Dan Rather and Elliott Kirschner publish a blog called “Steady,” which has a consistently steady tone while reflecting on our times. Only minutes ago, they called attention to an important event that occurred 75 years ago, when President Harry S Truman made history.
They write:
At Steady, we sometimes pause from the news of the day to look back and reflect on the journey our nation has taken. With this in mind, we want to acknowledge an anniversary that took place this past week that didn’t get enough notice, even if its importance is as relevant as ever.
On July 26, 1948 — 75 years ago — President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981. Its statement was simple but profound:
“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. …”
Black people had fought in every war in the country’s history, with great courage and sacrifice. They fought for a nation that violently denied their human rights. During World War II, more than a million Black men and women served in the armed forces, fighting fascism around the world only to return to a country infused with systemic and often bloody racism.
This stark dichotomy became appallingly apparent with the tragic story of Sgt. Isaac Woodard Jr. He had enlisted in the Army in 1942 and served in the Pacific. After being honorably discharged from Camp Gordon in Augusta, Georgia, on February 12, 1946, Woodard boarded a Greyhound bus to see his family in North Carolina. He was wearing his uniform. En route in South Carolina, he was pulled off the bus and beaten by local police, then arrested, then beaten some more. The assault was so violent it left Woodard blind for life.
Woodard’s story soon became a defining moment in post-war race relations. Orson Welles called for justice on his ABC radio program. There was a benefit concert in Harlem headlined by Billie Holiday, Woody Guthrie, and boxer Joe Louis. President Truman ordered a federal investigation, and in 1947 he became the first president to address the NAACP. He said in his speech:
It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our country’s efforts to guarantee freedom and equality to all our citizens. Recent events in the United States and abroad have made us realize that it is more important today than ever before to ensure that all Americans enjoy these rights. And when I say all Americans — I mean all Americans.
A year later, Truman ordered the desegregation of the military and the federal workforce. There was, of course, tremendous pushback, and racism persisted in the recruitment and deployment of service members generally, and in the promotion of officers specifically.
(The act very nearly cost Truman his presidency. He almost lost his reelection bid in 1948 because some southern states — previously known as the Democratic Party’s “Solid South” — voted for a third-party “Dixiecrat” ticket. The ramifications of this series of events reverberate today.)
While the Air Force integrated quickly after 1948, the Army didn’t fully integrate until 1954, spurred on by a need to fill its ranks during the carnage of the Korean War. The Marines and Navy took much longer. It is shocking to consider, but it wasn’t until the early 1970s, under the leadership of Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., then chief of naval operations, that the Navy was finally forced to fully confront its systemic racism.
In the ensuing decades, the U.S. military, while not entirely free from racism, has become a potent example for the nation of how our diversity is our strength. The military arguably has become the best meritocracy of any American institution. Seeing young men and women from different races, nationalities, cultures, religions, sexual identities, and geographic regions serve alongside each other sparks pride in what our country can and should be. They are beacons of hope.
Yet today, we are once again at a crossroads in the nation’s reckoning with its history. Right-wing extremists seek to downplay our legacies of injustice. We see this effort in distorted school curricula and banned books. We see it in politicians who use divisiveness as a tool to rally votes. The truth is, we still have a long way to go to make sure that the corridors of American power reflect the country as a whole. It should be noted that when the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action recently, they exempted military academies. What is one to make of that?
It is vital that we confront what our nation truly was, and is. Surely it is just that we recognize the tremendous service of those who were denied full rights. White supremacy is on the rise, including among elements of the armed forces. Surely we should agree that this is a great danger needing to be rooted out.
Truman’s executive order was an important step toward our country’s making good on its founding ideals. Much hard work preceded that moment 75 years ago, and much has taken place after it. The journey continues, with new challenges in our present time. We can’t hope for continued progress if we don’t acknowledge the past, honor moments of justice, and vow to do the hard work to build upon them.
We can also find hope in President Truman’s own life story. He was a descendant of slave owners and Confederate sympathizers, and he grew up in a segregated town in Missouri. As a younger man, he himself identified as a segregationist and racist, but he was able to grow to become a champion for civil rights, at least by the standards of his time.
In Truman’s journey, we can find a mirror for the country at large. We have come a long way but still remain very much a work in progress. And the gains we have made are fragile without continued care and effort.

Don’t even get me started on Truman.
LikeLike
Start, Bob.
LikeLike
It’s fairly detailed. Perhaps that’s why.
LikeLike
General Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William Leahy, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy all opposed dropping the atomic bombs.
It is highly likely that Japan surrendered because of the Soviet Union’s decision to enter the war in the Pacific Theatre and that Japan would have surrendered for this reason alone. It is certainly likely, given its state at the time, that the combination of the beginnings of a U.S. land invasion of the home territory and the Soviet entry into the war would have been enough.
There was a peace faction in the Japanese High Command that was looking for an honorable way out. So, it was a time for negotiation.
After the Postdam Ultimatum, the Japanese Prime Minister, Kantaro Suzuki, was interviewed. He told the press that Japan was thoughtfully considering the situation. However, the word he used was mistranslated as greeting the ultimatum with scorn. This is no doubt the worst, most consequential mistranslation in history.
Hiroshima was supposedly a military target, but the factories were outside the city center and were largely undestroyed by the bomb.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two civilian targets, and large-scale targeting civilians is now universally recognized, under international law, to be a war crime and a crime against humanity. In popular accounts long after these events, the worst-case military casualty counts that would have been suffered on both sides had a land invasion become necessary were VASTLY inflated from the estimates given at the time. In the summer of 1945, the Joint Chiefs estimated their planned two-pronged land invasion of Japan would involve 25,000 to 46,000 casualties.
To this day, the U.S. remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war. This was a dangerous precedent.
LikeLike
And now we are getting more propaganda from a British director with Oppenheimer.
It’s no surprise that so many people are uninformed when they get their history from movies.
LikeLike
Propaganda by omission
LikeLike
Omits any question of the official narrative of the necessity of using the bomb and also omits the horrific realities about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
But it’s a good feel good story about a (supposedly) conflicted scientist who in reality defended the necessity of the use of the bomb until he died.
LikeLike
There actually were Los Alamos scientists who opposed the use of the bomb (Leo Szilard and others petitioned the president for a “demonstration” of its power to Japan ), but Oppenheimer was not among them. Oppenheimer actually helped select the targets.
And the reality is that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended to demonstrate our military power to the Soviet Union as much as (if not more than) to Japan.
LikeLike
I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better. I fully expected that by the time I was twenty-one, some scientist, maybe my brother, would have taken a color photograph of God Almighty—and sold it to Popular Mechanics magazine. Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable. What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima.
–Kurt Vonnegut
LikeLike
Rather and Kirschner note that “white supremacy is on the rise.” Here are some of the characteristics of white supremacy, so we can better identify and combat it.
Perfectionism
Sense of Urgency
Defensiveness
Quantity Over Quality
Worship of the Written Word
Only One Right Way
Paternalism
Either/Or Thinking
Power Hoarding
Fear of Open Conflict
Individualism
I’m the Only One
Progress is Bigger, More
Objectivity
Right to Comfort
LikeLike
FLERP,
I don’t agree with that list of 15 characteristics of white supremacy culture.
I would say number one is the belief that the white race in inherently superior to other races.
Number two would be treating nonwhite people with contempt and disrespect.
All the other things on my list would link to the narcissism of white supremacy.
I can’t see how “perfectionism” and “sense of urgency” and “worship of the written word,” for example, have any relation to white supremacy culture.
That is not a good list.
LikeLike
I agree. This list widely circulated and oft-used at DEI workshops, unfortunately.
LikeLike
It’s a stupid list.
LikeLike
I think we know what White Supremacy is without any list. But in looking the list over, think of each item as a chapter title. Without reading the chapter the list has no meaning.
Roy tried to expand on one item “Perfectionism”. He is correct in that description. I suspect he may be wrong in how mainstream that view has become in the Fundamentalist and mainline Protestant churches. With up to 80% of Fundamentalists voting for a philandering child rapist, criminal insurrectionist. Who typified the in your face attitude they crave in a leader. As he misquotes scripture and holds the Bible upside down he can do no wrong as long as he serves their cause.
Those opposed to the” Perfectionist” view expelled from the movement well over a decade ago. Expelled by the flock before the SBC went to Hell.
“Jesus and John Wayne ” Kristen Kobes du Mez.
So of course FlERP! would take the list and use it to attack DEI workshops as if the list was the end all. The items on the list are chapter titles in a workbook. Perhaps FLERP! might benefit from taking that DEI workshop. If he took the course he might understand that his constant complaints about DEI training, several other issues from BLM to Affirmative Action…and now this list place him squarely in Chapter #3.
So here is an example of our post Racial Society (smiley face)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-fisherman-repeatedly-confronted-white-neighbors-ask-s-rcna96310
I suspect FLERP! would say that is Georgia. Yes it is fishing in Georgia. But it is bird watching in Central park. It is the Election of George Santos and D’Esposito on Long Island,with some of the most segregated schools in the Nation. And the most segregated amongst them complaining the loudest about DEI and woke teaching.
LikeLike
Joel, who is Roy and what are you talking about?
LikeLike
It’s a stupid list.
Yes.
LikeLike
Diane: perfectionism is often identified as a particular form of Christianity. Perfectionists believe that, once accepting the basic tenets of the faith, the individual cannot do evil. Orthodoxy rejects this as problematic, suggesting that man constantly reverts to his humanness and sins. Perhaps this is the context of the use of this word.
LikeLike
This is the context:
https://publicallies.org/perfectionism-and-white-supremacy/
LikeLike
It just goes to show you. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Why anyone needs pubic allies is beyond me.
–Rosanne Rosannadana
LikeLike
And hey, don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. I fully accepted THE FAITH 20 seconds ago and haven’t committed any evil since. Mostly.
–Bob Shepherd, Omnitheist. If you’ve got a faith, I’ll believe in it.
LikeLike
Whenever flerp! posts a link to a slide he/she usually finds in a right wing twitter feed, I check the source.
Of course, the author herself posted “a cautionary plea here about weaponizing this list”. And flerp! did exactly that.
In this case, this list was written in 1999 and the author has already acknowledged flaws and has clarified many of these in ways that are perfectly reasonable to those who don’t have a right wing agenda..
Here is a recent interview with the author from The Intercept:
“RG: How have you seen perfectionism be misused and weaponized? And you’ll see the right-wing lampoon some of these and say deadlines, perfectionism, and urgency, are all white supremacy characteristics. So what do you mean, and what should people kind of take from this? And we could just start with perfectionism, which you say: “perfectionism, one right way, paternalism, objectivity.”
TO: Yeah. They are all kind of linked together. So I don’t think anybody uses one characteristic. The way it’s misused is that people turn it into a checklist to assess or target someone and say: Look, you’re exhibiting these characteristics. And that means you’re colluding with white supremacy culture, and you’re a bad person, you’re a terrible person. Or to accuse them of being a tool of white supremacy culture.
And generally what I find is that when people misuse it in that way, they haven’t actually read it, or they certainly haven’t read the website, because there’s no way you could read the website and come away feeling like it’s meant to be used as a checklist in that way.
So when I’m talking about perfectionism, I’m not talking about excellence and I’m not talking about hard work. And so many people — and certainly, a lot of white people that I know — really resonate with this idea that there is this place to land that is perfect. And so it just destroys our ability to enjoy the process of whatever it is that we’re doing. It makes it much more difficult to collaborate with other people. If we think there’s one way to do it, we have to find the perfect way to do it. It begs the question: Who’s deciding what perfect is? It’s nonsense.
RG: In your updated version, you contrast it with excellence, which, from what I’ve heard from people involved in organizations, I think that they’ll appreciate that because sometimes when you’re doing say, a performance review, and you say: Your performance was substandard in X, Y, Z ways.
They’ll say: Well, perfectionism is a characteristic of white supremacy, so you’re judging me now?
TO: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
RG: And so what you’re saying is no, no, excellence is still a thing.
TO: Yes.
RG: As long as we’re cautious about how we collectively define it. Is that about, right?
TO: I think that’s very right. And I think: I aspire to be excellent. And most of the people I’m fortunate enough to be around aspire to be excellent. And usually, we are having conversations about what that even means. And usually, we’re also having conversations about giving ourselves a lot of grace when we make mistakes, because making mistakes is the only way to even aspire to be excellent, or to do what we consider a good job, because we learn so much through our mistakes. And so I think that’s all of a piece.”
The posts flerp! makes really provide an ideal example here of where the embrace of “perfectionism” is damaging and wrong.
NONE of us are “perfect”. We all make mistakes, errors, get things wrong.
But some folks cannot ever admit to being wrong. They have internalized the white supremacist idea that acknowledging your aren’t perfect is a terrible thing because they VALUE PERFECTION. But “perfection” as defined by people who are rich, white and powerful.
When I think about the typical Republican, exemplified by Trump and those around him. They will NEVER admit to being wrong. They either double down on what they said and reject all evidence that contradicts it, or they simply embrace the Orwellian view that they can now say something that directly contradicts what they previously said, deny that they previously said the opposite, and then go on without ever acknowledging they were less than perfect.
MAKING MISTAKES IS THE WAY TO ASPIRE TO EXCELLENCE.
“Perfectionism” is NOT the way to aspire to excellence.
I think most people who haven’t embraced the perfectionist white supremacist view would agree with that. Donald Trump certainly would not. He is always perfect and the Republicans know they may not criticize Trump, because presenting Trump as less than perfect is not allowed.
I respect Diane Rather and many others here because they don’t value “perfectionism”, they value honesty. They readily admit to errors, and correct them. They don’t deny them or change the subject because they are unwilling to have a conversation that is critical of the folks who tell untruths.
The author also raises an excellent point — who defines what “PERFECT” means?
Trump had a “perfect” phone call with Zelensky. Case closed.
Does being “perfect” mean that a worker pleases the CEO? Works long hours with no break, few vacations, never questioning an order?
From the author’s website. One doesn’t have to agree with everything the author writes to see that she raises topics that are worth discussing:
“I think these characteristics are characteristics of what I would call middle class, upper-middle class, wealthy class whiteness. And again, not people; whiteness. And because I’ve been in relationship with many more white people who are poor or working class, who have pointed out to me that many of these characteristics don’t really apply to them, or don’t apply their lived experience, I’ve come to understand that white supremacy — and this is a very nuanced idea, so I hope it’s alright to share it — but white supremacy targets white people in some of the same ways that it targets people of color. Not in the same ways, but in order to assimilate into the kind of whiteness that I’m describing in this document, working-class people have to learn to change their language, to learn to assimilate into whiteness in a way that forces them to leave who they are behind, pieces of who they are behind. And I think that’s what whiteness does. And so it certainly does it to people of color. And it also does it to working and poor people.”
DEI programs are not yet perfect. They are flawed, and this author acknowledges the flaws in her own expression of ideas from 20 years ago. White Supremacy culture that presents “perfection” as a virtue means that anything that isn’t perfect from the get go should be demonized.
It is the view that if something isn’t perfect, IT HAS NO VALUE. That is the way that all progressive ideas are discredited. That is the way that the white supremacy culture gets some progressives to discredit moderate policies that aren’t perfect.
While the right never admits that any of their ideas are less than perfect.
It would be a good thing if more of us acknowledge that imperfection is the reality, and striving for an unattainable “perfection” is the way that white supremacy culture gets the public to believe that if a progressive policy is less than perfect, it has no value.
And they often get all of us to use that framing. Is Biden perfect or not? Let’s debate that. Flaws means Biden must be rejected for some mythical “perfect” candidate who will then be discredited for not being perfect. That unattainable goal of “perfection” that we must always value.
Valuing “perfection” is good for white supremacy. Their politicians have no problem acknowledging their candidates are absolutely perfect. While those on who aren’t on the right are given only two choices:
Lie and say that the candidate who is progressive is perfect.
Acknowledge imperfections and then be forced to defend why such a “flawed” candidate with all those problems should ever be the nominee when the Democrats should instead get that mythical PERFECT candidate who can win the election.
Anyone ever hear Republicans acknowledge that their candidates are less than perfect? It is very rare, and when they do, they are often drummed out of the party.
LikeLike