[STARMAN 352ND]

Latinos Attack PBS for WWII Series
Sunday, Apr. 08, 2007 By HILARY HYLTON/AUSTIN, TEXAS TIME.com

Last month, President Bush saluted the famed Tuskegee airmen as they received the Congressional Gold Medal, affirming that the sacrifice and service of African-Americans had finally been granted its place of honor in the nation's remembrance of World War II. But Hispanic Americans of the Greatest Generation are still battling for acknowledgment, and their fight has now embroiled celebrated documentarian Ken Burns and PBS television.
Emmy-award winner Burns is noted for TV series chronicling everything from the Civil War to the histories of jazz and baseball, but it's his new opus on World War II that has earned the ire of Latino groups. The 14-hour film War, set to air in September, focuses on the lives of 40 Americans in four U.S. cities — Waterbury, Conn.; Mobile, Ala.; Luverne, Minn.; and Sacramento, Calif. And the fact that not one of the 40 subjects is Latino that has Hispanic veterans' groups and politicians crying foul.
In a recent NPR interview, Burns said the series had included the voices of Japanese-Americans and African-Americans because theirs had been "an amazingly different kind of American experience." That only further angered critics. "We are not going to tolerate this omission," said Antonio Morales of American GI Forum after a meeting with PBS officials.
There are no definitive numbers for what proportion of the 16 million Americans who served in World War II were Latinos. The D-Day World War II Museum in New Orleans has put the number at 250,000-500,000, but since there was no designation on military forms for Hispanic — only Black and Asian — the real number is hard to determine, museum officials acknowledge. But there is no question Latinos served honorably and bravely.
One of the leading critics of Burns' film is Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, a University of Texas journalism professor who has been leading a decade-long effort to collect the oral history of Hispanic contributions during World War II. She was alerted to their contribution as a journalist covering Mexican-American civil rights groups, many of whose leaders had been World War II veterans.
"The Latino experience is really rich and very unique. We are very disappointed," Rivas-Rodriguez said. "This is the story of not only our parents, our grandparents, but our tios and tias. This is not a Puerto Rican issue, not a Mexican issue, not a Cuban issue, but all Latinos and Latinas. This is one of the few times we all agree on something."
As criticism mounted in Latino media, Burns issued a statement saying he was "dismayed and saddened" by an assumption that anyone was intentionally excluded. "For thirty years we have made films that have tried to tell many of the stories that haven't been told in American history" and he went on to ask viewers to "refrain from passing judgment on our work until they have seen it."
But Rivas-Rodriguez points out that too often the Hispanic experience has been ignored or reshaped in modern media: The 1960 movie Hell to Eternity was based on the experiences of Navy Cross winner and Hispanic U.S. Marine Guy Galbadon, but when Hollywood told his story, Jeffrey Hunter played him as a blue-eyed Italian-American.
PBS had announced plans for "an unprecedented national community engagement campaign" to encourage local programming and educational outreach efforts to accompany Burns' series. But critics are pushing for more. "We can't continue to produce our own documentaries that only we watch," Rivas-Rodriguez said. "If a documentary purports to be an American experience we need to be in that."
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has added its weight to the criticism of the publicly funded network, and PBS has responded saying it is taking the "situation very seriously" and is "now working intensively to determine how best to proceed and have made a commitment to respond to Latino leaders soon."
There was no shortage of material if Burns had chosen to include Latino subjects: A quick glance at the University of Texas web site U.S. Latinos and Latinas and World War II reveals the stories of numerous veterans, from farm-worker families in South Texas to famed members of the so-called Aztec Eagles, the 300-member Escuadron 201. The Eagles were an all-Mexican expeditionary force, organized after Mexico declared war on the Axis powers, which trained in the U.S. and then flew combat missions in the Philippines. Only five members of the squadron are still alive and one of them, pilot Reynaldo Perez Gallardo, nicknamed "Pancho Pistolar" after a Disney character, tells his story on the website. For critics of Ken Burns' latest effort, the point is that stories such as those of Gallardo should become part of the national memory when America honors its Greatest Generation.

[SKUNKY]

What about us Americans of European descent?.....We made our fair share of contributions in WWII too!!....When the hell are we going to get our due recognition?...Who do I contact about this?

[PH-LKK]

Umm. Are these folks suggesting that "Latinos" (as distinct from Puerto Rican, Mexican, etc.) were an identifiable category of citizen at that time? What are they smok'n? There was about as much in common between the experiences of a Spanish-speaking boy from "El Barrio" and a Spanish-speaking boy from Truth or Consequences as there was between a "white" boy from Yonkers and a "white" boy from Tuscaloosa! Unlike "Negros" and "Japs", the government did not have an official policy of segregation that forcibly insured such folks shared a "unique" experience, distinct from non-"Negros" and non-"Japs". Spanish-speaking Americans, like English-speaking (and, yes, GERMAN-speaking and ITALIAN-speaking) Americans, during WWII had wildly differing experiences, and it would be utterly irresponsible to try to "capture" them by insisting on some sort of token representation in the series.

This whole flap brings to mind the outlandish "controversy" over display of the Enola Gay in the National Air and Space Museum.

[mikeb1958]

Originally Posted by PH-LKK

Umm. Are these folks suggesting that "Latinos" (as distinct from Puerto Rican, Mexican, etc.) were an identifiable category of citizen at that time? What are they smok'n? There was about as much in common between the experiences of a Spanish-speaking boy from "El Barrio" and a Spanish-speaking boy from Truth or Consequences as there was between a "white" boy from Yonkers and a "white" boy from Tuscaloosa! Unlike "Negros" and "Japs", the government did not have an official policy of segregation that forcibly insured such folks shared a "unique" experience, distinct from non-"Negros" and non-"Japs". Spanish-speaking Americans, like English-speaking (and, yes, GERMAN-speaking and ITALIAN-speaking) Americans, during WWII had wildly differing experiences, and it would be utterly irresponsible to try to "capture" them by insisting on some sort of token representation in the series.

This whole flap brings to mind the outlandish "controversy" over display of the Enola Gay in the National Air and Space Museum.

I agree. You PC folks and supporters,.... it's all in the past and that is how it was.... for THAT time... bad, good or whatever. Just like slavery, it was over 140+ years ago, Yes, it was wrong but gezzz, Get over it already!...how are we supposed to be "united country" when we do is keep dividing ourselves into groups like "African-American, Japanese-American, Puerto-Rican American, Mexican-American" etc. Aren't we ALL Americans??? (Sorry, not talking about our great English brothers/sisters, Australians, Germans, and the rest across the "pond"). We will never had 100% non-predjuice "unity" since we have to classify ourselves into some country that one (or more) of our ancestors came from. Our ancestors ALL came from somewhere else unless your 100% Native American. Just because your father or mother came over to the USA from Africa, Mexico, Japan, Mars, Mercury...50, 75,100, 200 years ago and have long passed away, you can't call yourself that UNLESS you just came from that country yourself, not your realitive. How about calling yourself a "American' for a change. If you don't like it or all you care about is waving your Mexican, Puerto Rican or anyother flag instead of the ONLY THE USA FLAG...then I say, "Pack your bags and go back to the place you call "home" and don't let the door smack your on the way out!"!!! Whew! Now, where is that WARBIRD BEER!!!!...Oh, that's on another thread. Me so sorry.

[SKUNKY]

WHOA!...Speak out, you nappy-headed ho....

Originally Posted by mikeb1958

or your-anus...

...but leave Jim's heritage out of it...

[Louie]

I am dismayed that those of us of mixed descent(French,Indian,EngIish,Irish and Welsh) and especially those of us with gaps between our front teeth have not been properly represented in these documentaries. Thank God that Sophia Loren and Ernest Borgnine have at least broken through the Hollywood barrier. FREEEEEDOOMMMMMMMMM!

[DADoser]

First, there are definitely those who take issues too far when maybe there isn’t really an issue at all. However, I would also throw out the analogy that “even a broken clock is right twice a day.” Issues deserve questioning and an honest analysis/debate. The last time I checked, we are still in America and democracy/debate should still be what we are about as a country/civilization. (Note: We are a Republic and are structured to protect the rights of the minority – political, ethnic, etc. – there is a sense of “what is right” vs. simple “majority rules” – i.e Civil rights in the south in the 60’s. The majority would not have voted to desegregate schools at the time the Feds forced it.)

While the Latino’s may not have the same experience as African-Americans or Japanese-Americans in the U.S. during the 1940’s (which I would agree with) – the fact that not one rep of the Latino experience from the WWII years seems to be represented in this documentary may be an issue. Reverse it – what if a documentary about WWII came out – 40 people’s stories were told and of the 40, the film maker only spoke to 3 “White/Anglo” folks. Would that documentary be accepted as encompassing the “American” experience in WWII? Wouldn’t “Whites/Anglos” have issues with that? If you think not, you may not be being honest with yourself.

As far as hyphenated Americans - I’m sure there are MANY serving right now in the U.S. armed services – giving their lives for this country. Men and women who are proud to be Americans and refer to themselves with whatever their hyphenated American identity happens to be.

Please recognize there is a history/experience that comes with a label/identity such as African-American; Mexican-American; etc. That is a part of a lot of people’s individual identity. When there are calls to strip people of that label, it can be taken as someone trying to take away a history. How would we react if a Japanese individual made the statement “Pearl Harbor is in the past, get over it.” Will we ever accept: “9/11 was in the past, get over it” from an Arab (or anyone for that matter)? Realize that hundreds of years of slavery; Native American genocide; etc. have just as much impact to those who were effected as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have to each of us - regardless of how far in the past they occurred. Civil Rights Act 1964???? Pearl Harbor 1941.

Because some Americans refer to themselves with a hyphenated identity – it takes NOTHING away from the American identity. I would like to see some documented evidence to prove otherwise – vs. rhetoric/theory.

(English only - as language being a unifying factor - is a separate issue that can be debated – I’m talking here about people simply referring to themselves as African-American; Puerto Rican- American; etc.)

I'll also add - this is not a "pc" issue or Liberal vs. conservative. It is an issue of putting yourself is somebody else's shoes; consideration; respect; as well as looking at things objectively.

[DADoser]

Mike1958 -

I'm optimistic that one day we (as a country) will get to the point of being able to be simply "Americans." And, I think we can agree that that is the goal. There are just too many racial issues/concerns/history that we, as a nation still need to resolve first - And that responsibility rests with ALL Americans - its not just something for minorities to get over/past.

We just need to be honest about our history as a nation in regard to race/ethnicity; accept and acknowledge it. That would be the first step.

[djjeffhall]

Hey there folks,
I usually stay out of the "political" threads as no one is ever going to agree and it all just seems to escalate, despite the sincere and honest attempts at folks to merely express a point of view, and not to snipe.

As DADoser said above, we all need to get to the point of being American, and not American-whatever.....

RE: Ken Burns - I can understand why he broke the story into the barriers he did. Japanese Americans were put into interment camps. African American were told to sit in the back of the bus.

Latino Americans may have faced racial divides, and certainly today debates on immigration point out todays divisions, but none of those issues that have passed into the current popular mindset the way that Interment Camps and Back Of The bus have. Ken Burns makes films for the popular culture and those divides of the WWII generation have passed down and resonate in the current American psyche. To focus on "What made the Latino experience different at the time." (Or whatever, forgive my in-elegance.) would just be creating issues, which I think we all would agree we don't need more of.

[Folgore]

First off, I agree with DADoser.

Almost: like mikeb1958, I don't like hyphenated identities -- but I understand that some individuals may feel it more accurately expresses their own experience and identity. That's too bad. Like DADoser and mikeb1958, I'd like to see a day when all Americans can identify as "American," no matter what color their skin is or where their ancestors came from. (Sadly, things seem to be going in the opposite direction: more and more Americans are using hyphenated idenities. I hate it when people hear my name and say "Italian?" No, ma'am, I'm American. Do I have an accent?)

To add to DADoser's comments: Even if the American experience is the same for everyone today -- and I don't think that's true -- we're talking about a documentary series about the past -- some 65 years ago now -- and the American experience certainly wasn't the same for Latinos / Hispanic-Americans as it was for Anglo-Americans back then, just as it wasn't the same for African- or Asian-Americans. Just Google "zoot suit riots." Latinos, like African- or Asian-Americans, were a distinct minority in America, and were treated distinctly from other Americans (including other ethnic minorities).

To say that the Latino experience was too diverse to label as "Latino" -- that is, that the experiences of a Latino in Texas vs. a Latino in New York were so different that the "Latino" (or Hispanic) label is useless is both (a) insightful and (b) beside the point. Everyone's experiences are unique, so by that logic not only is the Latino label useless, so are the "African-American," "Asian-American" and "white" labels. Ken Burns is presenting the experiences of just 40 individuals (out of America's entire population) as kind of a rough overview of the varieties of American experience during the war, to show the scope and breadth of the individual experiences that together comprise the American Experience. To represent the scope and breadth of the American experience in WWII, it seems reasonable to include at least one example of a Latino experience, along with an African-American experience, an Asian-American experience and a European-American experience. Note that I'm using "an," not "the," because there's no way to portray "the" African-American / Asian-American / Latino / white experience unless you include every, single, individual member of that group.

Still, I am looking forward to the series ... and thanks to y'all for this thread and other like it: they make me think out my positions.
-->