Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.

[The Enlightenment]

The Squadron was particularly effective at a time when being judged by merit
was apparently not common and for this its men deserve great honor.

However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason integration
has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is this: Selection
on the basis of merit and IQ tests. They were an elite. Methods both made
illegal under affirmative action in the civilian world in a Landmark case
involving the Duke Power Company who wanted to eliminate the possibility of
racial discrimination by using written tests and IQ tests devoid of bias as
much as possible.

That's the sub text of what I think when I here someone lauding the Tusgegee
Airmen. They are lauding and proving the effectveness of IQ and 100% merit
based tests.

I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.

[Jughead]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in
:

> The Squadron was particularly effective at a time when being judged by
> merit was apparently not common and for this its men deserve great
> honor.
>
> However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason
> integration has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is
> this: Selection on the basis of merit and IQ tests. They were an
> elite. Methods both made illegal under affirmative action in the
> civilian world in a Landmark case involving the Duke Power Company who
> wanted to eliminate the possibility of racial discrimination by using
> written tests and IQ tests devoid of bias as much as possible.
>
> That's the sub text of what I think when I here someone lauding the
> Tusgegee Airmen. They are lauding and proving the effectveness of IQ
> and 100% merit based tests.
>
> I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.

And how much personal experience do YOU have with the military? I've been
an active or full-time Reserve airman for 8 years now. I can tell you
that affirmative action has nothing at all to do with what positions
blacks hold in the military (or at least the Air Force). Those who have
advanced through the ranks have almost certainly earned the privilege to
have been promoted to whatever their rank may be.

Since you mention written tests, however, active duty airmen (E-4 and up)
have to take 2 written tests each cycle, if eligible for promotion (based
on Time In Grade requirements), to attempt to get themselves promoted to
the next rank - one the Skills Knowledge Test (SKT) and the Performance
Fitness Exam??? (PFE). Both factor heavily into scores used in
determining who gets a "line number" for the next rank and who doesn't.
Many who DO get line numbers are black or otherwise non-white.

So take your ignorant, racist BS somewhere else. Or better yet, grow up
and learn to accept the fact there really are many decent, respectable,
and even smart minorities out there.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jughead" > wrote in message
.21...
>
> And how much personal experience do YOU have with the military? I've been
> an active or full-time Reserve airman for 8 years now. I can tell you
> that affirmative action has nothing at all to do with what positions
> blacks hold in the military (or at least the Air Force). Those who have
> advanced through the ranks have almost certainly earned the privilege to
> have been promoted to whatever their rank may be.
>
> Since you mention written tests, however, active duty airmen (E-4 and up)
> have to take 2 written tests each cycle, if eligible for promotion (based
> on Time In Grade requirements), to attempt to get themselves promoted to
> the next rank - one the Skills Knowledge Test (SKT) and the Performance
> Fitness Exam??? (PFE). Both factor heavily into scores used in
> determining who gets a "line number" for the next rank and who doesn't.
> Many who DO get line numbers are black or otherwise non-white.
>
> So take your ignorant, racist BS somewhere else. Or better yet, grow up
> and learn to accept the fact there really are many decent, respectable,
> and even smart minorities out there.
>

Why don't you read his message again?

[Jughead]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
rthlink.net:

>
> "Jughead" > wrote in message
> .21...
>>
>> And how much personal experience do YOU have with the military? I've
>> been an active or full-time Reserve airman for 8 years now. I can
>> tell you that affirmative action has nothing at all to do with what
>> positions blacks hold in the military (or at least the Air Force).
>> Those who have advanced through the ranks have almost certainly
>> earned the privilege to have been promoted to whatever their rank may
>> be.
>>
>> Since you mention written tests, however, active duty airmen (E-4 and
>> up) have to take 2 written tests each cycle, if eligible for
>> promotion (based on Time In Grade requirements), to attempt to get
>> themselves promoted to the next rank - one the Skills Knowledge Test
>> (SKT) and the Performance Fitness Exam??? (PFE). Both factor heavily
>> into scores used in determining who gets a "line number" for the next
>> rank and who doesn't. Many who DO get line numbers are black or
>> otherwise non-white.
>>
>> So take your ignorant, racist BS somewhere else. Or better yet, grow
>> up and learn to accept the fact there really are many decent,
>> respectable, and even smart minorities out there.
>>
>
> Why don't you read his message again?

I read it several times. Am I confused with what he's getting at or are
you the one who's confused? I interpreted his post as being anti-
affirmative action (which I'm completely against myself), but done so in
what I perceived as a racist tone. ????? What did you take the post to
mean?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jughead" > wrote in message
.11...
>
> I read it several times. Am I confused with what he's getting at or are
> you the one who's confused? I interpreted his post as being anti-
> affirmative action (which I'm completely against myself), but done so in
> what I perceived as a racist tone. ????? What did you take the post to
> mean?
>

I believe you are the one confused. I find nothing in the message racist in
tone.

[Pete]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> "Jughead" > wrote in message
> .11...
> >
> > I read it several times. Am I confused with what he's getting at or are
> > you the one who's confused? I interpreted his post as being anti-
> > affirmative action (which I'm completely against myself), but done so in
> > what I perceived as a racist tone. ????? What did you take the post
to
> > mean?
> >
>
> I believe you are the one confused. I find nothing in the message racist
in
> tone.

I did.

Read into it a little.
"However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason
integration
has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is this: Selection
on the basis of merit and IQ tests. "

Or,
"Had integration not been based on merit and IQ, US military effectiveness
would have been degraded."
While this may be true, it is also true of anyone selected for pilot
training, be they white, black, or green with pink polka dots.

Pete
[disclaimer: both my father and my uncle were TA pilots]

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did.
>
> Read into it a little.
> "However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason
> integration
> has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is this: Selection
> on the basis of merit and IQ tests. "
>
> Or,
> "Had integration not been based on merit and IQ, US military effectiveness
> would have been degraded."
> While this may be true, it is also true of anyone selected for pilot
> training, be they white, black, or green with pink polka dots.
>

You're reading things into it that simply are not there.

[Gooneybird]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I did.
> >
> > Read into it a little.
> > "However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason
> > integration
> > has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is this: Selection
> > on the basis of merit and IQ tests. "
> >
> > Or,
> > "Had integration not been based on merit and IQ, US military effectiveness
> > would have been degraded."
> > While this may be true, it is also true of anyone selected for pilot
> > training, be they white, black, or green with pink polka dots.
> >
>
> You're reading things into it that simply are not there.

If you will accept a comment from someone on the outside of this discussion, I
read the original posting a couple of times, and found it to be somewhat
tortured verbiage and unclear as to its meaning, at best. Under the
circumstances, unless the original poster wants to restate his views or
positions in a clearer fashion, it might be best to abandon the dispute before
it evolves into one of those "did not, did too" schoolyard exchanges that go
nowhere.

George Z.

[Jughead]

"Gooneybird" > wrote in
:

> If you will accept a comment from someone on the outside of this
> discussion, I read the original posting a couple of times, and found
> it to be somewhat tortured verbiage and unclear as to its meaning, at
> best. Under the circumstances, unless the original poster wants to
> restate his views or positions in a clearer fashion, it might be best
> to abandon the dispute before it evolves into one of those "did not,
> did too" schoolyard exchanges that go nowhere.

Comment accepted, and I certainly agree, which is exactly what I intend to
do now.

[Kilroy]

"Jughead" wrote in message > Comment accepted, and I certainly agree, which
is exactly what I intend to
> do now.

Thank you "Uncle Tom!!"

[Gooneybird]

"Kilroy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jughead" wrote in message > Comment accepted, and I certainly agree, which
> is exactly what I intend to
> > do now.
>
> Thank you "Uncle Tom!!"

You had to get the last lick in, I guess. If he has any class, and I think he
has, he will not say, "You're, welcome, Rastus", which would keep the ****ing
match going indefinitely. Let's all of us walk away from this, before it
descends into a really nasty area that won't accomplish any more than rub
feelings raw.

George Z.

[Tom Cervo]

>From: "The Enlightenment"

Today Possum Gully; Tomorrow The World!

[Lawrence Dillard]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
> The Squadron was particularly effective at a time when being judged by
merit
> was apparently not common and for this its men deserve great honor.

Not quite. You seem not to understand that in the US at the time, it was
customary (and in some states legal) to simply altogether exclude certain
entire groups of persons from the application of the rights, privileges and
immunities of citizenship, including voting rights and service in the armed
forces. In the USAAC, for example, a potential pilot-trainee could at one
time be excluded from participation on the grounds...that he was a
Negro...and no other rationale was considered necessary for that situation
to obtain. The same obtained when it came to admission to the US service
academies. That policy did change, however. Similarly, non-whites were
excluded from the US Navy's officer ranks for most of the war. Hence the TA
might not have been judged on their merits, but discriminated against
despite their merits.


> However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason
integration
> has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is this: Selection
> on the basis of merit and IQ tests.

IQ tests have been under fire as a legitimate tool of selection for many
years. An IQ test is all but irrelevant in determining which persons will
have the hand-eye-leg coordination necessary for competent fighter pilotage,
or for determining which persons will demonstrate the skills requisite to
managing a transport or a bomber a/c. Any human-resources person in the
civilian sector can probably tell you, (if so inclined) how easy it is to
"get around" even stringent selection rules. In other words, neither native
intelligence (IQ?) nor acquired skills (merit) necessarily determined how
society or a military organization treated you.

You seem to fail to recognize that officially-sanctioned racism was more or
less the norm in the US of those days. The TA experiment succeeded only
because the necessary impetus was available to force it through against
several levels and forms of opposition: F Delano and Eleanor Roosevelt.
Otherwise, the TA probably would have been excluded.

It was not a question of whether the TA were "qualified"; instead it was a
question of whether they should be included or could be excluded. To ensure
exclusion, certain roadblocks were placed in their way. That was the
reality, virtually all across the board.

They were an elite.

That seems to have been true, to the extent that the "typical" TA had
completed college or a substantial proportion thereof, whereas the black
population taken as a whole had not had such an education. By contrast (and
no aspersion is intended) Chuck Yeager, by all accounts an excellent pilot,
did not attend college. Recall also that Bob Johnson of P-47 fame,
matriculated at a junior college before entering the USAAC. In neither case
did their education or membership in an "elite" make any real difference to
their opportunity to become pilots or to their performances. It was
unnecessary for either Yeager or Johnson to have been part of an "elite" in
order to become a part of the air corps, but I'm glad both of them were
available and that the USAAF sent them where they could do some good work.

Methods both made
> illegal under affirmative action in the civilian world in a Landmark case
> involving the Duke Power Company who wanted to eliminate the possibility
of
> racial discrimination by using written tests and IQ tests devoid of bias
as
> much as possible.

I may be a bit parochial, but I don't believe I've ever encountered a test
which can be termed "devoid of bias", probably because no one who composes
tests based principally on IQ is without biases (I admit to reaching this
conclusion only after discussions with psychology majors while in college).
A built-in bias of any such test is that it assumes that the testees have
had solid educations, and rewards those who have.


> That's the sub text of what I think when I here someone lauding the
Tusgegee
> Airmen. They are lauding and proving the effectveness of IQ and 100%
merit
> based tests.

Not really. You don't seem to understand that there were societal and
(within the USAAF) systemic biases at work against the TA even coming into
existence. A phrase I used to hear quite often (but less so nowadays) was
that "A Negro (that wasn't what was actually uttered) can't become a (fill
in the blank), they're not smart enough". After completing training, the TA
were subjected to a long waiting period before they were grudgingly sent
overseas. The TA achieved against tough odds. This was the result of the TA
men belonging to an "underclass" of US society.
>
> I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
>
Agreed. Who you know and what group you are classified into are factors
which often have had more to say about one's access to opportunities than
so-called "merit".

[Pete]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Or,
> > "Had integration not been based on merit and IQ, US military
effectiveness
> > would have been degraded."
> > While this may be true, it is also true of anyone selected for pilot
> > training, be they white, black, or green with pink polka dots.
> >
>
> You're reading things into it that simply are not there.

I read it as it was written. What was not said is as important as what was
said.

Absent clarification from 'The Enlightenment', we are all left in the dark
as to what s/he really meant.

Pete

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>The Squadron was particularly effective at a time when being judged by merit
>was apparently not common and for this its men deserve great honor.
>
>However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason integration
>has not degraded the effectiveness of the US military is this: Selection
>on the basis of merit and IQ tests. They were an elite. Methods both made
>illegal under affirmative action in the civilian world in a Landmark case
>involving the Duke Power Company who wanted to eliminate the possibility of
>racial discrimination by using written tests and IQ tests devoid of bias as
>much as possible.
>
>That's the sub text of what I think when I here someone lauding the Tusgegee
>Airmen. They are lauding and proving the effectveness of IQ and 100% merit
>based tests.
>
>I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
..

Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that they are
not particularly impressed with you.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Enlightenment]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
> >From: "The Enlightenment"
> >Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >

> >
> >I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
> .
>
> Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that they are
> not particularly impressed with you.
>
>
Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda

[Lawrence Dillard]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
om...
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
> > >Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
> > >From: "The Enlightenment"
> > >Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
>
> > >
> > >I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
> > .
> >
> > Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that
they are
> > not particularly impressed with you.
> >
> >
> Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda

Frankly, I wouldn't characterize the hubbub over the TA as "propaganda". It
is merely the accurate recounting of the hardships that a group of loyal
citizens had to endure in order to secure the privilege of serving their
nation in a time of war.

Now that there has been so much social change in the US, some youngsters
find it difficult to understand the situation of the TA, or the social
conditions extant in the US at the time. Times change, if there is
sufficient impetus to cause that to happen. The creation and success of the
Tuskegee Airmen was part of an impetus toward social change in the US.

By all accounts I have read, the men generally did well; they upheld the
best traditions of US fighting men once committed to action. That, in many
quarters, had not been expected.

According to a couple of sources I've read, the TA were prized because as an
article of faith, they provided close escort to the bomber formations to
which they were assigned, to the detriment of rolling up victory totals by
avidly pursuing enemy fighters which approached the bombers.

You may have read Mr Kramer's remarks on this ng as to how much the bomber
crewmen (who after all, were the only USAAF component which could actually
do significant harm to the enemy war effort) appreciated having close escort
support. The TA considered that their essential mission was to get the
bombers through to the target and away, without them having to suffer from
enemy fighter depredations. This they accomplished. Insofar as the bomber
crews whose missions they supported were concerned, their success in so
doing was all that mattered, and the color of their skin was irrelevant;
THAT in itself was a victory for the TA, because THAT was "being judged on
merit". That's what they were trying to demonstrate.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
>From: "Lawrence Dillard"
>Date: 7/8/03 12:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
om...
>> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> > >Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
>> > >From: "The Enlightenment"
>> > >Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> > >Message-id: >
>>
>> > >
>> > >I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
>> > .
>> >
>> > Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that
>they are
>> > not particularly impressed with you.
>> >
>> >
>> Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda
>
>Frankly, I wouldn't characterize the hubbub over the TA as "propaganda". It
>is merely the accurate recounting of the hardships that a group of loyal
>citizens had to endure in order to secure the privilege of serving their
>nation in a time of war.
>
>Now that there has been so much social change in the US, some youngsters
>find it difficult to understand the situation of the TA, or the social
>conditions extant in the US at the time. Times change, if there is
>sufficient impetus to cause that to happen. The creation and success of the
>Tuskegee Airmen was part of an impetus toward social change in the US.
>
>By all accounts I have read, the men generally did well; they upheld the
>best traditions of US fighting men once committed to action. That, in many
>quarters, had not been expected.
>
>According to a couple of sources I've read, the TA were prized because as an
>article of faith, they provided close escort to the bomber formations to
>which they were assigned, to the detriment of rolling up victory totals by
>avidly pursuing enemy fighters which approached the bombers.
>
>You may have read Mr Kramer's remarks on this ng as to how much the bomber
>crewmen (who after all, were the only USAAF component which could actually
>do significant harm to the enemy war effort) appreciated having close escort
>support. The TA considered that their essential mission was to get the
>bombers through to the target and away, without them having to suffer from
>enemy fighter depredations. This they accomplished. Insofar as the bomber
>crews whose missions they supported were concerned, their success in so
>doing was all that mattered, and the color of their skin was irrelevant;
>THAT in itself was a victory for the TA, because THAT was "being judged on
>merit". That's what they were trying to demonstrate.


Well said. The TA were skilled accomplished airman who did the deadly jobs
they were trained for. To call it "propoganda" is in itself racist.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
>From: (The Enlightenment)
>Date: 7/7/03 11:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
>> >From: "The Enlightenment"
>> >Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >
>> >I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
>> .
>>
>> Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that they
>are
>> not particularly impressed with you.
>>
>>
>Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda
>


You mean it was not true and their reputation was not earned? Prove it.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:33:51 -0400, "Gooneybird"
> wrote:

> I'm always interested in what you might have to
>say about the TA's flying abilities and/or accomplishments, but think that what
>you treated us to was something we all could have lived without.

With respect GB I suggest you acquaint yourself with the revisionist
national socialist rhetoric emmited by the poster I am referring to before
jumping down my throat.


I'll cut that odious piece of work no slack.




greg




--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Gooneybird]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:33:51 -0400, "Gooneybird"
> > wrote:
>
> > I'm always interested in what you might have to
> >say about the TA's flying abilities and/or accomplishments, but think that
what
> >you treated us to was something we all could have lived without.
>
> With respect GB I suggest you acquaint yourself with the revisionist
> national socialist rhetoric emmited by the poster I am referring to before
> jumping down my throat.
>
>
> I'll cut that odious piece of work no slack.

With all due respect, since you didn't seem to get the point, I was referring to
your gross commentary about his mother's sex life and his father's seminal
fluid. I'm far from a defender of Nazis of any ilk, but if he bothers you that
much, stick him in your kill file. You can't make him go away, but you sure as
hell don't have to read his crap. That's what I do with pieces of garbage that
offend me.....it keeps my blood pressure down and I don't inadvertently sink
into his slime pit with him. Try it....you'll like it.

George Z.
>
>
>
>
> greg
>
>
>
>
> --
> $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
> Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
> Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
> She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[The Enlightenment]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message >...
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (ArtKramr) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >Subject: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
> > > >From: "The Enlightenment"
> > > >Date: 7/6/03 7:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > > >Message-id: >
>
> > > >
> > > >I guess you are lucky if you are judged on merit.
> > > .
> > >
> > > Not particularly impressed with the Tuskeegee aimren? Be assured that
> they are
> > > not particularly impressed with you.
> > >
> > >
> > Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda
>
> Frankly, I wouldn't characterize the hubbub over the TA as "propaganda". It
> is merely the accurate recounting of the hardships that a group of loyal
> citizens had to endure in order to secure the privilege of serving their
> nation in a time of war.
>
> Now that there has been so much social change in the US, some youngsters
> find it difficult to understand the situation of the TA, or the social
> conditions extant in the US at the time. Times change, if there is
> sufficient impetus to cause that to happen. The creation and success of the
> Tuskegee Airmen was part of an impetus toward social change in the US.
>
> By all accounts I have read, the men generally did well; they upheld the
> best traditions of US fighting men once committed to action. That, in many
> quarters, had not been expected.
>
> According to a couple of sources I've read, the TA were prized because as an
> article of faith, they provided close escort to the bomber formations to
> which they were assigned, to the detriment of rolling up victory totals by
> avidly pursuing enemy fighters which approached the bombers.
>
> You may have read Mr Kramer's remarks on this ng as to how much the bomber
> crewmen (who after all, were the only USAAF component which could actually
> do significant harm to the enemy war effort) appreciated having close escort
> support. The TA considered that their essential mission was to get the
> bombers through to the target and away, without them having to suffer from
> enemy fighter depredations. This they accomplished. Insofar as the bomber
> crews whose missions they supported were concerned, their success in so
> doing was all that mattered, and the color of their skin was irrelevant;
> THAT in itself was a victory for the TA, because THAT was "being judged on
> merit". That's what they were trying to demonstrate.


I regret the choice of words for the title of my post now becuase it
didn't reflect precisely what I wanted to say. Certainly people took
it two ways.

I also didn't want to detract from their record which is unique in
their singular effectiveness as bomber escorts as well as other areas.

The point I wanted to make was this: that people should be judged on
their merrits alone and if that is done they will perform well, their
achievements can then only be honoured without any justifiable
detraction or doubt.

This is exactly what the example of the tuskegee airmen shows: they
were selected on their merrits, they performed their job and exceded
it becuase they were selected on merrit.

In a historical context they proved spectacularly for one of the first
times that African-americans could do this, breaking preconceptions,
thus making their example available, made it unnecessary for others to
be thwarted by the same status quo resistence. They had the proof of
the pudding so to say and the Airmen say themselves that they were an
experiment or test.

The US military is unique in opperating free from affirmitive action
quotas.

The US military model and the example of the Tuskegee Airman and their
breakthrough example can not be used to "propagandise" for other
things: affirmitive action, explaining the black-white performance gap
on the basis of such double standard prejudices as 'white priveledge'
or racial pre-judgement or other such nefarious arguments. The logic
of the Tuskegee example does not support that.

The reason that I place quotes around "propagandise" is because it is
these things that I allege were being propagndised. It is not the
Airmens laudable achievments but these other things I meant.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Not Particularly Impressed with Tuskegee Airmen Propaganda.
>From: (The Enlightenment)
>Date: 7/8/03 10:16 PM Pacific

>You may have read Mr Kramer's remarks on this ng as to how much the bomber
>> crewmen (who after all, were the only USAAF component which could actually
>> do significant harm to the enemy war effort) appreciated having close
>escort
>> support. The TA considered th

Yes. And I always felt bit better about Spitfire top cover than P-51 top
cover. I wrote in my website in a story called "Fighter cover RAF style" about
the tactical difference between US and Brit air cover. I recently have gotten
correspondence from an RAF pilot on active duty about that difference,
Interesting stuff. Once you had top cover, you never forget your "little
friends".

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Lawrence Dillard]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
om...
> "Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
>...
> > "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Squadron was particularly effective at a time when being judged by
> > merit
> > > was apparently not common and for this its men deserve great honor.
> >
>
> SNIP
>
> > That policy did change, however. Similarly, non-whites were
> > excluded from the US Navy's officer ranks for most of the war. Hence the
TA
> > might not have been judged on their merits, but discriminated against
> > despite their merits.
>
> The fact that they had been discriminated against didn't effect their
> abillity to fly and navigate an aircraft or to follow complicated
> orders. That ability is based purely on ability. A dose of
> discrimination (I have suffered some while in Asia and I am I am
> white) even spurs one on in some circumstances.
>

Well, yes, their having been discriminated against DID affect both their
ability (or eligibility) to enter the USAAC, later affected whether they
would ever be committed and the timing of their commitment overseas, and
still later had an influence on whether they were to be employed along the
lines of a standard fighter unit. Perhaps you are justified in believing
that experiencing discrimination spurs one on. Nonetheless, a person or
group discriminated is still being victimized for no apparent good purpose.

> However I now see you point.
>
> >
> > > However the reason the Trugegee Airmen worked, indeed the reason
> > > integration has not degraded the effectiveness of the US
> > > military is this: Selection on the basis of merit and IQ tests.

I can't agree with this. The effectivenes of the US military is based on a
combination of selection, instruction, training and leadership, as is
presumably the case with every industrialized nation. The US armed forces
(except for its navy) were in pitiful condition at the start of WWII. It had
to expand and had to locate competent instructors in every field of endeavor
undertaken by an army, navy or air force. Had they not done so, they
collectively would have failed in their task of producing competent armed
forces. Nonetheless, "selection" did not always correspond to "merit".

> >
> > IQ tests have been under fire as a legitimate tool of selection for many
> > years.
>
> IQ tests have been under fire but not for any good reason. They work
> better than anything else at predicting the ability to acquire
> training, they are not perfect but better than anything else short of
> doing a 4 year university degree or a multi-million dollar pilot
> training program.
>

Well, they certainly are cheaper than investing four years' time in each
applicant so as to discover whether s/he will make for a good soldier, or
putting someone into an expensive pilot-training program before assessing
their projected abilities, I guess.

> IQ tests were enormously succesfull in determining whether an 18 year
> old recruit would be suitable for pilot training or work as an
> electronics technician or perhaps someting less challenging.
>

Or to put this another way, whether a candidate should simply be assigned to
a more dangerous specialty, such as the infantry. But no one has ever told
me that becoming an infantryman and staying alive in the process was in any
way less "challenging".

> Sure, If you are looking to hire someone to do electrical engineering
> for you and both candidates are 22 years old and have got degrees then
> look at their college work not at the IQ. If they are 18 and haven't
> gone to university yet and one has an IQ of 145 and the other 105
> (borderline for being able to do that work) then going for the high IQ
> candidate is a far better bet.
>

Agreed, to a point, but only because training in many specialties is
expensive, and in the wartime USA, time was of the essence. Candidates with
more formal education (and often, hence, better "IQ" scores) tended to
absorb information faster than those who had less opportunity to exercise
their intellectual muscles before being processed. That is not to say,
however, that those with lesser scores could not be trained to the necessary
level of performance, given enough time.

> > An IQ test is all but irrelevant in determining which persons will
> > have the hand-eye-leg coordination necessary for competent fighter
pilotage,

>
> No. That is not a correct statement.

> RT or "Reaction Time" tests measure decision making time by presenting
> a pattern of lights to a subject who must make a decision and lift his
> hand from a home button and press one of several buttons in correct
> response to the pattern of lights. The speed of decision and the
> number of errors correlates with the same repeatability with IQ as
> meausured by normal "written" IQ tests.
> (correlation copefficnt r = 0.68) The more complicated patterns
> compensate somewhat for people with great muscles and short reactions
> and you can see the timing gaps widen as the patterns become more
> complicated.

So does that mean that the "pinball wizards" who spend hours per week on PC
games will outscore anybody else in such testing?

> In other words an RT test can be used to estimate IQ fairly
> accurately. Though it is possbile that you might be a genious at
> poetry but mundane at visual tasks the talents tend to aligne.
>
> A friend of mine was able to solve a Rubkicks cube in about 40 seconds
> after she 'took' one I was playing with away form me having never seen
> it before. She is a CEO now and earned high distinctions throughout
> her university degree.
>

Is she a pilot? If so, how much of her ability to fathom certain
relationships reads over to her abilities with a stick?

> The ability to think or visualise several moves ahead seems to be as
> important than 'hand eye co-ordination'. I certainly recall several
> air combat stories and reactions are clearly important but just as
> often the pilot is executing a complicated strategy and anticipating
> that of his opponent.

Does that mean that Bobby Fischer (sp?) could wax my tail in a practice
dogfight?

> A full blown IQ test is actully the weighted average of 6 seperate
> tested categories of cognitive ability. Broadly 3 of them in the
> visuo-spatial ability and 3 in the linguistc logical area. Two people
> with the same IQ say 130 would likely have a different balance. The
> balance varies consistantly with race. EG east asisn children adopted
> to european familes in Germany or Belgium show a consistent bias to
> visuo-spatial ability.
>

> > or for determining which persons will demonstrate the skills requisite
to
> > managing a transport or a bomber a/c. Any human-resources person in the
> > civilian sector can probably tell you, (if so inclined) how easy it is
to
> > "get around" even stringent selection rules.
>
> You are saying people sometimes manage to cheat? It seems an
> irrelevant point. The majority of people don't cheat.

Disagree. While I will deny, without fear of possible contradiction that I
have ever had reason to cheat or have ever taken advantage of an opportunity
to do so even if doing so were to advance my chances of getting something I
want (heh, heh, heh), I can assure you that an overwhelming majority of
people, not just a majority, will "cheat" to one degree or another, 'cause
this ain't a perfect world with "perfect" competition. Even in the military,
such occurs. A favorite example, to me, is how negative evaluation reports
(at times, a single such report can fatally damage a career) are sometimes
"disappeared" (as in "made to disappear") from the permanent files.

> > In other words, neither native
> > intelligence (IQ?) nor acquired skills (merit) necessarily determined
how
> > society or a military organization treated you.

> They don't necessarily determin them they just mostly determin them.

I'm not so sure of that as you appear to be.

> IQ determines to a great extent ones abillity to acquire skills and
> knowledge.
>
> Other factors such as motivation and environment also have an effect
> but not as much as people like to think.
>
> outcome = intelligence x motivation x opportunity
>

outcome = who you are + who you know, probably just as often.

The Tuskeegee Airmen were a part of the US "underclass" who were attempting
to obtain better treatment. To some extent they got their opportunity
because of the Roosevelt family, who put their considerable weight behind
them. Had it not been for their impetus, the TA might never have had their
opportunity.

> > You seem to fail to recognize that officially-sanctioned racism was more
or
> > less the norm in the US of those days. The TA experiment succeeded only
> > because the necessary impetus was available to force it through against
> > several levels and forms of opposition: F Delano and Eleanor Roosevelt.
> > Otherwise, the TA probably would have been excluded.
>
> It proved that merritorious Blacks can perform as well as
> merriotorious whites. People must be judged on merrits. There just
> aren't quite as many blacks as whites with certain natural talents. I
> say this as someone who has looked at the matter quite extensvely.

I dunno. In the US, at least, the majority population is white, with about
10 per cent Hispanic and 10 per cent African-American. Take 1,000 US
citizens, and you will find 800 whites, which is a larger pool than 100
Hispanics and 100 African-Americans. I would be surprised if fewer whites
were found with "certrain natural talents" in such circumstances. Yes,
people are judged on merits, but there are many ways of determining merits.

> I as a white have to accept that their are ethnic groups who have IQ
> and real world success substantialy exceding ours as well.

No argument here.

> > It was not a question of whether the TA were "qualified"; instead it was
a
> > question of whether they should be included or could be excluded. To
ensure
> > exclusion, certain roadblocks were placed in their way. That was the
> > reality, virtually all across the board.


> Yes, thinking about it more I agree. The point I was trying to make
> was that the case of the Tusgegee airman proved that Blacks judged on
> merrit will perform as well (in some cases better, the Tusgegee airman
> had excellent disciplin ) as whites judged on merrit.
>
> The cases of the Tusgegee airmen is to my mind extended to mean other
> things.
>
> I think I was trying to make the point about merrit.

Right. The example of the TA was used to rebut arguments about irredeemable
inferiority in many other fields of endeavor. Piloting an aircraft was a
vocation which placed one in an elite. So, if the TA demonstrated that
non-whites could sustain an elite occupation, then why not other, more
mundane vocations as well?

> > SNIP

> Yes, repeatedly we have the white populations mean IQ comming out at
> a 100 and African-American populations mean IQ at 85 even today. A
> black completing college in those days would have been a partiularly
> exceptional individual.
>

Typically, blacks who attended college in those days attended segregated
institutions (separate but equal). There were exceptions, however. In any
event, the propotion of blacks who achieved even a secondary level of
education in those days was not impressive.

> However this again does not justify exclusion or segregation.

Agreed.

> If affirmitve action methods were used today in the military
> effectveness would suffer; quite a lot.

How so?

> If Affirmitve Action had of been used to 'equalise' the disadvantages
> suffered to get much larger numbers of Black Airman then Tuegegee
> arimen would be famous for proving that blacks make poorer fighter
> pilots on average.

I don't believe so. "Affirmative Action" actually is not well-understood;
but it makes ofr a powerful political arguing point. In the civilian job
marketplace, it actually has a very restricted connotation. According to my
human resources sources, in the Old Days, any firm could, with or without a
rationale, simply deny any candidate it chose, oddly enough including women,
the right to complete a job application. That has changed.

In other areas, the content of AA is clouded by controversy, probably
because selection into an elite of some sort or another is involved, which
feature "affirmative" steps to be taken by an institution to process
minorities into one elite or another. People, in general, (no matter of what
race) are very touchy when it comes to their son or daughter being
de-selected for entry into certain elite institutions in favor of a
minority or other "special" candidate. Just how far ought any institution go
in its effort to recruit minorities (and nowadays, to a somewhat lesser
extent, women) into a given elite (the military, college, veterinary school,
law school, medical college, etc)? And if allowed to do so, is this done
only at the risk of injuring deserving whites? Is AA a form of "reverse
discrimination"?

> > It was
> > unnecessary for either Yeager or Johnson to have been part of an "elite"
in
> > order to become a part of the air corps, but I'm glad both of them were
> > available and that the USAAF sent them where they could do some good
work.

> If you tested Yeaker or Johnsons IQ I'm sure it would be fairly high.
> (military results migh still be available) IQ test can find potential
> talent even when they haveing had extensive tertiary education.

(I meant to have written "...part of an "IQ" elite...." Simply being
selected for aviation training placed them into an elite.)


I wasn't aware of that (that is, of the talent-spotting potential of such
tests). Instead, I was given to understand that "IQ" tests tend to favor
those with more formal education, or those at least with certain tools
provided with having been exposed to formal education.

> >
> > Methods both made
> > > illegal under affirmative action in the civilian world in a Landmark
case
> > > involving the Duke Power Company who wanted to eliminate the
possibility
> > of
> > > racial discrimination by using written tests and IQ tests devoid of
bias
> > as
> > > much as possible.
> >
> > I may be a bit parochial, but I don't believe I've ever encountered a
test
> > which can be termed "devoid of bias", probably because no one who
composes
> > tests based principally on IQ is without biases (I admit to reaching
this
> > conclusion only after discussions with psychology majors while in
college).
> > A built-in bias of any such test is that it assumes that the testees
have
> > had solid educations, and rewards those who have.
>
> IQ tests are set up to test reasoning ability as much as possible not
> prior learning. The bias is pretty small and effort is put inot
> avoiding it. Culuraly fiar tests devoid of verbal content alos exist.

In the case of the TA, there was never any question of "IQ", as such. The
results of their individual testing demonstrated that. The issue was whether
they could be or should be included in or excluded from aviation within the
USAAF on the basis of their ethnic origin. In other words, it was not a
question of whether their ostensible merit or "intelligence" scores fitted
them to the position; It came down to a societal decision whether blacks
were to remain forever a sort of "invisible" subculture or to be allowed to
assert the same privileges and immuninties (especially freedom from
discrimination) as any "typical" white person.

> > > That's the sub text of what I think when I here someone lauding the
> > Tusgegee
> > > Airmen. They are lauding and proving the effectveness of IQ and 100%
> > merit
> > > based tests.
> >
> > Not really. You don't seem to understand that there were societal and
> > (within the USAAF) systemic biases at work against the TA even coming
into
> > existence. A phrase I used to hear quite often (but less so nowadays)
was
> > that "A Negro (that wasn't what was actually uttered) can't become a
(fill
> > in the blank), they're not smart enough".
>
> OK I concede that there was discriminatiuon that denied opportunity
> and I would agree with this.
>
> I regret phrasing the header to my post as it was.
>
>
> The Tusgee airman proved was that blacks, when selected on merrit,
> would perform as well if not better than whites. (A no brainer
> really)
>
> "A Negro is less likely to have the abillity to become a (fill
> in the blank), becuase there are somewhat less of them with higher
> ability"

Dunno about that one. Fewer in terms of gross numbers? Fewer
proportionatley?

> Would have to be a correct statement if based on decades of SATs, IQ
> tests, indices of performance in reading, arithmatic etc. (SAT gaps
> have widened agin I beleive)

Well, for about fifty or so years, numbers of firms in the US have made
money by offering preparation testing/training for persons planning on
undertaking SATS, officer candidate school tests, etc. Apparently, they have
proved generally successful in preparing their clients to perform well on
such tests. The overwhelming majority of such clients has always been white,
probably a function of the ethnic makeup of the nation.
SNIP

> One of the problems that a talented black will face is that his
> educational merrits will always be judged on the basis of 'affirmitve
> action' unless it is known that he/she attended universiies that do
> not practice this. Justifiably so since people judge and discriminate
> to asses someones potential to impact on them not to make them feel
> bad or good.
>
> One of the problems whites are now facing is that they are squeezed
> between Affirmitive Avtion granted to Blacks (I can accept that) and
> Hispanics (Unacceptable) and groups which test higher in congnitve
> ability. Whites are not judged on merrit in cvilian life. The
> concept of 'white priveledge' being the latest invention used to
> justify discrimination aginst whites as a group.
>
Well, no. In the US, for most of its history, only a fraction of the
population (mostly white and mostly male) enjoyed the full benefits of
citizenship, in terms of voting, alienation of property, etc. As time
passed, more groups (especially in this century, women) have to a
significant extent made their way into the benefits of full citizenship, and
in reading womens' histories, it was an uphill climb all the way.

> blacks have suffered a similar fate; despite affirmitive action
> starting in 1964 their unemployment rate is far worse now. Their
> traditional jobs in the building industry being taken up by Hispanics
> who have a high workforce participation rate.
>
Remember that the overwhelming majority of blacks in this nation come from
families of former slaves. As such, they were not human beings in the Us
system, but a form of personal property. There is a big gap between being
"personal property" and being a citizen with all the benefits that accrue
therefrom. I know of no one who claims that the US has ever been a "perfect"
society. But to my mind, major steps have been taken to include former
underclasses such as women and blacks and Hispanics from the status of
property or something not quite full citizens, to something better.

> If there was a justification for exclusion, segregation, appartheid it
> is this: the black crime rate is about 8 times the white rate in the
> US today and there is bit of a mess in Sth Africa, Zimbabwe and the UK
> like that. Anyone sane would I feel go out of the way to avoid
> proximity to that for them and their family. It's a practical
> necessity. However denying opportunities on the pretense that there
> are no blacks of merrit is a fiction that was I feel maintained to
> help justify exclusion for other reasons. I was a follish fiction
> becaue it was easy to discredit.
>
> I am Australian, not in the US. Afro-Blacks in Australia have a crime
> rate 1/4th that of whites. (That I fear will change becuase we are
> now accepting large numbers of refugees from Africa; 3rd world refgees
> tend to have higher than average crime rates). The blacks here are
> still a select group in small numbers but generally all business
> proffesionals, entertainers, sports figures spouses etc.
>

> AFAIK tell the only institution in the US which automatically confers
> justified prestige on a black or white equaly for having been a member
> is the US military.

I wish that you could become better acquainted with the US; and I want to
know more about Australia, likewise. Thanks for your post. I hope I have not
inspired any hard feelings with my comments. I've been an informal student
of US history since I attended college. I realize that I nonetheless have
much to learn.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I dunno. In the US, at least, the majority population is white, with about
> 10 per cent Hispanic and 10 per cent African-American. Take 1,000 US
> citizens, and you will find 800 whites, which is a larger pool than 100
> Hispanics and 100 African-Americans. I would be surprised if fewer whites
> were found with "certrain natural talents" in such circumstances. Yes,
> people are judged on merits, but there are many ways of determining
merits.
>

Nitpick In 2000 the actual figures were

72% White, 12% African American, 11% Latina, 4% Asian,
0.7% Native American , 0.3% Everything else

Keith

[Richard Brooks]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
> The Squadron was particularly effective at a time when being judged by
merit
> was apparently not common and for this its men deserve great honor.

[snipped as truth degrades here on in.]

Well said that man!

Have you noticed that in almost every avenue, the "hungry" fight best
whether that's in business, sport or war ?

If you're at the top of some pile then you get fat and lazy like those pervy
Nazis who based their on the Homo-erotic Greek activities. Were Hitler's
henchmen practising Amun-Ra's activities for lengthening life and getting
back ache ?


Richard.