Sir Norman Brook’s notes give an incredible insight into how the British troops would deal with the US armed forces’ policy of segregation during the second world war.
At the time hundreds of thousands of black troops – most from colonial outposts – were treated equally in the British Army, but white US soldiers ate and slept separately from their black comrades.
In October 1942, Churchill told the Cabinet that the views of the US “must be considered”.
The Home Secretary Herbert Morrison insisted: “What I won’t have is B[ritish] police enforcing their rules for them.”
Predictably, American media Talking Heads have reacted to the release of the British War Cabinet notes — by avoiding the topic of racist practices by the US military. As if they didn’t exist. Codified racism in the American military continued until the early 1950’s.
I think the media’s covered segregation in the military pretty thoroughly. Perhaps you’ve heard of ‘Glory?’
Well at least you’re up to the Civil War, dude.
hmmm… after reading that I’m rather glad that my country wasn’t colonised by the Yankees. The Brits were bad, but could’ve been worse…
Sim,
Umm, you are aware that slavery was brought to the “new world” by Europeans (including the Brits) out of the need for cheap labor, right? The slave trade was an integral part of the trade triangle between Europe, Africa and the Americas.
There’s really no point in being outraged over all of this — it merely stands as a reminder of the reality at the time.
Perhaps you’ve heard of ‘Glory?’
And don’t forget Cuba Gooding Jr. in “Pearl Harbor” 🙂
During WWII, and earlier, colonial troops almost always had British Officers leading them. Most Master Sargents and above were inevitably British or colonial white; seldom were any of them colored.
This was in fact also a problem with white Commonwealth and colonial troops too, as Britain wanted to lead the all its Commonwealth troops. Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand resisted to the extent that they supplied their own officers up to at least Divisional levels. A good portion of Montgomery’s Eight’s Army in North Africa were from Australia, New Zealand, and India. The Australian and New Zealand units used mostly their own officers while the Indian units had British officers. And of course, the General staff were almost entirely British.
The difference was in the treatment. All soldiers were treated equally, whether British or colonial.
Mike, in fairness, it was the British that moved the western world to stamp out the slave trade in the 1830s. It took the US another 30 years to get on board. It was mostly Spanish and Portuguese traders that transported blacks to the new world for slaves. There was little American or British involvement in the slave trade though both bought them.
What’s said is that this behavior was tolerated by whites at the time. The fillings of many whites was (and even now are) that Blacks were inferior to whites and felt they had the right to subjugate all people of color. A an example of this is that of the native people of Alaska during WWII. They were forced off their land and were given more deplorable living conditions then the Japanese WOWs. A more modern example of this is the comment maid by the first poster “Perhaps you’ve heard of ‘Glory?”. I am sure he/she will be the first in line to violate someones human rights.
I am sure we all love having the Freedom to say what ever we want. Keep one thing in mind this freedom comes with a certain level of responsibility. When someone steps over the line it is all of our jobs to pull them back, and ask them to think about what effects inflammatory comments can have. The best example of this would be Hitler. What if his platform was taken away from him?