A Question That Will Require a Very Brief Read...

**mvscal** · January 15th, 2002, 02:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
The real issue here isn't why one colonel wasn't promoted to general, but why wasn't there proportional representation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would you expect to see proportional representation in a segregated army shortly after WW1?

What is it about this man's record that leaps out at you and makes you say, "Damn, I can't believe this guy didn't make general?"
Young's historical significance is vague at best. Even index recognizes that Young's failure in Haiti was significant.

It doesn't take much of anything to knock you off track to make general. One bad OER is enough, if you don't have serious connections. His mission in Haiti was a high profile failure that caused public embarrassment to the Army. That's enough in and of itself to derail anybody.

The Army takes that sort of thing seriously. Just look at Patton. He was relieved of his command and nearly cashiered from the service for his slapping incident in Sicily. He was then passed over for promotion in favor of Bradley. Patton eventually got his fourth star, but he never commanded an army group as he certainly would have if he hadn't fucked up. In Patton's case, we're talking about a very well connected individual from a wealthy family who also happened to be one of our most capable combat commanders in the middle of the largest war in history. Yet a seemingly minor mistake nearly cost him his entire career. There's no room for error even for good old boys.

Bottom line: Young's color didn't help him any, but there isn't any reason to look beyond Haiti for the reason why he didn't make general. Don't let that stop you from rewriting history, though. No doubt in few years, Young will have charged San Juan Hill, personally kicked Pancho Villa in his ass, won WW1 singlehandedly and got demoted to latrine orderly for his trouble.

------------------

**Smackie Chan** · January 15th, 2002, 02:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mvscal:

Why would you expect to see proportional representation in a segregated army shortly after WW1?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I WOULDN'T expect to see proportional representation at that time is the same reason I wouldn't expect to see it in baseball or other aspects of American life then: racism, which is what my original argument was, and which you now appear to be conceding. Not trying to rewrite history, just point out what would appear to be the obvious to those who refuse to see it.

------------------
The Dude abides.

**mvscal** · January 15th, 2002, 03:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
The reason I WOULDN'T expect to see proportional representation at that time is the same reason I wouldn't expect to see it in baseball or other aspects of American life then: racism, which is what my original argument was, and which you now appear to be conceding. Not trying to rewrite history, just point out what would appear to be the obvious to those who refuse to see it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Racism didn't prevent him from getting into West Point. It didn't prevent him from advancing to colonel. Based on the evidence presented, his failure was personal. That won't stop you and index for making excuses for him, though.

------------------

**Smackie Chan** · January 15th, 2002, 07:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mvscal:

Racism didn't prevent him from getting into West Point. It didn't prevent him from advancing to colonel. Based on the evidence presented, his failure was personal. That won't stop you and index for making excuses for him, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know much about Young, and have no stake in his having a good reputation, so I have no reason to make excuses for him. I'm taking the info index provided, and making a rational conclusion based on it, along with statistical probability and an awareness of the social atmosphere at the time as it applied to race. Based on that, I give him the benefit of the doubt, while you, on the other hand, determine that since no evidence of blatant racism is provided, it must've been his own damn fault that he wasn't promoted.

Whatever happened in Haiti must not have had too significant of an impact on his career, since he was promoted twice afterward. If the military then was anything like it is now, a major screw-up would mean no further promotion. The fact that he was promoted twice afterward indicates that it wasn't considered a huge blunder, or that he was not held primarily responsible.

At the risk of wearing out the baseball comparison, by your reasoning, players like Josh Gibson and Cool Papa Bell didn't get to play in the majors not because of their race, but rather because their records didn't warrant them playing at the highest level. If we were to carry this out further, we could easily imagine that had baseball's color barrier never been broken, we would be saying the same thing about players such as Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Roberto Clemente, Bob Gibson, and Barry Bonds. But since the barrier was broken, and these players have shown that they are at least equal to their white counterparts, we know this isn't true. I'm certain the military is no different. If individuals such as Colin Powell today have what it takes to reach the top, there's no reason not to believe the best blacks back then had it too. The reason Young and other capable blacks didn't get what they earned was because racism was overt at the time and constituted official policy, even if unwritten.

I did a little research into Young, and found that, in support of your theory, he graduated last out of a class of 49 West Point graduates. But Custer also finished at the bottom of his class, which didn't seem to affect his promotion potential. I also found this:

Charles Young was not wanted on the greater stage of World War I in Europe. He would remain an understudy, not for want of talent - all of his comrades testified to his abilities - but because of the hue of his skin. An African-American leader emerging upon the world stage would invalidate the theory held by those of paler skin about the inferiority of people of color. It was a theory that had to be maintained within the United States to explain the continued denial of equality to the descendants of older victims of inhumanity. It was the great American untruth.

From Masters of the Intelligence Art

------------------
The Dude abides.

[This message has been edited by Smackie Chan (edited January 15, 2002).]