[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

However, if you had even bothered to read my second post you would have seen the quote from the African-American soldier who was, in fact, involved.

What a ridiculous quote, whoever added the nonsense about it being "absent from the film". Why in the world is it relevant who gave the men who raised the first flag (not even the focus of the film) the piece of pipe? You've gotta really be grasping at straws to dredge that up as an example of short-changing anyone on their role in WWII, and it sure is a far cry from what you originally misquoted. Great you admit you were wrong, but it does illustrate how you yourself made an amazing leap from handing someone a piece of pipe to "black soldiers raised the first flag", without so much as batting an eyelash.

Hmmm. And just where, exactly, did Spike Lee "yell racism"?

His entire non-argument against Clint Eastwood is in effect yelling racism, and typically, at completely the wrong target. As others have said, the goofiest thing in all of this, is that there is actually a lot of racism from WWII to point out. But whining at Clint Eastwood for either of his movies is NOT a legitimate example of them.

And you still haven't fathomed that by crying wolf over every little perceived slight, you ultimately end up downplaying real historic examples of racism because too many goofballs like Spike Lee have whined false alarms over everything else under the sun too many friggen times.

So did you see any black soldiers carrying ammunition for the first wave of white soldiers who landed on Iwo Jima? I mean if 90% of the ammunition units were black, one would have to try pretty hard to not see any African-American soldiers during any assault on the island .... including the one showcased in the film, n'est-ce pas?

Once again, TRY to get a grasp the scale of what you're actually talking about, before just quoting things out of context. No one is arguing there weren't black soldiers on Iwo Jima. The movie focuses on the landings down around Mount Suribachi- that would be the landings around Green Beach.




Most of the invasion, and most of the troops were tasked with taking the airfields on the island- the main objective of the entire US Island hoping campaign. We weren't there just to take a bunch of islands for shits and giggles, it was for airfields to reach closer to Japan.

Neither of Clint Eastwood's movies are called "The Battle of Iwo Jima". They aren't actually ABOUT just the battle. He wasn't making a documentary about racial injustice either. Flags is about the flag raising event- the SECOND flag raising- most of Flags doesn't even take place on Iwo Jima, it's about the aftermath and the lives of those involved in raising the flag. Letters is simply the mirror from the Japanese perspective in fortified Suribachi.

The 800 or so troops that stormed Mount Suribachi in the first few days of the invasion was not a mixed black and white unit. Sorry, but there's no history book you'll find that says so, because it simply wasn't the case. If you look at the landing map, you'll see no other arrows pointing toward Suribachi- there were a very small number of troops selected for that task, compared with the airfields.

The Japanese troops focused on in Letters, stationed at Suribachi and not the airfields would simply not have encountered black troops in the time frame of the film. In Flags, there's simply no focus on the areas where the very small percentage of black troops would have been, because, the movie isn't about "digging trenches on Iwo Jima" or "running ammunition on Iwo Jima"

You can argue all you want -and you're right- that it sucks that blacks were relegated to service duties, and not duties equal to whites- no one argues that doesn't suck and isn't a grave wrong of WWII era America.

But Clint Eastwood is right; his film is historically accurate, and Spike Lee is a dumbass.

Clint didn't set out to make a movie showing every aspect of combat on Iwo Jima, because if you actually watch the films, the battle is certainly the centerpiece, but NOT the greater focus.

Spike should have just shut his face and made "Flags of Our Brothas" about racism in WWII, rather than heaping crap on Clint Eastwood over nothing.

90% of the ammunition units who would be be re-supplying every single white combat unit on the island. Burial details. Trench diggers. Porters or the wounded and supplies. And yes, even direct combat.

Wait a sec, if the total number of black troops on Iwo Jima was 900, out of 30,000, it sounds a little fishy that 90% of ammunition units were black. 900 soldiers supplied ammunition to 29,000 other soldiers, (plus dug trenches, plus everything else menial) over a period of 35 days? It sounds like someone is shuffling together several conflicting sets of 'facts' on that one, which given this whole topic, isn't surprising.

Even so, even if those numbers work out, there's no evidence that there would have been black ammunition units in the Suribachi area during the main combat timeline of Flags, and certainly not Letters.

The bottom line? If someone sat down and viewed all the WWII movies in the vaults of the Hollywood studios, they would get the distinct impression that African-Americans did not serve in the military during that war to any significant degree at all. At best they would see a representation on film that was far less than their actual participation and the significance of their service. Sadly, Flags of Our Fathers continues that long-standing Hollywood tradition.

Again, the goofiest thing about you're lumping Flags into this same category, (and being lazily wrong about it) just waters down the larger point of which you've got a good point. That's the saddest thing about people like you that see racism in virtually EVERYTHING- you weaken your own argument and credibility by constantly jousting at windmills everywhere else.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

His entire non-argument against Clint Eastwood is in effect yelling racism, and typically, at completely the wrong target. As others have said, the goofiest thing in all of this, is that there is actually a lot of racism from WWII to point out. But whining at Clint Eastwood for either of his movies is NOT a legitimate example of them.

And you still haven't fathomed that by crying wolf over every little perceived slight, you ultimately end up downplaying real historic examples of racism because too many goofballs like Spike Lee have whined false alarms over everything else under the sun too many friggen times.

And was it "whining" or "yelling racism" when Dan Glaister, Roger Friedman, et al mentioned it? Or just when Spike Lee did? And what you deride as "every little perceived slight" others see as a long-standing, and consistent pattern. One that is quite obvious as I said before.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Once again, TRY to get a grasp the scale of what you're actually talking about, before just quoting things out of context. No one is arguing there weren't black soldiers on Iwo Jima.

No one has to argue it. The point is the implication of never seeing any black soldiers. In this movie and the hundreds of similar ones that came before it throughout the entire history of Hollywood.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The movie focuses on the landings down around Mount Suribachi- that would be the landings around Green Beach.

Most of the invasion, and most of the troops were tasked with taking the airfields on the island- the main objective of the entire US Island hoping campaign. We weren't there just to take a bunch of islands for shits and giggles, it was for airfields to reach closer to Japan.

Ok. Now tell me something I don't know. Especially since my earlier post said the entire point of invading Iwo Jima was to capture the airfields. I also mentioned how black soldiers were heavily involved in that process as well.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Neither of Clint Eastwood's movies are called "The Battle of Iwo Jima". They aren't actually ABOUT just the battle. He wasn't making a documentary about racial injustice either. Flags is about the flag raising event- the SECOND flag raising- most of Flags doesn't even take place on Iwo Jima, it's about the aftermath and the lives of those involved in raising the flag. Letters is simply the mirror from the Japanese perspective in fortified Suribachi.

Hopefully at some point you'll get around to discussing something that's actually relevant to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The 800 or so troops that stormed Mount Suribachi in the first few days of the invasion was not a mixed black and white unit. Sorry, but there's no history book you'll find that says so, because it simply wasn't the case. If you look at the landing map, you'll see no other arrows pointing toward Suribachi- there were a very small number of troops selected for that task, compared with the airfields.

Ahhhh ... finally!! Did I ever say there was a "mixed black and white unit"? Why do you insist on arguing a point that is not in dispute? I'm certain that I said earlier that the military units were segregated. In fact, I used that very term. In your desperate attempt to defend such a glaring and historically inaccurate "oversight" you seem incapable of comprehending that segregated units were deployed together. That is, in the same area. Had you actually read my post you will have seen where a renowned historian, Bernard Nalty, made this very point. I'll list it again for you ....

Black combat support units also took part in the assault on Iwo Jima, where, as at Peleliu, their presence confounded the policy of segregation. Because of the random intermingling of white and black units, an African-American Marine, carrying a box of supplies, dived into a shell hole occupied by white Marines, one of whom gave him a cigarette before he scrambled out with his load and ran forward. Here, too, black stewards and members of the depot and ammunition companies came to the aid of the wounded. A white Marine, Robert F. Graf, who lay in a tent awaiting evacuation for further medical treatment, remembered that: "Two black Marines . . . ever so gently . . . placed me on a stretcher and carried me outside to a waiting DUKW."

At Iwo Jima, the 8th Marine Ammunition Company and the 33d, 34th, and 36th Marine Depot Companies served as part of the shore party of the V Amphibious Corps. Elements of the ammunition company and the 36th Depot Company landed on D-Day, 19 February 1945, and within three days all the units were ashore, braving Japanese fire as they struggled in the volcanic sand to unload and stockpile ammunition and other supplies, and move the car go inland. Eleven black enlisted Marines and one of the white officers were wounded, two of the enlisted men fatally."

The Right to Fight: African-American Marines in World War II (Peleliu and Iwo Jima)

So let me break this down for you further since you are having difficulty understanding. The "Because of the random intermingling of white and black units ..." refers to the intermingling of segregated units, not intermingling within a particular unit. And again, 90% of the ammunition units were black .... so it would be a bit of a stretch to think that the assault on Mt. Suribachi was only supported by the white soldiers who made up the other 10% of the ammunition units. Again, no one is saying that the movie should have shown thousands or even hundreds of black soldiers. But a few extras here and there performing the roles that they did in fact play would have been sufficient from a historical accuracy perspective.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The Japanese troops focused on in Letters, stationed at Suribachi and not the airfields would simply not have encountered black troops in the time frame of the film. In Flags, there's simply no focus on the areas where the very small percentage of black troops would have been, because, the movie isn't about "digging trenches on Iwo Jima" or "running ammunition on Iwo Jima"

And you know where all the black troops were deployed because of what ... exactly? You seem to be assuming that all the black soldiers were deployed to the airfields. And again, if 90% of the ammunition units were black .... AND white combat marines need bullets and mortars and grenades .... INCLUDING the ones who stormed Mt. Suribachi .... which do you think is more likely? That there were black ammunition units involved in all the operations on Iwo Jima .... or the areas focused on in the films just happened to be devoid of black troops? Entirely and quite coincidentally?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You can argue all you want -and you're right- that it sucks that blacks were relegated to service duties, and not duties equal to whites- no one argues that doesn't suck and isn't a grave wrong of WWII era America.

Now I know you really aren't paying attention. I'm not arguing that point at all. It's a simple fact of life that blacks were relegated to service duties as you call them. The argument is regarding the portrayal of black participation in WWII on film.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Wait a sec, if the total number of black troops on Iwo Jima was 900, out of 30,000, it sounds a little fishy that 90% of ammunition units were black. 900 soldiers supplied ammunition to 29,000 other soldiers, (plus dug trenches, plus everything else menial) over a period of 35 days? It sounds like someone is shuffling together several conflicting sets of 'facts' on that one, which given this whole topic, isn't surprising.

Even so, even if those numbers work out, there's no evidence that there would have been black ammunition units in the Suribachi area during the main combat timeline of Flags, and certainly not Letters.

And where is the evidence that they weren't? One last quote and we'll just leave it at that.

In the Iwo Jima landings in February 1945, the all-black 442 and 592 Port companies and the 471st, 473rd, and 476th Amphibious Truck (aka DUKW or duck) companies were attached to the Marine assault. Three DUKWs ferried ammunition and equipment from supply ships in transport areas offshore to the beach. They also evacuated casualties from the beaches. They constructed and repaired airfields even before the fighting ended as the island bases nearest Japan were the final stepping-stones to the heart of Japan.

Amazon.com: Fighting for America: Black Soldiers--the Unsung Heroes of World War II: Christopher Moore: Books

Again. Such scenes, with the exception of constructing and repairing airfields IIRC, were shown in Flags of Our Fathers. Eastwood could have tossed in a few extras in those scenes in the interest of historical accuracy. Especially given the dismal record of Hollywood in this area AND the previous and similar criticism of Saving Private Ryan on this very topic AND the fact that experts pointed out such omissions to him during filming so he couldn't even pretend like he didn't know. But for whatever reason he chose not to. So it's not that I, or Spike Lee, or Dan Glaister, or Roger Friedman, or the thousands of black WWII vets who criticize this choice are "lumping Flags into the same category" of the long legacy of WWII films that ignored black soldiers. The bottom line is that Eastwood himself, given the choices that he made, lumped his film into that same category. Not that it wasn't a great film. By all means it was and I definitely enjoyed it for what it was. As I did Saving Private Ryan. Having said that the lack black portrayals in either film ... two of the greatest WWII films of our generation ... did not go unnoticed. Some, such as yourself, are rather dismissive of these "oversights". Despite the long-standing, and consistent pattern in Hollywood in this regard .... there's always an explanation (or excuse depending upon one's perspective). Others, such as myself, are anticipating the day when such a conversation isn't even necessary.

OAW

[Eug]

Meh. All of this banter is irrelevant, cuz it doesn't change the fact that Spike Lee is a whining dumbass.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Meh. All of this banter is irrelevant, cuz it doesn't change the fact that Spike Lee is a whining dumbass.

I would say that your gut feeling here is what is irrelevant, no offense intended...

[Eug]

I will respectfully disagree. Four out of five dentists agree that Spike Lee just needs to get over himself.

I guess the good news is that he ain't Kanye West.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I will respectfully disagree. Four out of five dentists agree that Spike Lee just needs to get over himself.

I, too, agree with that.

I mean, WHAT more facts do we need ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Four out of five dentists agree that Spike Lee's teeth are white.

Spike Lee's argues more of his teeth needs to be black.