>"On top of all this, we get use of words like "muzzies"...as if the use of similarly hostile terms for Jews would be welcome."<
Hmmm...
It was actually just a neutral plural diminutive (sort of like calling ten guys named 'Robert' a bunch of Bobs...), and not an insulting, inflammatory pejorative. Honestly.
Unless it was promoted overnight in conjunction with the (apparent) demotion of the dynamic cultural meaning of 'bigot'.
Any Jewish folk out there care to observe whether 'muzzie' carries the same vitriolic sting as (words I never use) 'y*d' or 'k*ke'.
Any African americans feel that it is equivalent to the 'n' word?
I doubt the Irish among us would find it as charming as 'm*ck'
Certainly not comparable to calling a Catholic a 'papist'.
As an American of Italian heritage, I do not believe it is at all like d*go, guinea, or w*p.
BTW, digressing briefly on a previous issue:
"Under authority of Executive Order 9066, which first authorized the internment of the Japanese, General DeWitt began relocation and internment of Italian Americans in California. Over 10,000 Italians deemed enemy aliens were forcibly evacuated from their homes and over 52,000 were subject to strict curfew regulations...During World War II, an estimated 1.5 million Americans of Italian descent served in the U.S. military, constituting one of the largest segments of the US combat forces of about 12 million."
(Source: commdocs.house.gov/)
Black men made up 7.91% (or between 57k and 58k) of the enlisted men in the Army in WWII, meaning there were about 733,250 enlisted men.
40% of that would be 293,300. If it is reasonable to extract that with five branches of the service, approximately 1 in 5 were in the US Army, then the assertion stated as fact in the PBS documentary looks very plausible.
Plainly, they were not only definitely 12.5% of total US combat forces (1.5 million out of 12 million), but also of high probability, 40% of Army enlistees.
(Math is my own, double-check as you wish.)
A.A.C.
Sometimes it seems that it's all a game of some sort, whose purpose IS to cause a Flame war, or make you so frustrated that you will blow your top or just quit.
I have chosen NOT to get involved this time because there is no way to have a frank discussion or debate with people who will not listen, or who just enjoy being smart alecs.
You are doing a great job in your responses, as is the untiring Fred Nerks, especially with the able Ariamne and Bennett 46 protecting the flanks.
Keep up the good work, my FRiends.
"It was actually just a neutral plural diminutive (sort of like calling ten guys named 'Robert' a bunch of Bobs...), and not an insulting, inflammatory pejorative. Honestly.
Unless it was promoted overnight in conjunction with the (apparent) demotion of the dynamic cultural meaning of 'bigot'."
LOL - a Kerryism!
It was an honest mistake --- unless it wasn't.
Black men made up 7.91% (or between 57k and 58k) of the enlisted men in the Army in WWII, meaning there were about 733,250 enlisted men.
These stats, for example, are misleading...I think you're mixing snapshot stats with totals from the war. Plus, recall that the Air Corps was part of the army then.
Without the Air Corps, there were about 6 million men in the Army alone--and they weren't mostly officers! :-)
It would have been hard to fight the war we did with only 800,000 enlisted men in the Army...remember that 16 million Americans served, combat and non-combat. In the 10 days including and following D-Day, more than 300,000 Americans landed in Normandy.
I'm not minimizing the contribution of Italian-Americans; I'm just looking to get to the bottom of the numbers. :-)