The argument is that if you have 99 white guys and 1 black guy in your pool of people
Okay. But why is it so difficult to get non-white guys in your officer’s corps to begin with?
the choice to specifically send that single black guy to Africa is a bit messed up
Given the history of African states under European colonial occupation, I might argue that sending any of the white guys (particularly white guys with a certain expressed stigma against domestic nonwhites) is a foolish move.
the decision on how to deploy those people is a different decision that can be racist or not all on its own
The heavily predicated on the attitude American leadership has towards the African state they’re deploying troops. If they consider military in the country part of a mutual defense partnership, it makes sense to send people who are relatable and who integrate well with the political establishment. If they consider military in the country an occupation - or military leadership a diplomatic corps for dealing with wealthy white business owners - then the leadership will reflect American priorities rather than Host Nation priorities.
Sending a guy who looks and talks like Elon Musk to server as senior commander in Botswana sends a very particular message, especially when it is coming under a Presidency that keeps insisting South Africa is doing reverse-genocide against Afrikaners.
Okay, sure. You do understand that the vast majority of African Americans have been rooted families for generations now? I can’t underline enough how fucked up it would be to send someone to Africa because they have dark skin. That is a verbatim echo of all sorts of internal American racism.
You do understand that the vast majority of African Americans have been rooted families for generations now?
They are overrepresented in the military as enlisted soldiers and underrepresented in the officer’s corps. What would “being rooted for generations” have to do with their ability to advance in military command?
Advancing through the ranks is a different issue. There are problems there that need to be addressed, and such changes would be expected to bring a shift in demographics among different military roles over some period of time.
None of that changes the current military roster. You just can’t send the black guy to Africa for the color of his skin. If you had a ratio of 50:50 black guys to white guys in command, and we ignore other demographics for a thought experiment, then it would be obviously weird and racial if a crew of five commanders in Africa were white. That is not the case. It would be weird and racist if three of the current commanders in Africa were black because that is an obvious skew of the commander statistics.
Your argument about demographic spreads in the military looking racist right now is valid. We should address those demographic skews directly, not insist that people are deployed in ways to offset those demographics. Picking the fewer black commanders we have and sending them to Africa specifically because they are black is insane. I shouldn’t even need to type that.
The current military rooster under Pete Hegseth has changed radically in a matter of months. Most recently, SOUTHCOM Commander Admiral Alvin Holsey abruptly left his command over the attacks on Venezuelan fishing vessels.
Meanwhile, we gave four different CTOs the rank of Lt Colonel in July. All of them have been tightly allied with the Thiel/Musk wing of the Administration in their efforts to integrate the Pentagon with the Silicon Valley surveillance state.
Clearly, we are not above rapidly changing the military rooster to meet the immediate demands of the President.
Your argument about demographic spreads in the military looking racist right now is valid.
These trends aren’t new. Prior to the Clinton Admin, they were significantly worse, but they’re still abysmal even after neoliberal reforms.
And when the function of the modern US military is to facilitate wealth transfer from occupied foreign nations to (overwhelmingly white) American shareholders and executives, you can’t help notice a certain pattern in who they send.
Please, please can you directly acknowldge the problem in your original assertion that more of the current military staff in Africa should be black because they are black. This isn’t about making all systems more fair. This is about whether or not it is appropriate to concentrate black personnel in Africa. I assert it is not appropriate, nor would it be appropriate to send other personnel into other theaters based on their racial geographic origin. That has huge “go back where you came from” energy.
That sending an all-white team of neck-snappers into an African nation to coordinate with white owned-foreign businesses in pursuit of resource extraction is normal and cool? And how dare anyone suggest otherwise?
That has huge “go back where you came from” energy.
What do you think the job of a high ranking military officer is, exactly?
It’s a shame, because they’re a prolific poster whom I often agree with, but they also regularly have bad takes that are clearly outside their area of expertise, and invariably double down on them when challenged, or try to pivot to a slightly different point without ever acknowledging their errors. I can’t respect people who never admit to being wrong.
Okay. But why is it so difficult to get non-white guys in your officer’s corps to begin with?
Given the history of African states under European colonial occupation, I might argue that sending any of the white guys (particularly white guys with a certain expressed stigma against domestic nonwhites) is a foolish move.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. You can ask any of the leaders of the seven different African governments that have seen officers’ coups overthrow the sitting Western-backed governments and replacing them with African nationalist military leadership.
The heavily predicated on the attitude American leadership has towards the African state they’re deploying troops. If they consider military in the country part of a mutual defense partnership, it makes sense to send people who are relatable and who integrate well with the political establishment. If they consider military in the country an occupation - or military leadership a diplomatic corps for dealing with wealthy white business owners - then the leadership will reflect American priorities rather than Host Nation priorities.
Sending a guy who looks and talks like Elon Musk to server as senior commander in Botswana sends a very particular message, especially when it is coming under a Presidency that keeps insisting South Africa is doing reverse-genocide against Afrikaners.
Okay, sure. You do understand that the vast majority of African Americans have been rooted families for generations now? I can’t underline enough how fucked up it would be to send someone to Africa because they have dark skin. That is a verbatim echo of all sorts of internal American racism.
I’m addressing that very specific point.
They are overrepresented in the military as enlisted soldiers and underrepresented in the officer’s corps. What would “being rooted for generations” have to do with their ability to advance in military command?
Advancing through the ranks is a different issue. There are problems there that need to be addressed, and such changes would be expected to bring a shift in demographics among different military roles over some period of time.
None of that changes the current military roster. You just can’t send the black guy to Africa for the color of his skin. If you had a ratio of 50:50 black guys to white guys in command, and we ignore other demographics for a thought experiment, then it would be obviously weird and racial if a crew of five commanders in Africa were white. That is not the case. It would be weird and racist if three of the current commanders in Africa were black because that is an obvious skew of the commander statistics.
Your argument about demographic spreads in the military looking racist right now is valid. We should address those demographic skews directly, not insist that people are deployed in ways to offset those demographics. Picking the fewer black commanders we have and sending them to Africa specifically because they are black is insane. I shouldn’t even need to type that.
The current military rooster under Pete Hegseth has changed radically in a matter of months. Most recently, SOUTHCOM Commander Admiral Alvin Holsey abruptly left his command over the attacks on Venezuelan fishing vessels.
Meanwhile, we gave four different CTOs the rank of Lt Colonel in July. All of them have been tightly allied with the Thiel/Musk wing of the Administration in their efforts to integrate the Pentagon with the Silicon Valley surveillance state.
Clearly, we are not above rapidly changing the military rooster to meet the immediate demands of the President.
These trends aren’t new. Prior to the Clinton Admin, they were significantly worse, but they’re still abysmal even after neoliberal reforms.
And when the function of the modern US military is to facilitate wealth transfer from occupied foreign nations to (overwhelmingly white) American shareholders and executives, you can’t help notice a certain pattern in who they send.
Please, please can you directly acknowldge the problem in your original assertion that more of the current military staff in Africa should be black because they are black. This isn’t about making all systems more fair. This is about whether or not it is appropriate to concentrate black personnel in Africa. I assert it is not appropriate, nor would it be appropriate to send other personnel into other theaters based on their racial geographic origin. That has huge “go back where you came from” energy.
That sending an all-white team of neck-snappers into an African nation to coordinate with white owned-foreign businesses in pursuit of resource extraction is normal and cool? And how dare anyone suggest otherwise?
What do you think the job of a high ranking military officer is, exactly?
You tell me. What is the job of a high ranking military officer?
Edit: I’m tired of this. You are way out of line, and you won’t directly address your own statements without redirection. I’m out.
It’s a shame, because they’re a prolific poster whom I often agree with, but they also regularly have bad takes that are clearly outside their area of expertise, and invariably double down on them when challenged, or try to pivot to a slightly different point without ever acknowledging their errors. I can’t respect people who never admit to being wrong.