. But, abuse mine and you'll hear from me.

[puebloknot]

148. I think this is a very revelatory thread. I have every confidence ...

... that the vast majority of DU readers have a sufficient number of neurons firing that they can discern very clearly what I meant, and what I did not mean, by mentioning canines with reference to Ken Burns' documentary. Geez, Beth, we hardly knew ye, until now.

[EFerrari]

168. Ditto.

[EFerrari]

33. That's offensive in addition to being uninformed.

This is Burns pattern and it's perfectly legitemate to call him on it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

111. It's neither of those.

Perhaps the truth is that no hispanics came forward for interview, and that in a mere 14 hours of film, NO ONE, not even God, could put together a documentary that covers every conceivable class, race, culture, species, profession, blah blah blah, that took part in World War II.

To get hyperemotional because one group was *unintentionally* left out is just silliness, unless Burns is advertising it as "The complete word on every person, race, culture, species, profession, geographic origin, and so on, that took part in WWII", I give him a pass.

I give him a VERY BIG pass.

He ignored a shitload of stuff.

As I said in response to your other post, I bet he didn't give proper time to the mathematicians that made the war possible.

[EFerrari]

120. Big Cr@p. It's his pattern. That's what he does.

Get a clue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. Burns could have easily covered Hispanic contributions.

In fact, he went back and did so. And the documentary was better for it, proving the critics correct.

So I'm not sure what you're arguing about.

[YankmeCrankme]

191. Because they weren't even satisfied with that. nt

[aikoaiko]

36. An imperfect documentary...... all that it is.

[EFerrari]

39. Burns could have handled it better and in the end, he did take steps

I think that's what is important.

Latinos are often sort of elided in history. We span the rainbow so we often get incorporated into other groups. This whole thing puts me in mind of my friend's work on lesbians in the 15th Century. They were invisible unless you took out a microscope. I remember my friend used to call me, really excited, when she managed to track one down. :)

[puebloknot]

55. Well, you hardly have to take out a microscope to find Hispanics...

... who are fully engaged in American life -- because they are Americans.

And while we're at it: Let's have a defining of terms, so that no one is insulted here.

Latino/Latina; Hispanic; Mexican. I see in this exchange that Latino and Hispanic are in wide use. Care to help me understand just which term is preferred, and under what circumstances?

People who live in Mexico are *Mexicans." But a sensitivity has developed over even using that term. I can understand it. I remember walking into a hospital in Albuquerque, where my uncle had just had open heart surgery. In the lobby was a very nice "Mexican" family (that's what we called people with brown skin in my childhood), kids sitting quietly, playing, smiling -- but there were several of them. My dear old unenlightened aunt could not refrain from referring to "those Mexkuns" out in the lobby, as her first words to me after our not having seen each other for 35 years. To make it worse, they were probably "Cathlik," too! (She's one of the Fundies who are bringing the country down.)

My daughter's paternal grandmother was from Montgomery, Alabama. She died at 97, and until her dying breath, she referred to black children as "picaninnies." She did that while standing next to a black man and his children at a Christmas party in her retirement home. I wanted to sink into the floor. He just winked at me and put his arm around me. Somewhere along the way, we have to learn to take the long view. Those with wisdom in *every* culture eventually come to that. Being eager to sniff out every possible slight is simply exhausting.


And one more thought: My bloodlines encompass an English/Irish/Welsh/Italian/Cherokee heritage. I haven't seen much attention given in Burns' film to Native Americans (maybe that's coming later). Yet we know they participated in World War II, beyond just the Code Talker role some of them fulfilled. I once attended a powwow in California and saw a Native American man dancing with an ensignia for the Second Infantry Division (the famous Indianhead insignia) attached to his costume. My father served in that division, and I found it moving to see that.

So when are the "Indians" going to rise up and take scalps because they were excluded in large meaure from the Ken Burns film? :)

There is a great deal of minituae which cannot be found in most major productions, which may cause someone to feel slighted -- especially if they are *really* determined to be discriminated against -- but which is not the main thrust of the film in the first place.

Burns took steps. Now he deserves credit for having produced yet another magnificent piece. That a critic might have done it differently is the way it goes. And very often, the critics know little whereof they speak, in terms of any personal experience in the genre. And even if they *do* have such experience, well, then, let them make the film that will satisfy *their* inner calling! The rest of us want to enjoy what's playing at the Roxie right now!

[EFerrari]

56. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why you compared

my forefathers to dogs.

[puebloknot]

61. You're more intelligent than that! But you do have an agenda here. nt

[EFerrari]

64. I wonder why I'd need you to tell me who I am. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Exactly. Hispanics aren't hard to find.

Which is why it's curious that Burns didn't find any.

"People who live in Mexico are *Mexicans." But a sensitivity has developed over even using that term. I can understand it. I remember walking into a hospital in Albuquerque, where my uncle had just had open heart surgery. In the lobby was a very nice "Mexican" family (that's what we called people with brown skin in my childhood), kids sitting quietly, playing, smiling -- but there were several of them. My dear old unenlightened aunt could not refrain from referring to "those Mexkuns" out in the lobby, as her first words to me after our not having seen each other for 35 years. To make it worse, they were probably "Cathlik," too! (She's one of the Fundies who are bringing the country down.)

My daughter's paternal grandmother was from Montgomery, Alabama. She died at 97, and until her dying breath, she referred to black children as "picaninnies." She did that while standing next to a black man and his children at a Christmas party in her retirement home. I wanted to sink into the floor. He just winked at me and put his arm around me. Somewhere along the way, we have to learn to take the long view. Those with wisdom in *every* culture eventually come to that. Being eager to sniff out every possible slight is simply exhausting."

I'm missing the point of what your racist relations has to do with Burns' omission.

"So when are the "Indians" going to rise up and take scalps because they were excluded in large meaure from the Ken Burns film?"

Ken Burns didn't excluse Native Americans from the film. Nor do I think your second racist slur of the thread helps Burns out much.

"There is a great deal of minituae which cannot be found in most major productions, which may cause someone to feel slighted -- especially if they are *really* determined to be discriminated against -- but which is not the main thrust of the film in the first place."

I'd hardly call the hispanic war effort "minituae."

[puebloknot]

67. I'd hardly call the hispanic war effort "minituae.": I wouldn't, and I didn't!

You have a problem with nuance and with metaphor. You seem quite determined to be offended.

Read it again, Sam! You're right, you *are* missing the point -- of my whole post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Yeah, you did. You clearly implied it.

"You seem quite determined to be offended."

You seem way out of your league.

[judaspriestess]

110. why does "nice" have to be thrown in front of the "Mexican" part?

as compared to what? a "bad" Mexican family? Latino/Hispanic is a broader description to use like African American, Caucasian than a specific description like Mexican as not all Latinos are Mexican as not all Caucasians are Irish. Why is it ok to be generalized with other races but not Latinos?

The sensitivity you are referring to is how illegal immigrants are ALL being labeled Mexicans which is flat out derogatory, not all illegals are from Mexico. I am a fifth generation American but in Texas many of us Latinos consider ourselves Tex-Mex because most of our ancestors came from Mexico and Spain via Mexico but the emphasis is still TEX meaning American meaning Latino/Hispanic not Mexican. And I am very proud of my heritage so I have no trouble embracing mine as you embrace yours.

Latinos have been here a very, very long time not just a recent migration as in the past couple of generations. It is insulting and naive for ANYONE to imply that as well as the assumption that all Latinos only speak Spanish. Spanish is my second language not my first!!!

hopefully this will give you some insight and of course is my opinion.

on edit: forgot to add, I also feel Latinos are often shun as if we only recently began to exist.

[puebloknot]

132. "Nice" because the children were well-behaved and did not deserve...

...the dismissive attitude of my own aunt. She, now deceased, was one of the people who contributed to the difficult race relations we see exhibited in this thread. Unfortunately, any attempt at harmony on the part of a Gringa like me is quickly taken as contempt, a clear example of the old "some of my best friends are (choose your category)" cliche.

I'm very well aware that not all Latinos/Hispanics are of Mexican descent. But I even sense a knee-jerk reaction when someone is called Mexican when they are, in fact, Mexican -- citizens of Mexico. A little understanding is needed on both sides of this issues, I'm sure you will agree.

Nothing in my post was meant in any way to denigrate people of Latin/Mexican descent. It's difficult sometimes to know if you're going to say the wrong thing to someone who is sensitive. It used to be proper to refer to black people as "Negroes," as opposed to what is now called the "N" word. Now it seems that term is offensive to some people.

We can also look at the fact that nonHispanic people -- Europeas from England, Holland... -- have been on this continent just about as long as Hispanics have. When we are not allowed to cross the border into Canada (as many of us are thinking of doing these days) and live there, we do not get to make the claim that as European Whites we have been occupants of this particular piece of real estate for centuries and can go where we please. We have to abide by Canada's immigration laws.


The way that those in power decide to draw lines across the map and designate us all as one thing or another is a big problem. We would be wise to look to the motivations of those in power, rather than fight with each other over whose ancestors are superior, who the offended party is in any given situation.

Thank you for writing and trying to clear up terms in this conversation!

[Solon]

53. Well, given the responses to this OP, I would say racism against Latinos is alive and well...

sad to say. So far we had one person compare Latinos to dogs, and many others asking what the big deal is, I'm a fucking white as a sheet Mick, and even I see something wrong here, and yes, I've been keeping up with this controversy, even before this post, Democracy Now! is an invaluable resource. Also, just as an aside, but this isn't about PC, its about fucking human decency! For fuck's sake people!

[EFerrari]

57. I feel f#cking nauseous. n/t

[Solon]

63. It isn't even so much that Latinos were overlooked, its his response to why that was...

originally that I have a problem with. No one is expecting the guy to be perfect, but did he really have to be so fucking condescending.

[EFerrari]

66. I agree entirely. He may have made a mistake in the first place.

But he certainly was an asshole when called on his error.

edit: People make mistakes. That's what we're here for. :silly:

But, he could have done a better job, handling this latest one in his pattern of mistakes. My guys are really forgiving. That's what we do.

[puebloknot]

59. It is stupid to suggest I compared Latinos to dogs ...

... when I made the simple point that Burns had to *limit* the scope of his documentary. I also pointed out that other ethnic groups weren't in the spotlight of that film.

FYI, dogs served many valuable purposes in the war. They're intelligent animals -- more intelligent than some humans I run into, in person and online!

Also FYI, some people are offended by the use of the word "fuck," especially when used to exces and in purported service to a higher cause.

This conversation has run off the rails and bears no reference to the original discussion of Burns' film.

[EFerrari]

60. You need to go back and read your own posts.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not stupid. Thanks.

[puebloknot]

69. There's something about not suffering fools gladly, and I'm hearing that call!

[EFerrari]

71. That's a very neat way to avoid the discussion.

Good luck with that.

Oh, and by the way, my grandfather was not a dog.

[Solon]

65. Uhm, you DID compare them to dogs, and therefore your feelings about Latinos are as clear as a...

cloudless day. No need to bury yourself into a deeper hole now.

[puebloknot]

75. Burns also failed to include the flora and fauna of the world in his film ...

... except for a brief mention of some of the vegetation on a Pacific Island, *because it was beyond the scope of his film.*

There now! I've committed another racist slur. I've compared Latinos to vegetation! And I'll need to cancel my writing group here in Santa Fe tonight because three of the six women involved are Latinos! One of them is a Mexican; she is a citizen of Mexico and spends part of her year in Santa Fe.

NB: The Internet is a poor conveyor of nuanced meaning, which is why threads like this stray into absurdity, as this one has. You do not know what my feelings are about Latinos, or anything else, unless you ask me -- with sincerity and a willingness to put aside attack mode and your own pre-conceptions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Yes, yes.

I'm sure you've got many hispanic friends.

[EFerrari]

78. Her best friends. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Many of them.

[puebloknot]

80. Why, yes! Some of my best friends *are* Hispanic! One of them ...

... is my sister-in-law, who is a published Hispanic writer.

Enough!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Wow, some of your best friends are hispanic!

One of them is even on of the good ones!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

84. One of the clean, light ones. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. very articulate.

[EFerrari]

112. I'm sorry to be ugly.

:(

[EFerrari]

83. Then you need to come clean to her and let her know

you think she comes from dogs.

Enough? No f$cking kidding.

Edit: I'm sorry to make work, mods.

[puebloknot]

90. I have often not agreed with you here at DU, but I have respected ...

... your right to your opinions. And I recently, from the heart, enthusiastically recommended a piece you wrote.

I'm seeing a new and disappointing side of you in this thread. I never expected this kind of visciousness from you.

Can it be that you've been nurturing a grudge over an article that I wrote, and which we didn't see eye to eye on, for lo, these two plus years, and now have found a way to extract some satisfaction?

This is the dark side of DU, and good reason for me to choose more carefully my participation here.

[EFerrari]

93. No, I'm just objecting to the fact that you compared my grandfather

to a dog.

How much patience someone needs to have to deal with that, I don't know. I don't have it.

[Solon]

94. Puebloknot has shown her true colors, to be frank, she isn't worth the time, and worth less than...

the electrons used to transmit messages back at her. I would say ignore her, but people like her can be quite dangerous when left to their own devices.

[EFerrari]

99. There must be something wrong with me

because I can't figure out how to reach out to puebloknot and how to hold on to my values, at the same time.

I'm sorry, guys.

[Solon]

101. No need to apologize, to be honest, I found your candor in this exchange remarkable...

if I were in your shoes it would be deleted post after deleted post, and even now I'm struggling to check my words. Have to keep my Irish temper in check sometimes. :)

[Solon]

85. When I mentioned that you didn't need to bury yourself in a deeper hole, that was a....

word of advice, not an invitation to use a shovel.

[EFerrari]

77. Thanks for the wrap up. n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

116. If it's any consolation, I know exactly what you meant, and I don't deride you for it

I know you weren't saying that Latinos are dogs - I know full well that you were attempting to show that not every possible category of beings/things/etc. that served in WWII could possibly be covered in 14 hours.

Some people just don't read very well, or read through the lens of "What can I find to offend me? I really want to be offended!"

Sad, really. A totally innocuous statement taken completely out of context by hyperemotionals who feel better when offended instead of looking for real meaning and dialogue. Oh, well. That's the way of DU sometimes.



Though the fact that you haven't mentioned Germans so far makes me realize just how deep seated your intense, evil hatred of other races - and especially me - really is. And I thought this was a liberal/progressive board. I'd call you Hitler, but given the sheer obviousness of your abject disregard and pure hatred for anyone of the German race makes me realize that would be insult to Hitler. So I'll just call you Stalin. (and I can do that because clearly I am very racist against Russians).

:P

[EFerrari]

123. Yes, it's really sad, when bigoted statements

are taken for bigoted statements.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. I think it works like this.

Somebody's grampa is a WWII vet. Therefore, somebody's grampa is a hero. Ken Burns has made a super important documentary about WWII. Therefore, Ken Burns has made a super duper documentary about grampa. Therefore, Ken Burns is a hero. Therefore, anybody criticizing Ken Burns for anything, regardless of validity, is attacking Grampa. And therefore wrong.

[EFerrari]

169. I think you're right. On the other hand, I come from dogs.

lol

[Rabrrrrrr]

189. No, I think it goes more like this:

Somebody's grampa is a WWII vet. Therefore, somebody's grampa is a hero. Ken Burns has made a super important documentary about WWII. Therefore, Ken Burns has made a super duper documentary about grampa. However, even though there are millions of people involved in WWII, grampa doesn't get a specific mention. Therefore, Ken Burns is a lifeless turd; a bigoted shitpile; and a rotten-to-the-core historical-revisionist and hater of all things good who should be jettisoned from the planet.

Except to a whole bunch of us who go "Wow - my grampa didn't get a mention, either; but, geez, it's a big war and a small documentary. Maybe we don't need to suffer a heart attack while trying to find something to be offended by, and just accept the documentary as it is for what it is."

But, far be it from me to ask people to act like adults in modern child-America.

[tammywammy]

134. I read it the same way

:shrug:

He wasn't calling Latinos dogs. He was simply using an example of something else not covered by Burns.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. How did you read the bit about indians taking scalps?

[tammywammy]

137. I was only talking about post 41

I haven't read every post in this thread, mostly skimmed it.

Do you have a link to a comment about Indians taking scalps?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

138. #55

[tammywammy]

141. Facetious

That's how I read that.

[puebloknot]

143. Right! An appreciation for humor and subtlety is sorely missing in this thread! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

144. Well no shit.

[tammywammy]

145. Then why'd you ask?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

146. A couple of reasons.

1. Why be facetious over diversity?

2. Why include racist slurs while being facetious?

[tammywammy]

151. I see what you're saying

It's not how I'd phrase anything, but I see what that poster was trying to get at I guess.

[puebloknot]

183. That was a reference to the formulaic presentation in movies...

...by the thousands which represent native peoples taking scalps -- a piece of popular culture which has long been disproven. That reference was probably ill-advised, in the heat of this thread and the eagnerness to be offended. Native Americans have as much right to protest their status in this country, as Hispanics, and more, really, because much of their poor treatement has been at the hands of Hispanics.

DU is filled with posts which contain cliches and when there is good will people understand it for what it is, a figure of speech, and give it a pass!

[puebloknot]

142. Thanks! The "he" is a "she."

My name is Judy! :)

[JVS]

139. How dare you lump Stalin, a Georgian, in with the Russians!

Obviously you were either trying to cast aspersion on the Russians, or you were trying to overlook the most powerful leader to ever hail from Georgian soil. Sooner or later, we'll figure out which group you were slighting. Either way, you are a disgusting racist, a bad man, and a scourge to both dogs and Welshmen everywhere.

[puebloknot]

140. Well, you'd be right. So determined am I to insult those of German...

...extraction that I spent three years in Germany, as a post-war Army brat, studying the habits of Germans, so I could come back to America, grow up, and undertake my life's work of hating Germans. To leave no stone unturned, I spent seven years in a relationship with a Deutsche professor of physics, Herr Richter, so that I could refine said hatred. When he finally got around to popping the question, I was prepared to tell him, in intimate detail, why I would *never,* no *never* become Frau Richter. Nein, nein, nein! Gott im Himmel, nein!!! I didn't want to be involved in producing any of those little enfants terribles, the kinder of the Master Race!

Ken Burns will be remiss if he does not, forthwith, produce a documentary about this important subject!

[Rabrrrrrr]

157. Yes, I knew that level of racist behavior must have years and years of study behind it.

No one is as racist as you without putting a lot of effort into it. I'll give you that much credit, anyway.

You know, I also realize that Burns never once mentioned my grandmother, even though two of her sons served in WWII.

Clearly he is more than racist, he hates my family as well. What a piece of shit.

[puebloknot]

161. And he never mentioned my father, who stormed the beaches at Normandy...

...and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. The Second Infantry Division was filled with Texas boys like my father!

(We're getting caught in this crazed thread. I'm beginning to worry about you. You beginning to worry about me?)

[Rabrrrrrr]

158. Oh, and the fact you dated a man means you're a homophobe or worse.

[Rabrrrrrr]

159. Oh, also, since you used "enfants terribles", you clearly hate children.

[puebloknot]

162. And I'm in sympathy with *the French*! nt

[LanternWaste]

190. People are either going to dig in their heels and infer the worst

People are either going to dig in their heels and infer the worst, or people will keep an open mind. I understand the analogy and the point you made.

Slough off the implications being made that you're a racist-- I've read your posts in the past and know better...

[puebloknot]

200. Thank you for your acknowledgement.

Just as it is against the rules of engagement on this forum to sling racist epithets, I think the mods need to take a look at the matter of calling someone "racist" as a defense against not winning an argument. No one can legislate morality or an appreciation for subtlety, but there are guidelines for civility on this forum which I think were breached in this thread.

I felt in this exchange that I was being "swiftboated" by "Progressives." :) There were 12 posts from sfxpat2000 insisting I had called her grandfather a dog. That those insinuations came from someone who is a "leading light" on this forum gives me great pause. From such a small beginning, the Nuremberg rallies took birth in Nazi Germany! Those who are swept up in a particular cause are, alas, often blinded to the ethic they purport to embrace, and claim it for themselves to the exclusion of others.

Ah, but this is Democratic Underground! Right. Any venue will do.

[mitchum]

68. Burns is entertaining, but he is a classic middlebrow...

so it's rather unfair to hold him to any higher standard.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Meh.

He's held up as the greatest documentary filmmaker since... shit, I don't know. Ken Burns.

So it's rather unfair not to bring him down a few well deserved pegs.

[mitchum]

74. LOL!

:) That was good.
He's held up as the greatest documentary filmmaker by people who don't know of any documentary filmmakers other than...Ken Burns.
Hell, I think he deserves to be brought down more than a few well deserved pegs, but he is what he is...

[EFerrari]

72. I think that's probably right. n/t

[Johonny]

86. I'm convinced

Ken Burns documentary should have followed standard guidelines 1 Italian American who talks in a bad accent, 1 heavy drinking Irish American, 1 fair haired country boy, 1 Jew , 1 African American that has wander from his post and somehow stays with the company, 1 dark haired other from the big city and a tough but caring sergeant.

[EFerrari]

88. It isn't that unreasonable. Sacramento was more or less founded

by Latinos.

This isn't about some screwy recipe to be politically korrect.

You couldn't shake a stick in Sacramento and not get into a Latino's nose.

It's more that, he had to work pretty hard to ignore us. And when we tried to talk to him, he just dissed us.

That's the deal.

[puebloknot]

163. See my post #156. I think the many Native Americans who ...

... already lived in the Sacramento area when your forefathers arrived would have an argument about who "founded" the area. They would also have an argument about the methods your forefathers used to convert them to the religion of the new "founders."

Native Americans fought in WWII, also. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if some of them were from the Sacramento area.

[JuniperLea]

89. We call those...

The Unknown Eth... My Irish/Black cousins can "pass" for American Indian, Hispanic, etc. I love it!


This world won't be worth shit until we have all mingled and you cannot tell by looking at someone what their ancestry is.

[Zookeeper]

97. The world will literally be a lot less colorful and interesting...

when we have all "mingled" and look alike. 'Sounds awful to me.

And people will still find other things to fight about.

[JuniperLea]

102. I'm ready for the "other things"

Cuz this is getting mighty old.

There's nothing uninteresting about people of mixed heritage. Not a damn thing. It's really wonderful to have so much history from many directions that you can call your own. My grandchildren will know tortillas as intimately as they will scones... albondigas as well as mutton stew. That is what I call a very, very rich and colorful heritage.

[Zookeeper]

114. But do you want to give up looking at deep ebony skin?

Or blue eyes, black, blond or red hair? Should we all have the same nose, or is the world more interesting when noses range from broad and flat to thin and bony?

There's nothing wrong with mixed heritage, but to suggest that the world would be better if everyone had brown hair, eyes, and mocha skin is naive. Beauty comes in many forms.

BTW, when you get used to "different" things, they cease to be exotic. I moved from the Midwest to California and different cultures that seemed new and exciting to me at first, were quite normal and humdrum after ten years. That's not bad, but no culture remains "colorful" once you become accustomed to it.

[peaches2003]

92. Love it!

:applause:

[Zookeeper]

105. I didn't see anything about German-Americans...

who fought in the war, either. Or Poles, Greeks, Chinese, or Scandinavians.

It would be interesting to see statistics on the percentages of different ethnic groups living in the U.S. at the time, and the percentage serving in the WWII. There may have been a large Latino population in Sacramento at the time, but how many Latinos were living in the entire U.S. compared to other ethnic groups in other regions of the country? It's likely that the entire population of the Southwest and California was dwarfed by the rest of the country. I don't have an answer, but I do think a broader perspective is necessary. Burns made a mistake, but he corrected it. Maybe we should be lobbying for him to include the other ethnic groups he overlooked if our concern is truly about fairness.

When I mentioned this thread to Mr. Z. last night, his comment was, "Well, it's typical of Democrats to turn on their own."

[EFerrari]

107. Sacramento was basically founded by Latinos.

So, no, this isn't just par for the course.

[Zookeeper]

130. OK, taking you at your word that Sacramento was "basically"

founded by Latinos, I'm not sure what that has to do with my statement.

If he put an ad in the newspaper in Sacramento, and no Latinos came forward at the time, I'm not sure what he was supposed to do. He was called on it later and he made a correction.

Other regions and cities had large populations of people belonging to certain ethnic groups, that were not featured in Burns' documentary.

Here is a listing of the states' population in the 1940 census. California and Texas come in at 5th and 6th. The other states likely to have a significant Latino (Mexican and Central American) population, also have the smallest overall population. Otherwise the list is dominated by Eastern and Rust Belt states, which didn't have much of a Latino presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_1940

Looking at the country as a whole, in 1940, the time Burns devoted to the stories of the two Latino vets in the first episode seems quite fair, especially considering all of the other groups that were left out. In fact, I happen to think that, so far, African-Americans have been slighted.

Here is another interesting page of census data from 1940, that compares the "Negro" population to "Whites born in Mexico" (which I believe means "Latinos"):

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php


BTW, you know you could be complaining about the omission of German-Americans, too. :P

(You can always tell a German, you just can't tell her much. :hi: )

Edited for rogue punctuation.

[EFerrari]

131. No, I couldn't be b!tching about the omission of German -Americans

in Sacramento. That would just be wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. You wouldn't be bitching about the omission of German-Americans...

Because the film has German-Americans in it.

[Zookeeper]

147. I don't recall Burns specifically focusing on German-Americans...

as "German-Americans."

Will you be more specific about where in the first two episodes, he actually did that?

And, again, how about Chinese-Americans, Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc.?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

149. Did he focus on them? No.

Did he include them?

Yeah.

[Zookeeper]

154. But, he didn't identify them as "German-Americans" then...

so, your point is moot. (Unless, your point is that you are lumping all "white people" together.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. Mmm, no.

I think that Ken Burns getting so irrationally defensive, and actually going back and adding hispanic servicemen, means the point has been entirely valid from day one.

[Zookeeper]

165. What is it exactly, that you want from him?

He added the Latino servicemen.

There are still other ethnic groups that weren't included.

What did he say or do that was "so irrationally defensive?"

[EFerrari]

171. He added that segment after many civil rights groups

rided his @ss.

And then, he called it a petty concern.

This thread has been much too long. I'm hiding it now because it's disgusting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

188. I want him to learn from his mistakes.

And apologize to those critics for calling them names.

[Zookeeper]

197. What names has he called them?

(Seriously. I don't know.)

What names has he been called?

Respect is a two-way street.

If he put an ad in the Sacramento paper and no one from the Hispanic community came forward, what should he have done? Should he have gone knocking on doors? If he was going to knock on doors looking for one ethnic group in Sacramento, then he would be obligated to knock on doors in the other towns looking for different stories from other ethnic groups.

IF no Hispanic vets came forward the first time around to tell their stories, yet Burns edited his work to include Hispanic vets as a result of objections from and lobbying by Latino groups, he made amends. If he was snippy about it, it may very well have been the result of having to change his work (art?), which isn't claiming to be encyclopedic, after the fact. (Because Hispanic vets didn't come forward in the town of Sacramento when he was gathering stories.)

[puebloknot]

202. This is America. Ken Burns has a right to be snippy if he chooses.

But I would also like some proof of the allegations being made here about Burns. This thread has been rife with overly-emotional, unsubstantiated claims of aspersions being cast which simply never happened.

As I've noted elsewhere, Hispanic vets are not the only ethnic group of interest in Sacramento. The Native Americans were there when the Spanish arrived, and they live there still. Some of them likely fought in WWII.

Ken Burns states at the beginning of every segment of his film that the scope of his film is necessarily limited. It is simply impossible to cover that gigantic subject with anything but an overviw, which I thought was done with integrity and ... affection for the country.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

208. Petty and bickering.

[puebloknot]

182. In the first segment of the film, when Burns was discussing...

...the Japanese internment camps, he referred to the fact that both Italian-Americans and German-Americans made a great contribution, and through their demonstration of loyalty were not hauled off to camps, as the Japanese were. That's about the only reference to those groups, and they were probably given less attention than Hispanics -- at that juncture in the film.

We need to remember that the film still has four more segments to go!

[Zookeeper]

195. Thank you. I couldn't remember what I saw in the film....

and what I read on-line through my own research.

[EFerrari]

170. Yep. n/t

[Zookeeper]

153. If he put an ad in the Sacramento paper and no one came...

forward, then, after-the-fact, he included Latino vets, he sounds like he did make amends.

There were plenty of ethnic groups on the East Coast that he also overlooked. And he overlooked the hodge-podge of nationalities in the Rust Belt.

Would you rather that he hadn't made the documentary, at all?

It's not perfect, and I could gripe about women not getting enough time, considering that we're more than 50% of the population, but I'm learning a lot from it just as it is.

[EFerrari]

173. I don't consider pointing out that Burns lives in a world without Latinos

a "gripe". And, to frame it that way is insulting because it minimizes the erasure of the cultural contribution of one of the founding ethnic groups of this nation -- and especially in one of the four towns that Burns himself decided to focus on.

And, no, he didn't make amends. He tacked on a coda to his work (thanks, Ken!) after a protracted period of denying his bullshit, and he was as ungracious as possible when there was no need for that. Reread the OP.

[Swamp Rat]

175. Oi meu!

No he visto el documentario, pero yo quiesiera saber si Burns puso un anúncio en el español en los periódicos populares... esos que son en español o leido de Latinos... Chicanos... y Güeros que NO SON pendejos. :D

[puebloknot]

184. I lived in Sacramento; I have relatives who live there...

... still, and have for 30 years.

The influence of Hispanics in Sacramento is impossible to deny (not that I ever wanted to do so). The strong cultural contribution of Hispanics is in great evidence all over California. I know because I lived there for 30 years, in both Northern and Southern California -- before coming home to New Mexico, where the Hispanic influence is even greater!

Even if Ken Burns plotted to leave out any reference to Hispanics in his documentary, he hardly has to power to *erase* hundreds of years of history. I think the rage that attends this issue speaks much more loudly of the ill will of those who want to seize their pound of flesh from Burns, than it does of him and any motivation he might have!

As someone coming fresh to the documentary, and without any axe to grind, I didn't find that references to Hispanic soldiers in the film stood out as "tacked on." They flowed with the rest of the film, when I watched it!

[EFerrari]

185. You mistake me. This isn't rage.

It's contempt.

And if you read the OP, which might be a good idea, you will see that the segment that includes Latinos is indeed not structurally part of the original film, whether you "find it" that way or not.

[puebloknot]

199. I never post in a thread without reading the OP

I think it would be good if you somehow come to realize that Latinos are not the only people who are facing a less-than-perfect world, and that freedom of expression is alive and well in America for yet a little while. Ken Burns has the perfect right to make a documentary and leave out *anything* he chooses. Yielding to mob pressure is not in the interest of the country, or artistic freedom.

Your contempt has shown itself in spades throughout this whole thread, including your derision of everything I've posted -- in direct contradiction of the rules of civil behavior toward other posters.

Who gives a flying f&ck if the sgement including Latinos is not structurally part of the original film? It's there now, and it's well done.

You still seem to want to crucify Ken Burns (not to mention anyone who isn't also in that mood). "This isn't rage." Oh, really?

[Zookeeper]

192. There is no point in arguing with you, since you are parsing

words looking for offense.

If I say, "I could be OFFENDED by Burns not giving women more time even though we are more than 50% of the population," would you agree with me? I doubt it.

[PDenton]

125. My grandfather remembered

what he called "Mexicans" in his unit, the 80th division, "Blue Ridge" division. They were from California, I would guess, as the unit drew alot of people from California. He didn't say anything bad about them, in fact he was impressed with their fighting ability, but he noted that few of them spoke good English.

I don't think Hispanic participation in WWII is all that notable, any more than any other small ethnic group. You can't rewrite WWII into being something other than what it was- a highly agrarian, mostly-WASP nation of farmboys going to war and visiting places most of them couldn't even find on a map. How little the world changes.

My other grandfather joined the war... for no other reason than he needed a winter coat but could not afford one and was tired of sleeping in the back of a car.

[Breeze54]

198. Good point! ~~ Saved me from saying it!

He couldn't possibly have named every 'group' and I thought the documentary was about America and
AMERICANS in WWII? He only chose four cities too! How come MY city of birth was not highlighted? :sarcasm:

[cui bono]

115. Every time I drive by the KCET complex there's this one guy picketing

against that series. I've been seeing him for months out there. Very tenacious.

[Zookeeper]

196. This touches on the issue of art vs. science...

This touches on the issue of art vs. science. (And whether or not a documentary is art.)

If I make a painting of Whatabeaut Swamp that is going on display in public and you tell me to change it because there is a plant species that you think I should have included, I am not obligated to do that, UNLESS, I am calling it a scientific illustration of Whatabeaut Swamp. If my painting is intended to be encyclopedic and scientific, then I have made a mistake in not including ALL of the plants in their proper proportions.

However, if my painting is a piece of art that reflects my vision of that place, it can include or exclude any damn thing I want, even if it was funded by grants. If I was pressured to put something into, or take something out of my artwork based on other people's feelings about or experiences of the place, I would be quite irritated. My response would be, "Make your own painting of Whatabeaut Swamp!"

Burns' responsibility in this matter depends on whether he intended his work to be art or an encyclopedia of the war. It sounds like he made it clear that he was not intending for it to be encyclopedic. It sounds like he told the stories of people who came forward and offered them. He didn't track down every ethnic group that fought in the war. If he tracked down one group, wouldn't he be obligated to track down ALL of the different ethnic groups that fought in WWII? Were Hispanic-Americans more important than Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans or Native Americans? Should he have made an extra effort to solicit stories from one group and not another?

Ultimately, anyone is free to hate him because they feel dissed. That is the risk inherent in making anything and putting it in the public eye to be judged.

It will be interesting to see how he approaches this in his future work.

[puebloknot]

201. Beautifully said. Any consideration Burns gave to the Hispanic ...

... pressure tactics surrounding this film are a sign of his integrity, not a sign that he erred in his choices for the film. Mob tactics are undemocratic, and undercut the very reason that America fought for our freedoms in WWII!

If any group had a right to demand more focus on their story, it is the Japanese Americans who were treated so poorly by this country in WWII. They are a people with intelligence and high moral character, and they conduct themselves with dignity -- not demands for more attention. "The War" was so vast in its scope that it was impossible to do more than simply touch on the participation of any group. Ken Burns made that extremely clear at the outset! It seems that his film could be a springboard for other filmmakers to go forward in the future with more in-depth coverage of the involvement of any group in the war. Or Burns could do it, himself. The important issue is that he has the choice to make the film he chooses to make, without caving to pressure from any group.

[Duppers]

213. YES!

I totally agree with everything you and Zookeeper wrote. At least Burns told some of the story of the Japanese Americans, which I'd wager that most Americans did not know a thing about.

As I posted up stream...I had read criticism on another forum that Burns didn't show what had happened in Europe before the war, the lead-up, or what the Europeans had experienced during the War. Too bloody bad he didn't spend the rest of his life making 365 episodes too, then perhaps he could have made everyone happy.

[puebloknot]

215. Exactly. First, it's impossible to tell the whole of any historical event.

Even if Burns had been alive and well during the Crusades, and now reincarnated as a filmmaker, decided to cover that event, he, first, couldn't possibly cover the vastness of the topic in only seven episodes, and second, the film would surely be "tainted" by his worldview and his "prejudices."

I wish he could and would document the whole of American history, and that it would be a required course of study in every American school. That might begin to cut into the vast ignorance that this country is laboring under.

[Uncle Joe]

218. I wish the Latino/Hispanic community had been included up front, however

I still believe "The War" to be an excellent documentary. I truly appreciate the focus on the troops and the sacrifice of those at home and not just the political leaders and generals of the day. I believe we as a nation have become too enamored with war as an easy answer because war in general has been sanitized with glory, and I'm not questioning the need to defend ourselves during World War 2 or any other time for that matter.

"The War" does an outstanding job of reflecting on the tragedy, senseless insanity and loss of humanity created by war in an intimate, up close and personal manner. I hope and pray, this program will have a short and long term impact on the political leaders charged with making such grave decisions of life and death and the media's sacred responsibility to level with the American People regarding the truth during the run up to war, when just mindless cheer leading might be the easiest thing for them to do.