"HBO's The Pacific" Topic

IIRC one instance of "Racism" shown in the first episode was just after the wounded Japanese soldier with the grenade blows himself and two other Marines helping him up. One of the machine gunners calls out a racial slur used to describe the Japanese after it happened. Robert

I think the uproar has to do less with racism during the war. It existed. It's more to do with Hank's comparison of the War in the Pacific (and its racism) to that against Islamic Jihadists today and overt racism by our government and troops now. That's simply not a correct or factual comparison. Hank when questioned a day later about it stated he was very aware of the racism towards Islam now implying that it was blatantly obvious and comparable to that towards the Japanese in WWII. I'm trying not to dive into politics and simply keeping to what has caused the uproar. Personally, I'll keep watching and hoping politics stays out.

Thanks,

John

Calling the enemy names is hardly racism, Kaoschallenged. The whole topic of racism has nothing to do with the program and DB is refering to Hank's sidebar comments, be they right or wrong. As a soldier the enemy is the enemy regardless of skin colour or cultural differences.

VR
James Mattes

I think a lot of people here would do well to read the Introduction to George MacDonald Fraser's 'Quartered Safe Out Here'.

It is when it is used as a racial slur.IIRC it was the word "monkey". Which was used to depict the Japanese quite often in US propaganda. And I was pointing out that that was the only real incident where I remember anything being said that was close to being racist. Robert

> I am stating, factually, that the screenplay was substantially "softened" to avoid the nastier scenes of Americans doing bad things.

Out of curiosity, is anyone in a position to say whether the business of Sledge and the teeth made it to film ? I'd like to think it did, if only because it featured heavily in a very memorable and moving interview he did for British TV.

>I think a lot of people here would do well to read the Introduction to George MacDonald Fraser's 'Quartered Safe Out Here'.

Indeed, and don't stop at the introduction either.

Very true! :o)

However, his introduction is one of the finest rebuttals of modern, revisionist 'historians' I have ever read.

Well the Allies were fighting the Germans and Italians too … among others … So I don't see any racism there … And comparing the war with Japan and with Jihadist, is really a stretch … truely a case of apples & oranges, IMO … There was a movie out about a decade ago, about the war in the Pacific. I forgot the name. It did not do very well, and had alot of directer's "artisty stuff". But I thought once you waded thru the "stuff", the battle scenes were pretty brutal and realistic. Including the taking of gold teeth by some of the US soldiers … among other things. I think we can all agree there was brutality and racism on all sides. And the Japanese treatment of POWs was really some of the worse … But as I said, the WWII Japanese and the current war with Jihadist is certainly very, very different. The Japanese killed more Asians then "the white man" did and I think the same can be said about the Jihadist. They killed more Moslems then "the Great Satan" …

The WWII movie may be 'The Thin Red Line'.

Thanks,

John

Yes, that was it John, thank you !

>As a soldier the enemy is the enemy regardless of skin colour or cultural differences.

I can't find the quote at the moment, but I'm sure this is a point made by John Masters, speaking as a professional. On the other hand, to a conscripted civilian like Fraser "I believe there was a feeling (there was in me) that the Jap was farther down the human scale than the European".

I don't think there's any honest way we can argue that attitudes towards the Japanese as an enemy were not very different to those towards Germans or Italians, or that racial differences were not a factor in that. Does anyone seriously think 'Life' would have run a cheery human interest story about a servicemen mailing a German skull home for his fiancee to use as a desk ornament ? Or take that Aussie newsreel from the Bismarck Sea enthusiastically showing aircrew shooting up Japanese survivors in the water; would the same approach have been taken if the swimmers had been Italians ? I would suggest not.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this fact leads to some sort of morale equivalence between the two sides, by the way. Whilst we've yet to see any of 'Pacific' in UK, I would assume from the source material that it will include more controversial stuff than 'BoB' (and 'BoB' itself has enough in it that modern sensibilities could regard as war crimes). I'd also hope it is put into context and that it doesn't project too many 2010 attitudes onto 1940s characters.

As for Hanks, I get the feeling that he and I would be unlikely to agree on much, but so far he's had the decency to keep his personal views out of his work and make films that don't insult me. I really hope he carries on with that.

I have a crazy suggestion. Ignore the interviews and sales puff. Watch the damn movie, then talk about whether it's good or bad, accurate or false. political or not. Criticising or praising a movie or series you have not seen based upon what the producers say or what was in the book is, to be blunt, useless. Drivel. Nonsense. Waste of time. Judge the movie on the movie.

I don't much care if Hanks is a genius or an idiot, I care if the movie is any good.

If you read the companion book you will see both sides of the coin from each individual. I think what folks fail to realize is the de-humanization of the enemy that soldiers project onto the enemy (I know I have) and in the next breath can show some of the greatest compassion for the civilian population. To call it a race issue is missing the point. Sure there are elements of race and as one who has lived with several Asian cultures I can assure you westerners are tame compared to most of the oriental world. I will again refer you all to the individual interviews of the characters in the series, it was a feeling based on the brutality and absolutism on the behalf of the Japanese that lead to the volatile reactions of the U.S. service members engaged in combat in the theater.
VR
James Mattes

they all die at the end!

Most of us do. (Not, me. I plan to live forever, or die trying!)

I didn't watch the series, as I'm not that much interested in the Pacific theater, especially the ground combat thereof.

Saw the episode as well and must say I am with the others surprised with the quickness of the action. In my opinion the reason for the differences in first episodes between BOB and the Pacific, is because the Marines had units already trained and ready to fight when WWII started , whereas Paratroopers were a new thing the the US armed forces and had to be trained before they shipped out.
Also, IMO the episode should have been longer, but as next episode also deals with Guadalcanal, maybe it didn't. Then again I'm more of a PTO nut than ETO and think this should have been done before BOB.
As for this "STUFF" about racism in the Pacific war, anyone who doesn't think it was there is truly kidding themselves. I recall reading that US pilots thought the air war in the Pacific was going to be a cake walk because Japanese pilots could see properly. Nip, Tojo, yes those don't seem like racist slurs. That being said, it's always been a tool to dehumanize your foe especially if your sending kids thousands of miles away from their home to kill other kids.
One must also point out that in the scene that seems to be "the Culprit" in this discussion, there was a Japanese soldier who was acting Injured, and when the corpmen show up he lets loose a grenade killing the two corpsmen. I don't know about you, but when I saw my buddies killed I had a very DEEP hatred for the fellow who killed them. Was it racism or anger?

This first episode did well in pointing out just how quick civilized people revert to primal instinct. The scene I had the biggest problem with was the final charge of the Japanese in the morning after the battle of Alligator creek. Seeing the disparity and utter powerlessness of the last Japanese soldier was the most emotional thing of that episode. Seeing how the marines use him as a target filled me with even more pity and then seeing the one Marine finally put him down, in a way shows some hold of Humanity in the chaos.

After one episode I'm pleased. I'll wait for the series to finish before making any conclusions about it's "re-telling" of the US Marines history in the PTO. It's narrative and point of view will become clear when the remaining episodes are aired. All based on first person accounts and some official histories. Which is essentially a balancing act of
story telling, a viewing of H/history, and of course entertainment. Some "temporary suspension of disbelief" is necessary for any re-telling of history portrayed on the Big Screen or small. As the MC used to say "Relax and enjoy the show."

Hi

". I recall reading that US pilots thought the air war in the Pacific was going to be a cake walk because Japanese pilots could see properly. Nip, Tojo, yes those don't seem like racist slurs."

No, actually, pilots were TOLD this is why they didn't need the new airplanes in the Pacific. Thus, the british took the excellent Hawk 75 which COULD dogfight a zero, and put in a weaker engine because it would be "good enough" but nothing to do with vision. But a misunderstanding of the equipment.

Or Wishful thinking.

Name calling is hardly proof of anything. In the era, pretty much everyone was labeled with some short hand term. "yank" "brit" "limey" and so on.

Rocky

It has raised its ugly head from the deep blue once more!
TMP link