Guardian Columnist Myth-taken
Gary Younge's recent opinion piece in the U.K. Guardian repeats a the canard that the U.S. uses African Americans as cannon fodder in its wars. Younge writes that:
But while they [i.e. American blacks] were the least likely to support these wars, since Korea they have been the most likely to end up fighting them. In fact, the American military is more reliant on the poor, and therefore non-whites, than ever before - pushed by poverty and pulled by the promise of learning a trade. In 1973 23% of the military was from racial minorities; in 2000 it was 37%. The demographic group most overrepresented in the military is the same one that polls show have least enthusiasm for the conflict - black women.
But, as a recent article in USA Today pointed out, while minorities are overrepresented in the military they are underrepresented on the front line(s):
...blacks and lower-income Americans still serve in disproportionate numbers, [but] that fact misses another significant trend. While blacks are 20% of the military -- compared with 12% of the U.S. population -- they make up a far smaller percentage of troops in combat jobs on the front line.In a host of high-risk slots -- from Army commandos to Navy and Air Force fighter pilots -- blacks constitute less than 5% of the force, statistics show.
Blacks, especially in the enlisted ranks, tend to be disproportionately drawn to non-combat fields such as unit administration and communications. They are underrepresented in jobs shooting rifles or dropping bombs.
Younge's figures, while accurate, give a false impression.
I used to work with a guy who was an enlisted man in the Special Forces (though in a support role) and later an infantry officer. His take is that many blacks that join the Army looking for a career (hence they get drawn to the support services where you can really learn) while many of the whites that join are bored and looking for adventure.
Posted by: Roy | August 11, 2003 at 10:25 AM
Roy - I disagree with your friend. First of all, I think it is racist suggestion. Second, all the many guys I know who went in as enlisted (18-20 years old) did it because they lacked structure in goals in their lives and wanted the educational benefits as well. All of them Marines, they did their time and got out to do other things, but everyone of them claims it made them the men they are today. It gave them focus to find out what they wanted to do with their lives, take responsibility for their choices and the discipline to achieve those goals. I think whether they are black or white, most go in for the same reasons, and when you are 18, 19, 20, I doubt any of them, black or white, knew what their careers would be.
Posted by: Catherine | August 11, 2003 at 10:52 AM
Catherine,
What makes this personal anecdote racist? It seems to be from a fairly reliable, although unnamed, source. And just because you seem to believe the 'suggestion' is racist, it does not make the actual facts or statistics any less true. You seem to be generalizing about everyone in the military from just your experience. I find it difficult to believe that an A-10 pilot or an Apache helicopter pilot is just doing what they are doing for discipline or to become pilots for Delta or the 6:00 o'clock news traffic copter.
Posted by: D2D | August 11, 2003 at 11:01 AM
What a strange argument for Younge to make, since its rather self-refuting. If black WOMEN are the most overrepresented in maerica's military, then they aren't "fighting" the wars, since WOMEN have been kept from combat roles up to most of the presnt day.
Posted by: pduggie | August 11, 2003 at 11:09 AM
As a former special forces officer, I can testify that combat arms are disproportionately white. Blacks enlist, genrally, with the goal of learning a marketable non-military skill. Whites join with the perspective that they'll do the combat thing and then move on. My platoons were overwhemingly white as where nearly all the combat arm units I witnessed. Combat support, on the other hand, where disproportionately minority. That's not to say both choices may not be rational, given the circumstances, but the facts are what they are.
Posted by: Conrad | August 11, 2003 at 11:10 AM
Hey, linked in from Instapundit, and interested in looking around. But a comment. This qoute: "the American military is more reliant on the poor, and therefore non-whites..." consistently sticks in my craw. I'm black, in the military, an officer, but I am foremost an American. When I come across comments like these, they just seem the reverse of Uncle Tom. A sort of Nephew Tom someone needs to feel good about helping. I've been called oppressed, disadvantaged, an affirmative action baby, etc. All I wish to do is get to the start line, assure the race is fair, and compete. Equality of opportunity, not situation. I'll go toe to toe with anyone. As one of the "oppressed", I'll say what I've said before to my "benefactors", get off my back. As the Prez said, there is "the soft racism of low expectations."
Oh, to add, I am combat support. Pretty much took it for career opportunities, figured I'd get out, decided to stay in, glad I did.
Those who fight in front of me, I support you. And am damned proud to do so.
Posted by: gimpy | August 11, 2003 at 12:22 PM
Gimpy,
As an American, I salute you and your work. God bless you and take care.
Posted by: John | August 11, 2003 at 12:54 PM
Gary Younge complains that blacks are over-represented in the military. If blacks were under-represented in the US military I have no doubt he would be among the first to complain of the racism excluding them from the forces. In fact quite recently he did exactly that about the Britsh Army, lamenting that "[the army] remains an unattractive prospect for Britain's ethnic minorities. Despite the high levels of unemployment particularly among Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Afro-Caribbeans, only around 1% of the British armed forces come from ethnic minorities - less than a fifth of the proportion in the country at large."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,562368,00.html
Posted by: Rob | August 11, 2003 at 01:00 PM
Conrad--
Appreciate your wise comments. As a citizen at home I and my family are deeply grateful to you and all our troops support or combat. Our military has developed over the last ten years into what is by far the most professional, expert, effective institution in US society. You're all doing an outstanding job and it is deeply appreciated by us.
THANK YOU
Posted by: tombo | August 11, 2003 at 01:15 PM
Last post was meant for the Army support person, "Gimpy."
Posted by: tombo | August 11, 2003 at 01:17 PM
I was in an infantry company in Vietnam as a young private. We were all draftees, and the company was about 40% black.
After I was wounded I went to MP school, the MP's were 98% white.
I send a lot of time in AG companies, they were mostly mixed. The mainframe computer guys were all white.
Most guys who go combat arms want to have that experience. I was proud of the CIB, wore it every day on every uniform for 22 years.
Posted by: Michael Strickland | August 11, 2003 at 01:31 PM
One could just as easily make the argument that black women are the most supportive of the military, in proportionate numbers, so it's a bogus comparison. Also, Younge seems to have missed the salient point that in Vietnam, we had a draft (as well as other personnel structure features that led to unfairness and over-reliance on comparatively inexperienced 'short-timers'), while today we have a 100% volunteer force. The word 'volunteer' never appears in the Guardian article; the nearest he comes to acknowledging this is in the statement that they are "pushed by poverty and pulled by the promise of a trade".
There was a study finding that 20% of combat deaths were of black soldiers, a disproportionate figure, but it's unclear whether this would continue to hold true. With the gross numbers so low, it's hard to be certain there aren't extenuating factors or mere randomness skewing the totals. In any case, that number is consistent with the numbers of blacks in the military, so shouldn't be surprising.
In truth Younge is mostly designing a slap at Blair, with the American comments incidental to his point, so perhaps this is mainly a gambit.
Basically, the armed forces are one of the more remarkably egalitarian, meritocratic institutions in American society, especially with the decline in political faith for affirmative action policies. This is an ironic criticism to make.
Posted by: Dan Hartung | August 11, 2003 at 02:25 PM
URL for the 20% figure (A HREF not accepted here!):
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d928607a.htm
To clarify, this is 20% of combat deaths in Iraq in the first weeks of the war.
Posted by: Dan Hartung | August 11, 2003 at 02:26 PM
The idiots who make these assumptions are British, for God's sake! They have NO IDEA what they are talking about, when they talk about us Americans.
This canard was tried by our "useful idiots" like Charlie Rangel and proven to be FALSE!
(same with the WMD's not being there....just wait, by Mid September the Dems and commie/socialist will have the proverbial egg on their collective faces!) Can't wait for that!
Posted by: Sid in Anaheim | August 11, 2003 at 02:55 PM
I made some similar points on my own site, and mentioned one interesting fact. Whites actually suffered a disproportionately high share of the casualties in the 1991 Gulf War. (Mostly because the guys in the airplanes took many of the hits, if I recall correctly.) Not by a large amount, but it did happen.
BTW, that is not the only error in the piece. I mentioned several others in my post. And, it isn't surprising to see errors from Younge. He makes them often and they range from the trivial (using "principle" when he meant "principal") to the fundamental (making the Democratic governor of New Jersey a Republican) as he did in an earlier column.
Posted by: Jim Miller | August 11, 2003 at 04:24 PM
Younge is a real idiot...like the time he claimed 30 percent of Americans lived in gated compounds and refused to admit he was wrong even when I confronted him with the figures.
Posted by: George Purcell | August 11, 2003 at 04:35 PM
That has been true in previous wars, but it actually *isn't* true in this one. Blacks and Hispanics *are* overrepresented on the casualty lists.
The reason is that our forces moved so quickly that our supply lines were stretched and left with fewer defences. That meant lots of casualties and fatalities among the supply forces--which are disproportionately minority.
Quoting from the defunct NandO Times:
Nearly a fifth of the fatalities among U.S. troops in the current war in Iraq are black, which will be the highest cost African-Americans have paid in any of America's wars if the trend continues. There are also indications that Hispanics may be over-represented among the war dead, according to a Scripps Howard News Service study.
This isn't the result of minorities being assigned to dangerous duty in front-line units. Elite combat troops like Special Forces units and the Green Berets are disproportionately white, military experts said. The U.S. Army's dash to Baghdad forced supply convoys occasionally to traverse enemy-held territory in southern and central Iraq, leaving minority troops assigned to logistical units vulnerable.
(End Quote)
My blog entries on this:
http://annsbox.com/logger/archive/archi.cgi?read=1282
and
http://annsbox.com/logger/archive/archi.cgi?read=1749
Posted by: Ann | August 11, 2003 at 05:38 PM
Rob:
Great find! Particularly telling because it's from the same guy. Reminds me of Charles Rangel's agitation for the draft...ideological consistency is less important than sticking it to THE MAN for racism ;)
Posted by: gc | August 11, 2003 at 05:49 PM
Thanks to all those serving to protect America.
I'm in Taiwan and it's comforting to know that if anything happens, I can rely on our armed forces. Personally, I won't be looking at the skin color of the guy helping me onto the chopper.
Posted by: Aaron | August 11, 2003 at 11:26 PM
uxjER2 sd95vbm24r7mvu4091rvbqp
Posted by: sandra | June 03, 2008 at 07:10 PM
S29MZ9 fdf043hj93jkfjw845qgtj6fqp
Posted by: brain | June 05, 2008 at 02:35 AM
Cindy McCain's battle against prescription drug addiction has been part of her public speaking points for years, but a deeper investigation reveals the far-reaching consequences of her actions washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html
Posted by: bobby | September 12, 2008 at 04:40 AM
I had ever cum without being alone, it was amazing, until, the living room door opened, my mom and step father walked in the find me riding Scott and Brian fucking my ass from behind! thumpzilla
Posted by: thumbzila | January 12, 2009 at 09:08 AM
She sat down on the school chair and spread her legs wide so he could see a wet patch in her panties pornhube com
Posted by: pornhube | January 12, 2009 at 08:28 PM
Do you want Mommy to suck it too? You'd like that, wouldn't you? You'd like your own mother to put your prick in her mouth and swallow your hot cum search madthumbs
Posted by: madthumbs | January 13, 2009 at 09:42 AM