Turns out there was polling of military troops back in the 1940s. White soldiers were given a chance to say they didn’t want to serve or live with blacks — and boy did they!
Eighty-five percent of white troops surveyed in the years leading up to President Harry Truman’s executive order that integrated the troops said they wanted separate service clubs. (In the month leading up to Truman’s 1948 order, a Gallup poll showed 63 percent of American adults favored segregation in the military.)
Wonk Room‘s Igor Volsky hit up the National Archives and scored some of these surveys: “While smaller, these racial polls share some common questions with the DADT survey. In fact, in some instances one can even replace ‘negro’ for ‘gay’ and end up with today’s questionnaire. Both polls ask servicemembers if they objected to working alongside minorities, how they felt serving with minorities, how effective minorities are in combat and if their feelings have changed about the minority after serving with them. (Interestingly, 77% of respondents said they had more favorable opinion).”
The survey Volsky posts (embedded below) appears to be for white troops only, though an additional section includes tallies from black soldiers, so it can be assumed they, too, were surveyed, though it’s unclear whether the respondents were equally numbered.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
But look: Back then white soldiers declared, sometimes, that they’d be nice and let the blacks use their facilities during certain hours. Awww!
And in case you’re wondering how the special sauce is made, allow the 1940s military to explain:
The current Pentagon survey, approved by the president, Sec. Gates and Joint Chief Chairman Mullen, is equally as offensive and quite possibly likely to yield the same disgusting results. Fierce advocacy means asking around to see who’s afraid of the queers.
It’s easy to say “the 1940s were a different time” to explain away the horrific nature of these surveys. But you’d be right, in a way: It was a different time. And nothing we do now will change whatever it is that led Truman to make the obvious, morally just, national security-focused right call and demand integration. But here we are nearly seven decades later and we’re asking the same grotesque questions. If there was any modicum of an excuse back then, there is zero now.
Kevin C.
But…but…we’re gay. and we’re SUPPOSED to like him, because he’s a minority like us, and we were told we must vote for him, and think of all those rainbow flags during the inauguration (nevermind who swore him in- the BIGGEST homophobe in the country)
Hilary was the one who got away and I hope all you crazy Obama homos who voted for him because of his skin color are happy now that you’ll never, ever, everrrrrrr see any change.
Phil
Oh Kevin C.
Obama would never have changed anything anyway. He’s still a rich, white, Ivy-educated old fart in the Oval Office.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
BOTTOMLINE:
In 1948, the Commander-in-Chief was Harry Truman.
In 2010, the Commander-in-Chief is Robert Gates.
[img]http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs560.snc3/30596_1180047921011_1822575019_344731_1788851_n.jpg[/img]
CJ
Maybe this will teach us to believe our politicians. Obama promised to change Washington. That should have been our first sign that something was wrong. Pelosi promising to “drain the swamp” of corruption should have been another warning as well.
Next time we elect someone, how about looking at THEIR TRACK RECORD vs. just listening to their good speech. Hey, didn’t Hilary once tell us about someone who once gave a good speech? Maybe we should have listened.
hyhybt
Some people, apparently, just have to have something to complain about.
Riley
Truly (and I say this as one of those Obama supporters out on the streets with Obama for change posters, signs, shirts, DOG SHIRTS!) I would glady trade in my vote for Hilary any day, and look back on it as though I were fooled by the ultimate “all talk and no action” politician. I mean, I’d respect a conservative bigot politician more than a conservative bigot politician disguised as a friend only to use my vote. 2012 can’t come fast enough!
j.c
@hyhybt: and some people just have to vote for folks simply because of their outward appearance, and don’t you pretend you didn’t for one second. probably didn’t even know WHO Barack Obama was much less where he stood on what before closing your curtain.
princessjohnson
suck it up you guys.
so “thin-skinned” you are!
is “gay” the new “Black” or is it not?
the president is not a magic negro!
conservatives will never willingly just bend down and kiss our asses.
i know that’s what u crave, but you have to be smart.
humor them and take the time to dot each I and cross each T.
we can be big about it.
anyway, too many of you are guys are achingly conservative in all ways except where Our own rights are concerned.
the world is watching us!
don’t be fake, don’t be nasty, don’t be phony.
Baxter
@Kevin C.: While I’m not an Obama fan in the slightest, I think you’re kidding yourself if your really believe that Hillary would have been any different.
Phasi
@Baxter: Hillary has done more for gay rights in the past 2 years than Obama. She went in the forefront of middle eastern gay issues when gays were being killed in the mideast and spoke of how vile that was. Her husband, former President spoke out against Prop 8 and said he now evolved and believes in gay marriage. I can tell you from a mutual friend out in NYC who happens to be gay, and very close friends with their dauhter Chelsea, that family has evolved and one issue they’ve evvolved most on was this one. They are extremely pro LGBT rights and WOULD have made it a mandated priority had she been elected.
Troy Boy
I wonder what President McCain would’ve done in this situation. Oh, that’s right, if John McCain had been elected we would not have this situation. But what do I know… I am just another dumb gay that voted for a black man.
reason
Still fail to see what the big deal is, I think it was a good idea back then and a good idea now. When has having information been a bad thing, the only people scared of information are the uneducated. I think it is a great thing for the military leaders and Obama to be aware of where the forces stands and what is going to be needed to ease this war time transition. Apparently Truman was not stupid, he collected as much info as possible, figured out what safeguards need to be put in place, drew up a plan, and then executed it successful desegregating the force. It worked, and if you go to a military base today relations between those of European decent and those of African decent seem to be better than they are on the streets of some of the most liberal states in America. I wouldn’t drill a well without gathering information, wouldn’t invest capital in a stock without gathering information, wouldn’t order a strange sounding dish in a foreign country without gathering information, why in the he** would you repeal DADT without gathering information? Talk about common scenes 101. Any fall out like deaths, precipitous drop in troop levels, poor command environment would rest on the leaderships shoes if they were to happen, so why not be prepared for the worst case? Start thinking with your brains instead of your blood pressure. Seems like some people here are shocked that a dark skinned president would still value information even though in the past insensitive things were said about his race in information gathered in similar circumstances, well it is good to know the president has matured beyond the intellect of a three year old and actually uses his brain.
Last time I checked Hillary is a smart lady, reason why the president hired her as an advisor, all I can say is keep on giving your good advice Hillary. As for Bill he is clearly the smartest politician of our time, gave this community DADT and DOMA, had gays vote for him twice, and still has y’all begging for his wife. I’m currently looking for a framed photo of Clinton to put in my home office.
reason
Still fail to see what the big deal is, I think it was a good idea back then and a good idea now. When has having information been a bad thing, the only people scared of information are the uneducated. I think it is a great thing for the military leaders and Obama to be aware of where the forces stands and what is going to be needed to ease this war time transition. Apparently Truman was not stupid, he collected as much info as possible, figured out what safeguards need to be put in place, drew up a plan, and then executed it successful desegregating the force. It worked, and if you go to a military base today relations between those of European decent and those of African decent seem to be better than they are on the streets of some of the most liberal states in America. I wouldn’t drill a well without gathering information, wouldn’t invest capital in a stock without gathering information, wouldn’t order a strange sounding dish in a foreign country without gathering information, why in the world would you repeal DADT without gathering information? Talk about common scenes 101. Any fall out like deaths, precipitous drop in troop levels, poor command environment would rest on the leaderships shoes if they were to happen, so why not be prepared for the worst case? Start thinking with your brains instead of your blood pressure. Seems like some people here are shocked that a dark skinned president would still value information even though in the past insensitive things were said about his race in information gathered in similar circumstances, well it is good to know the president has matured beyond the intellect of a three year old and actually uses his brain.
Last time I checked Hillary is a smart lady, reason why the president hired her as an advisor, all I can say is keep on giving your good advice Hillary. As for Bill he is clearly the smartest politician of our time, gave this community DADT and DOMA, had gays vote for him twice, and still has y’all begging for his wife. I’m currently looking for a framed photo of Clinton to put in my home office.
lookyloo
@Troy Boy: I’m pretty much with you on this. Obama may not be getting things done as quickly or aggressively as we’d like BUT he’s getting some pretty important stuff done, none the less. Thank God (or whatever) that we’ve got him in there right now instead of McCain.
Tim W
@Troy Boy: I am so sick of the gay community giving the Democrats and President Obama a free pass with the well what would we have gotten with McCain. I voted and campaigned for President Obama because I thought he was going to be different. I thought I was electing a true progressive. Boy was I fooled shame on me. Having said that I don’t believe Hillary would be any better. The Clintons have proven in the past to be what I hoped Obama wasn’t going to be. A politician who moves wherever the wind blows. I will never vote for a Republican but my state every presidential election tends to have 3rd party candidates. One of them is most likely to get my vote instead.
christopher di spirito
The American people will have a chance to answer a “survey” come November 2012 which asks, “Do you think President Obama deserves another 4 years as president?”
My guess is, most people will respond “NO” and send him packing.
jason
I knew Obama was a fraud from day one. I like to distinguish myself from all the dumb gays who were sucker-punched by this fraud.
jason
President McCain might not have repealed DADT but at least you would have known where you stood. You would not have been cynically manipulated for your vote and then stabbed in the back.
Obama and the Democrats deserve to be sent packing. We can send him a message by helping to unseat both Pelosi and Boxer, two Californian Democrats who are up for re-election this November, I believe.
Chitown Kev
Simply because I’m a history lovin’ queen (who’s also black) I find these surveys fascinating.
It srrms as if there were a considerablr number of black soldiers who weren’t all that keen on sharing space with white folks, for one…and that result isn’t surprising at all.
I also wonder who actually initiated this survey. FDR had only been dead for 6 months and he did refuse to issue an executive order desegregaing the military in 1942.
Chitown Kev
CORRECTION
“It seems as if there were a considerable number of black soldiers who weren’t all that keen on sharing space with white folks, for one…and that result isn’t surprising at all”
reason
The sooner people realize that we live in a rightward leaning country the better. If a democratic president wants any chance of enacting policy they have to govern from the center and negotiate. Bill Clinton is the hallmark for Democratic presidents in our current era, and Obama is acutely aware of that judging from the accenting stock of former Clintonites in his administration. Obama is Clinton 2.0 with an improved ability to get big things done like health care and financial reform even if they are “compromised” like the smaller objectives of Clinton 1.0. Hillary Clinton 2.0 would have been a rehash with a more ethically sound leader at the helm, with a sharper knife that would have lead to gridlock that would have put the current congress to shame. The Pelosi vs Hillary wars would have made for great political theater. Those that feel like they were deceived clearly have not studied the politics of the previous decades, and clearly don’t understand the nuances of this one. Enjoy your third parties, maybe at some point down the road you will realize there is nothing there but a bill of goods.
reason
The survey was the intelligent thing to do then and is the intelligent thing to do now. Educated people are not afraid of information because they know that while the truth may hurt success doesn’t differentiate between pain and correctness. The success of a smooth transition resides in that data. The Truman survey may dredge up an ugly side of Americas past, but looking at the oneness that is experienced at a military base today brings out the beauty of successful policy. History has judged Truman well on this matter and if Obama gets DADT repealed history will judge him well regardless of how angry people are about how he gets it done.
tjr101
I find it so funny hearing people saying that Hillary would somehow be better for gay rights than Obama. I like Hillary and she is doing a fine job as SoS but I don’t wish her to be president. She would have hedged to the right even more so than Obama.
America is very much right of center and it’s only in the gay community that this survey is so controversial, the rest of the country couldn’t care less
concernedcitizen
Military officials practically begged President Obama and Congress to allow them time to conduct these surveys, it wasn’t his idea it was a compromise so that they could get the ball rolling on repealing DADT.
See where problems may arise and try and stymie that as well as make the transition into a DADT free military as smooth as possible. Yes, some of the questions are offensive, but that’s a result of ignorance clearly…
All you queers pushing as if this will decide the future of DADT well news flash it won’t it just gives the military a chance to see what their soldiers are thinking and what programs ect. may be additionally needed provided CONGRESS repeals this abhorrent law!!!!
What would’ve been a damn shame is if they repealed this law without implementing any changes to either how soldiers can report harassment or other problems that concern homophobia because they just assumed it wouldn’t be a problem and some poor gay soldier comes out and gets harassed or killed because the military was ineffective at handling these issues.
You only need to look at local high schools and see the harassment that many young gay men and women face, and the overwhelming majority of soldiers especially the ones who work in close quarters are very young!
Going in blindly into this would be a mistake IMO!!!!
Jeff K.
I voted for Obama, and I still do not regret that decision.
How many people here can honestly say we’d be doing better under McCain (or Madame Palin, assuming the stress of the job caused Johnny-boy’s heart to go kaput)?
Obama wasn’t the ideal candidate, that much should be obvious. The only real solution to this problem is to break the Dem-Rep political duopoly so we can vote for the Green Party when they nominate a black, female (and lesbian, IIRC) to run for the presidency like they did in 2008.
Mike in Asheville
Well, of course, for me, I would be all over the idea of sharing living arrangements with gay soldiers, black and white, yummy.
To Queerty, the report itself, which you posted, clearly indicates that the study began in May 1942, under President FDR. After three and half years, and after just over 5 months on the job, the report was issued under Truman. As such, your headline should read FDR instead of Truman.
@ No. 17 and No 18 Chitown Kev (Hi Kevin)
My first experience at a bathhouse was Berkeley’s Steamworks back in 1978. First guy who started working me over was black, when suddenly a white guy, total jerk, tried to pull me away stating “You don’t want to touch that (referring to the black hottie)”. After breaking away from that jerk, another black guy came over to the black guy I was with and said to him “Keep with your own; lets go to my room.” My new friend retorted, “His ass is so much finer than yours, so fuck off.” We did it three times that night and shared other fun times over the years.
But to your point, indeed there certainly are way too many white bigots, and a fair number of black ones too. Too bad for them; variety is such a fun sex spice.
B
No. 17 · Chitown Kev wrote, “I also wonder who actually initiated this survey. FDR had only been dead for 6 months and he did refuse to issue an executive order desegregaing the military in 1942.”
In 1942, we were in the middle of a war where a loss could mean that we would be occupied by Japan or Germany, so it is hardly surprising that FDR didn’t want to rock that boat at that point.
Regardless of who initiated it, the interesting question is “why”.
Was it to justify the status quo or simply to collect data to see if they could do it immediately with no problems or if they had to phase it in and give the troops a significant amount of training first?
Bill Perdue
For a very educational look at the differences between the betrayals of Clinton and Obama regarding DADT look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM8AeWMWsLQ&feature=player_embedded
David Mixner, an early supporter of Clinton, describes how bigot pandering adn ham fisted inepteness by both administrations let to DADT and to it’s retention.
B
In No 26, some claims were made about Clinton and Obama regarding DADT. As to Obama, I suggest looking at http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/27/Senate-panel-OKs-DADT-repeal/UPI-11291274973579/ where you’ll see that a repeal has been passed in the House of Representatives and subsequently was approved by a Senate panel. Obama can’t sign anything until the Senate votes on it.
This is the first sign of progress since DADT was passed and some people apparently want to ignore that fact.
Brutus
@jason: Quit trolling for the GOP.
Queer Supremacist
@Brutus: Quit trolling for the Obamunist Party.
Chitown Kev
@B:
But that didn’t stop A. Philip Randolph and the NAACP from going to the White House and demanding that FDR sign the EO desegregating the armed forces either; either that or Randolph swore that he would get 100,000 blacks to March on Washington and the Roosevelt Administration
Chitown Kev
@B:
Oh, and don’t forget you had race riots going on in Los Angeles, Harlem, and Detroit (and those are the ones that I remember) during world war II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Race_Riot_(1943)
http://www.thehistorybox.com/ny_city/riots/SectionIII/riots_article7a.htm
Now that was after FDR commissioned the surveys in question here and after he DID sign the EO desegregating the Civil service (basically reversing the actions of his Democratic predecessor, Woodrow Wilson) as a compromise to Randolph and the NAACP.
And folks say that Obama has a lot on his plate…sheesh!
B
No. 32 · Chitown Kev wrote, “@B: But that didn’t stop A. Philip Randolph and the NAACP from going to the White House and demanding that FDR sign the EO desegregating the armed forces either; either that or Randolph swore that he would get 100,000 blacks to March on Washington and the Roosevelt Administration”
It’s nice that A. Philip Randolf was pushing for civil rights, but FDR, as commander and chief, had to consider the advise that his generals were giving him. In retrospect, they were no doubt overly conservative about integration, but in the middle of a war with serious consequences for losing, I wouldn’t be too harsh on FDR: we can only imagine how racial minorities in the U.S. would have been treated had the Nazis won the war.
BTW, while reading a German newspaper I once saw an article about letters written by a Nazi war criminal (Josef Mengele?) that had recently been discovered. After the war, his letters were sorted into two piles: ones useful for criminal prosecutions and ones like “letters to mom,” and the “letters to mom” pile ended up in some obscure place for several decades before being rediscovered. They were historically interesting because the creep was also a backstabber and you couldn’t really trust anything he said in official correspondence – he’d say what he thought would get him ahead, but that would be pointless in letters to his mother. Interestingly, he was angry that the U.S. was sending Black troops to Germany (using a slur to describe them) and even at the end, he claimed the Nazis were always behaving nobly. He was one sick puppy.
Chitown Kev
@B:
Actually, I agree with you that FDR made the right call vis-a-vis integration of black troops in the Second World War.
I just don’t want the impression to be out there that Massas Roosevelt and Truman were being kind to the black community and blacks were sitting on their ass doing nothing.
Randolph pressured Truman too.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/justice10.htm
Chitown Kev
@B:
Add to that, this…
These surveys wereprobably commissioned under the direection of FDR’s Secretary of War Henry Stimson.
It is already on the record that Stimson preferred that the War Department preferred recruiting “illiterate white soldies to “illiterate black ones.
“Furthermore the War Department apparently seized the opportunity to use illiteracy as a tactic to discriminate against blacks while accepting illiterate whites
without question. According to his diary, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson had sanctioned this policy. He admitted that “the Army had adopted rigid requirements
for literacy mainly to keep down the number of colored troops and this is reacting badly in preventing us from getting in some very good but illiterate [white] recruits
from the southern mountain states.” To solve the manpower shortage, at least from the southern region of the country, Stimson recommended that the Army embark upon a voluntary recruitment program aimed at bringing more whites into the service. Thus the War Department was willing to actively recruit illiterate whites but unwilling to do the same for illiterate blacks.”
Desegregation of the Armed Forces: Black Leadership, Protest and World War II
Author(s): Phillip McGuire
Source: The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Spring, 1983), pp. 147-158
So, there was racial bigotry involved in those decisions by FDRs war dept. as well.
Markie-Mark
@Tim W: I’m with you. No republicans and no democrats for me. I’m voting Green.
B
No. 35 · Chitown Kev wrote, “I just don’t want the impression to be out there that Massas Roosevelt and Truman were being kind to the black community and blacks were sitting on their ass doing nothing.”
I thought they (the ones in the military) were mostly fighting or working as hard as anyone, although restricted to segregated units, which hardly qualifies as “sitting on their ass doing nothing.”
As to Stimson (Comment No 36), the discussion was about Truman and FDR. It’s well known that there was lots of prejudice at the time, and that it was pervasive, so having someone racially prejudiced in leadership positions in the military is not surprising given the time this occurred.
http://www.historynet.com/african-american-92nd-infantry-division-fought-in-italy-during-world-war-ii.htm has some of the history.