FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251  
252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   >>   >|  
to employ manpower without regard to race and called its recommendations "a step in the direction of efficient manpower utilization." It was a necessary step, he added, because "any racial group which lives under the stigma of implied inferiority inherent in a system of enforced separation cannot give over-all top performance in peace or in war."[6-28] [Footnote 6-27: Ray, a former commander of an artillery battalion in the 92d Infantry Division, was appointed civilian aide on 2 January 1946; see WD Press Release, 7 Jan 46.] [Footnote 6-28: Ltr, Marcus Ray to Capt Warman K. Welliver, 10 Apr 46, copy in CMH. Welliver, the commander of a black unit during the war, was a student of the subject of Negroes in the Army; see his "Report on the Negro Soldier."] On the whole, the black community was considerably less sanguine about the new policy. The _Norfolk Journal and Guide_ called the report a step in the right direction, but reserved judgment until the Army carried out the recommendations.[6-29] To a distinguished black historian who was writing an account of the Negro in World War II, the Gillem Board Report reflected the Army's ambiguity on racial matters. "It is possible," L. D. Reddick of the New York Public Library wrote, "to interpret the published recommendations as pointing in opposite directions."[6-30] One NAACP official charged that it "tries to dilute Jim-Crow by presenting it on a smaller scale." After citing the tremendous advances made by Negroes and all the reasons for ending segregation, he accused the Gillem Board of refusing to take the (p. 164) last step.[6-31] Most black papers adopted the same attitude, characterizing the new policy as "the same old Army." The Pittsburgh _Courier_, for one, observed that the new policy meant that the Army command had undergone no real change of heart.[6-32] Other segments of the public were more forebearing. One veterans' organization commended the War Department for the work of the Gillem Board but called its analysis and recommendations incomplete. Citing evidence that Jim Crow, not the enemy, "defeated" black combat units, the chairman of the American Veterans Committee called for an immediate end to segregation.[6-33] [Footnote 6-29: Norfolk _Journal and Guide_, Marc
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251  
252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

called

 
recommendations
 

Gillem

 

Footnote

 
policy
 

commander

 

Norfolk

 
Journal
 

Report

 

manpower


direction

 

segregation

 

Welliver

 

racial

 

Negroes

 
citing
 

tremendous

 

advances

 

ending

 

reasons


accused
 

dilute

 

interpret

 
published
 

pointing

 

Library

 

Public

 

opposite

 

directions

 

refusing


presenting

 

smaller

 

charged

 

official

 

Pittsburgh

 
analysis
 
incomplete
 

Citing

 
evidence
 

Department


commended

 

forebearing

 
veterans
 
organization
 
Committee
 

Veterans

 
American
 
defeated
 
combat
 

chairman