"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message ...
"The Enlightenment" wrote in message
om...
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
.

Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that
they are
not particularly impressed with you.


Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda

Frankly, I wouldn't characterize the hubbub over the TA as "propaganda". It
is merely the accurate recounting of the hardships that a group of loyal
citizens had to endure in order to secure the privilege of serving their
nation in a time of war.

Now that there has been so much social change in the US, some youngsters
find it difficult to understand the situation of the TA, or the social
conditions extant in the US at the time. Times change, if there is
sufficient impetus to cause that to happen. The creation and success of the
Tuskegee Airmen was part of an impetus toward social change in the US.

By all accounts I have read, the men generally did well; they upheld the
best traditions of US fighting men once committed to action. That, in many
quarters, had not been expected.

According to a couple of sources I've read, the TA were prized because as an
article of faith, they provided close escort to the bomber formations to
which they were assigned, to the detriment of rolling up victory totals by
avidly pursuing enemy fighters which approached the bombers.

You may have read Mr Kramer's remarks on this ng as to how much the bomber
crewmen (who after all, were the only USAAF component which could actually
do significant harm to the enemy war effort) appreciated having close escort
support. The TA considered that their essential mission was to get the
bombers through to the target and away, without them having to suffer from
enemy fighter depredations. This they accomplished. Insofar as the bomber
crews whose missions they supported were concerned, their success in so
doing was all that mattered, and the color of their skin was irrelevant;
THAT in itself was a victory for the TA, because THAT was "being judged on
merit". That's what they were trying to demonstrate.


I regret the choice of words for the title of my post now becuase it
didn't reflect precisely what I wanted to say. Certainly people took
it two ways.

I also didn't want to detract from their record which is unique in
their singular effectiveness as bomber escorts as well as other areas.

The point I wanted to make was this: that people should be judged on
their merrits alone and if that is done they will perform well, their
achievements can then only be honoured without any justifiable
detraction or doubt.

This is exactly what the example of the tuskegee airmen shows: they
were selected on their merrits, they performed their job and exceded
it becuase they were selected on merrit.

In a historical context they proved spectacularly for one of the first
times that African-americans could do this, breaking preconceptions,
thus making their example available, made it unnecessary for others to
be thwarted by the same status quo resistence. They had the proof of
the pudding so to say and the Airmen say themselves that they were an
experiment or test.

The US military is unique in opperating free from affirmitive action
quotas.

The US military model and the example of the Tuskegee Airman and their
breakthrough example can not be used to "propagandise" for other
things: affirmitive action, explaining the black-white performance gap
on the basis of such double standard prejudices as 'white priveledge'
or racial pre-judgement or other such nefarious arguments. The logic
of the Tuskegee example does not support that.

The reason that I place quotes around "propagandise" is because it is
these things that I allege were being propagndised. It is not the
Airmens laudable achievments but these other things I meant.