Escaped slaves fought on the British side, which promised to free them, during the American war for independence for white men. But nobody liked to talk about that much after the French won the war, although — come to think of it — nobody much likes to talk about the French winning the war, or for that matter about the big losers being, not the British but the Native Americans.
White folks weren’t eager to arm slaves, although an NRA-type genius just said on U.S. televisions this week that if slaves had only been armed they wouldn’t have been slaves. The militias famously protected by the Second Amendment included, perhaps primarily, white militias aimed at crushing slave rebellions. Escaped slaves fought for the Union in the Civil War, which may not have been an insignificant factor in Lincoln’s decision to announce their freedom.
The massacring of Native Americans conditioned black troops as well as white for the brutalities they would inflict in the name of freedom and democracy on the Philippines and Cuba. Imperial wars abroad brought with them huge surges of violence at home. During the days in which the United States liberated Filipinos and Cubans from their lives, thousands of lynchings and hundreds of riots brought freedom and liberty to African Americans at home. While Haitians were occupied, blacks were attacked in Harlem and Alabama.
African Americans were included in the U.S. military during World War II, in segregated units, and often in non-combat units. The pretense was that they couldn’t fight, never had, never would. And yet, just as they had before, many did — with less training, less equipment, and in riskier positions. And many came to grasp what it all meant. A jim crow nation that locked up Japanese Americans and rioted against blacks and Mexicans, slaughtered innocent civilians for imperial gain in the name of opposing imperialism. “Just carve on my tombstone,” said an African American soldier in 1942, “here lies a black man who died fighting a yellow man for the protection of the white man.”
The draft was segregated. The military was segregated. Blacks were largely confined to the support labor that is now hired out to contractors. When FDR was finally pushed to support blacks’ participation in the army, he insisted that they make up no more than 10 percent and be kept in segregated units. And yet, when African American soldiers in World War II weren’t facing the Germans or the Japanese, they were still at great risk of violent assault by white U.S. soldiers, not to mention the abuses they would face back home after their “service.” In Guam, U.S. commanders allowed white troops to prepare for assaults on Japanese troops by abusing African American sailors, including by tossing live grenades at them.
African Americans launched a Double Victory Campaign, whose symbol was two V for victory signs, desiring as they did a victory over fascism abroad and at home. Some saw through the military madness, understood the connection between violence abroad and at home, and refused to enlist — or got themselves declared mentally unfit, as Malcolm X did. Black soldiers resisted, struck, and mutinied. In April 1945, sixty black officers defied a ban on their use of an officers’ club and were arrested. Another group defied the ban, and they were arrested. And then another.
Before he integrated baseball, Jackie Robinson refused to move to the back of a bus on Fort Hood.
A budding movement could be recognized that was also forming within U.S. prisons where black and white conscientious objectors were confronting domestic injustice in new ways.
As black and white troops prepared to return from France, black soldiers had their guns confiscated, while white soldiers guarding German prisoners kept theirs and turned them on the African American troops as well. Lest you imagine this the hypocrisy of a few bad apples who failed to grasp the great moral purpose of the war, let’s not forget that as the victors put the Nazis on trial for crimes including human experimentation, the United States was giving syphilis to Guatemalans to see what would happen, just as it had long been and would long continue studying (and not treating) African Americans with syphilis in Alabama. In fact, German and Italian troops being held prisoners of war helped white U.S. troops enforce segregation. And Nazi war criminals found an eager employer in the Pentagon. Black veterans of World War II were shot and lynched in such numbers in 1946 that a Chicago Defender columnist wrote that “the Negro press still reads like war.”
Returning black troops faced “jim crow shock,” when they imagined they’d just killed and risked dying for freedom but got home to find none. Some were more equal than others under the G.I. Bill and within U.S. society. Compared to the mythical “spitting on the troops” after the Vietnam War or the lack of interest or awareness during the — yes — still ongoing endless war on everywhere that started in 2001, this was a heavy blow. It led to suicides and violence of all variety.
It did not lead to complete rejection of the military and military “service.” For African Americans disproportionately, the military was the best available means of obtaining a paycheck or any sort of skilled employment, as well as a way to prove one’s manhood and the right to citizenship. Discrimination within the military, rather than the existence of the military and its draining impact on other possible pursuits and investments, was enemy number one. Everything currently said about gays or women in the military was said about blacks in the military, and — as in the newer controversies — even those claiming to oppose militarism prioritized equal access to participate fully in it.
In 1948, A. Phillip Randolph warned:
“I would like to make clear to the Senate Armed Services Committee and through you, to Congress and the American people that passage now of a Jim Crow draft may only result in a mass civil disobedience movement along the lines of the magnificent struggles of the people of India against British imperialism.”
Senator Wayne Morse — remembered, when he is remembered, as an opponent of the war on Vietnam — charged Randolph with treason.
Truman announced an integrated military, with an executive order, much as Obama closed Guantanamo. Blacks joined up in 1948 and 1949, mainly for the money, expecting an integrated military but finding a completely segregated one. Even brothels providing sex slaves to soldiers in Japan were segregated for black and white.
During the war on Korea, however, the military moved in the direction of integration, and of full combat roles for blacks. The draft disproportionately brought blacks into the military, while at the same time they lost the publicly understood disadvantage of being kept away from combat and acquired the disadvantage understood by soldiers of being sent into combat — sent into more dangerous combat than others, in fact, and accused of cowardice as a reward.
While black soldiers like James Forman were coming to recognize their participation in foreign occupations for what it was, blacks were enlisting, reenlisting, and being drafted in record numbers — largely for economic reasons, needing the employment and lacking qualifying grounds for deferment, such as college. From the Korean War forward, blacks were no longer kept out of the U.S. military through quota limits, but made up a greater percentage of the military than of the population at large.
At the same time, in contrast to World War II, the war on Korea met with opposition from many prominent African Americans, and a movement against militarism began to grow, as did the movement at home for civil rights. African American newspapers in the north began sending their war correspondents to places like Mississippi. J. W. Milam and Roy Bryant murdered Emmett Till in 1955 for supposedly whistling at a white woman. Milam said he’d done to Till exactly what he’d done to Germans during World War II — the war that never stops giving. Conscientious objectors Bayard Rustin, Ella Baker, William Worthy, James Farmer, James Lawson, and Bob Moses organized in the U.S. South against violence of all varieties, joined by John Lewis, Julian Bond, Diane Nash, and Gwen Patton.
Vietnam was the same story: ever more African Americans in the military, and yet ever stronger activism against it, including resistance by GIs. The day three SNCC volunteers — Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney disappeared — was also the day of the pretended Gulf of Tonkin incident. Robert McNamara in 1966 announced Project 100,000, aimed at lifting 100,000 men out of poverty by moving them into the military and sending them to war. Between 1966 and 1971, the project brought 400,000 men into the military, 40 percent of them African American. Increasingly, through the 1960s, African Americans’ opinions turned against war. The Last Poets’ 1970 “The Black Soldier” said:
“Here’s to you black soldier
“fightin’ in Vietnam
“helping your oppressor
“oppress another man.”
I found this and a detailed discussion of much of the above in a new book by Kimberley L. Phillips called “War: What Is It Good For? Black Freedom Struggles and the U.S. Military From World War II to Iraq.“ The author’s father fought in Vietnam. Her parents were unable to buy a home in San Luis Obispo because, “local residents’ equal disdain for the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement meant no one would sell a black soldier a home.”
Phillips, who is the dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Brooklyn College, writes that “since the Vietnam War, the armed forces have served as a de facto jobs program for black Americans and a symbol of a gain in their long struggle for full citizenship. In a postindustrial economy of the late twentieth century, the military has provided steady work and important benefits, including health care, child care, and education. For increasing numbers of black immigrants, military service has provided a step toward legal citizenship.” That hideous step is being imposed on all sorts of immigrants today.
African Americans disproportionately opposed wars, enlisted in the military, and gave their loyalty to the Democratic Party. So, what happened when a Republican President led major wars that even white people opposed? Between 2000 and 2005, black enlistments in the military dropped 40%, and black presence in the military 25%. These trends continued through 2008, at which point they began to turn back around.
Maybe that’s the economy’s fault. Maybe it’s misperceptions that the war is over. Or maybe it’s a question of what the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize President looks like. But the U.S. military is targeting Africa in a big new way, and targeting Asia and the Middle East in a big familiar way. Why should anyone participate in oppressing anyone anywhere for the Pentagon?
A poet in Qatar was recently given a life-sentence in prison for reciting a poem. This is a translation:
Oh, Prime Minister, Mohammad al-Ghannoushi, if we consider your power, it doesn’t come from the Constitution.
We are not nostalgic for Ben Ali, nor for his times, which represent merely a dot on the line of history
Dictatorship is a repressive and tyrannical system and Tunisia has announced its people’s revolt.
If we criticize, it is to decry what is base and disgraceful
If we praise, we do it in first person
The revolt began with the blood of the people rising up and has painted liberation on the face of every living creature.
We know they’ll do what they wish and that all victories bear tragic events,
But pity the country that lets itself be governed by ignorance and believes in the strength of the American army,
And pity that country that starves its people while the government rejoices of its economic success
And pity that country whose people go to sleep a citizen and wake up poor and stateless
Pity that system that inherits repression
Until when shall we be slaves of all that selfishness?
When shall the people realize their worthiness?
That worthiness that is hidden from them and that they soon forget?
Why don’t governments ever choose a way to end a tyrannical power system that is aware of its disease
and at the same time poisons its people who know that tomorrow a successor shall occupy that very seat of power?
He doesn’t take into account that the country bears its name and that of his family,
the self-same country that preserves its glory in the glories of the people,
the people that answers with one voice to a single destiny: in the face of the oppressor we are all Tunisian!
Arab governments and those who lead them, all are thieves, to the same degree.
That question that causes sleepless nights for those who ask it will not find an answer from those who embody officialdom.
Photo in the public domain




12 Comments

Thank you for bringing this history here. The dynamics of those who resist change have changed little over time. Reality bites.
Thanks for bringing up this subject here. It needs to be made clear that the era of white male dominance is still alive and well in this country.
Thank you, David, for your consistent efforts to share large and important parts of the much bigger picture of history with the rest of us.
Recommended to the front page and to the attention and conscience of everyone.
DW
Thanks David. Please help me with a question, if you can.
When I got out of the Army in early ’69, I recall reading a book called “Up Against The War” and a statistic from that reading has stuck with me all these years.
The book said that the state of Michigan — with 5% of the country’s population — furnished 10% of the national draft quota. (Local Selective Service Boards were political appointees and I assumed that their zealous over-achievement was to curry favor and get appointed to even higher office.)
I’m curious, though, as to what percentage of Michigan’s 10% was filled by African-Americans. Was it in line with their then percentage of the general populace or were young blacks more likely to be drafted than their white counterparts?
Having been there, I have my own opinion but unfortunately no official stats to back it up. Thanks for this and for all you do.
The most famous and important African American who sacrificed his career, gave up the World Heavyweight crown, (at a time when that was the pinnacle of human athletic achievement and represented and led to great wealth and fame)
stood up against war, refused to join the war in Vietnam, and was mocked, derided, and despised,
is Mohammed Ali.
Probably still the most recognizable person in the world for his accomplishments.
For me, this is illuminating in so many ways the corners of history that have been kept dark. Thank you.
In 1969, at 27 y.o., doing my part for integration I joined the IBPOE of W, Aka “The Black Elks Club”, which always prided itself on having no racial clause for membership. (The White Elks probably still does have a racial clause.) I was 1 of 2 white guys in a lodge of over 100 men. The other guy was a bookie and ran a numbers racket for the Mafia covering all the Black neighborhoods. (Before states took over gambling with their lotteries for white interests.)
Almost all the Brothers were part of the Great Migration and came north to work in the factories looking for cheap unskilled labor, and were significantly older than me. Many had been drafted in WW II. I remember a rap session with a Brother once, in which I asked him what that was like. I knew he had been badly wounded in Europe.
He pulled out his wallet and said “Let me show you something.” He did not need to say a word. It was his Army ID card and one glance said it all to me. I’ll never forget how it made me feel.
Across the top, over his name, picture, and other Army info was printed “CLASS B PERSONNEL”. (I knew my father’s card had, maybe in smaller print, “Class A”.
So what was the proper and possible response to Hitler? Letting him, Tojo and Stalin divide the world between them? A Nazi-run Europe
will try to research when/if have time
http://warisalie.org
Another point the dumb-ass claim about ‘armed slaves’ misses entirely: Africans were captured in Africa by other Africans and Arabs and sold into slavery. Europeans and Arabs exploited the tribal animosities and frictions to gather captives for market. Firearms were not widely used or available to most African tribes. This was European technology and they weren’t about to let their ‘inventory’ have access to it.
@Phoenix Woman As a pacifist, I would say that you have
asked a good question, and I’ll try to give my own best
honest answer, being eager also to read _War is a Lie_ and
get the view there.
First, I will not indulge in platitudes such as “Violence
never accomplished anything” or “All violence is simply
action-reaction — if both sides weren’t arming, then there
would always be peace.” History/herstory refutes such
simplicities, and the reality is that nonviolent people
struggling for truth and justice, like armed warriors doing
the same, have often paid a very high price. Either way,
the price could be anything up to massacre or even
genocide, whether by the relatively crude weapons of the
democides (i.e. government-sponsored mass killings) of
previous centuries, or the drones or nuclear weapons today.
And this includes people killed specifically for refusing
to kill or to cooperate with the institutes that did, for
example the Anabaptists in the 16th century, who generally
took a position of principled nonviolence and often found
themselves burned at the stake, or seeking refuge from the
threat. Yet they survived, persisted, and ultimately won
equal citizenship.
With the Nazi episode, I will first acknowledge the obvious
with any hypothetical: none of us know what we _would_ have
done, although we can say what we feel we _should_ have
done in such a scenario, or what other people did do that
we would want to do also, placed in that situation.
First of all, pacifists were among the first to protest
Hitler’s rise and to call for massive nonviolent
resistance, including economic boycotts of Germany. Back in
1933 or 1934, it wasn’t that people generally thought, “Oh,
Hitler is terrible, but we don’t believe in killing.” There
was plenty of killing, for example the U.S. intervention in
Nicaragua (Sandino was assassinated in 1934).
Rather, there were debates like a chilling one (especially
in retrospect) between two colleges in the South of the
U.S.A. on a topic like this: “Is Hitler the Future for
German Youth?” The affirmative argued that Hitler _was_
good for German youth, and that his anti-Semitic policies
were simply benefitting the vast majority of Germans by
cutting back a bit on the privileges of an overfavored
minority group (sound familiar?). The negative sounded a
lot like an Amnesty International report on El Salvador in
the 1980′s: mysterious arrests, disappearances, and
assassinations.
So the problem was that while pacifists and other
“premature antifascists” wanted all-out nonviolent
resistance and sanctions against the Hitler regime, lots of
prevailing opinion (especially the 1% at the time) actually
saw Hitler as good for business (like Martinez in El
Salvador, for example, who had slaughtered thousands), and
also a good check against “Bolshevism” in Russia (remember
the Reagan Administration cozying up to “Dirty War” and
death squad regimes in Central and South America for the
same reasons?).
If we jump ahead to 1939 and after, we find that nonviolent
action was practiced, and sometimes quite effectively, in
the occupied territories of Europe. Quisling told
schoolteachers who had resisted him even when sent to
concentration camps well into the Arctic Circle that “you
have ruined everything for me.” Pacifists took part in the
resistance while avoiding direct involvement with sabotage
or armed operations, which also took place. In Bulgaria,
massive nonviolent protest and obstruction played a major
role in saving the Jews from deportation and extermination.
That’s what I would want to do — to have the courage to
resist, and, in accord with my own religious and
philosophical commitments, to do so nonviolently. Erosion
of support for Hitler among some of his military forces –
there were lots of old-time officers who could entertain
the illusion they were fighting a just war, but couldn’t go
along with all the gratuitous brutality and cruelty beyond
any sane military purpose — would be one possible
mechanism for the weakening or overthrow of Hitler. And we
can only guess what effect concerted international
resistance in 1933-1934 might have had on the world five or
ten years later.
Of course, I’m a religious pacifist, so my answer as to my
own nonviolent position would be the same regardless of the
consequences. But obviously nonviolent defense or
revolution, like violent defense or revolution, tends to be
more effective if there is previous training and planning
of strategy and tactics. The literature of civilian-based
defense outlines some of the historical examples and
possibilities. And with nonviolent struggle, as with armed
struggle, there are no guarantees: we could get killed
either way.
What I’d add is that it’s quite possible to be a pacifist
and recognize degrees of violence or injustice or
inhumanity. If Osama Bin Laden had actually died while
firing an automatic weapon at the SEALs, we’d call it a
killing in self-defense or defense of others; as things
happened, it was a cold-blooded assassination in the recent
versions I’ve read (with the details varying a bit).
Similarly, if Admiral Yamamoto had been killed on a
flagship during a naval engagement, we might simply say,
“Thus are the fortunes of war.” But he was in fact
assassinated in what has been compared to a gangster hit,
and when in fact he had opposed the war with the U.S.A.,
and likely would have been the target of an assassination
plot by the Japanese pro-war party. Assassinating him was
immoral, counterproductive, and another precedent for
making the violence of war more lethal and indiscriminate,
a slippery slope down which the Bush/Obama Administrations
have us speeding like a child given a new sled.
While discussing history and the biggest philosophical
questions is always worthwhile, I’d emphasize that our
immediate dilemma is not what to do in Denmark in 1943, but
what to do in a regime which has assassinated our
Constitution and made “kill lists” an official policy.
The point has been reached where the object is not to help
Obama govern better, but to make the situation creatively
and nonviolently less governable, at least while targeted
murder goes on in our names.
To conclude, I would also emphasize that a leader like
Gandhi, while himself committed to nonviolence (for example,
planning nonviolent resistance in the event of a Japanese
invasion of India), had a great respect for the heroic
armed resistance of Poland in 1939, for example — a
sentiment he would doubtless extend to the armed and
nonviolent resistance organizations during the following
fateful five and a half years of occupation. He said that
for those who could not adopt “the nonviolence of the
strong,” it is better to resist violently than not at all.
And Martin Luther King, while using and then abandoning
armed security after an innocent person had almost been
killed by mistake, acknowledged the right of others to
practice armed self-defense.
We may not be able to agree, but I hope that these debates
can move at least beyond oversimplistic statements on
either side to mutual understanding and coexistence.