Talk:Hispanic Americans in World War II/Archive 1

Hispanics in World War II pass GA
Congratulations, This article is now a Good Article. Any questions to my talk page. -- ( Cocoaguy ????? contribstalk) 02:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors or Fallacy in this Article
This article continues the fallacy of "Puerto Ricans and Hispanics residing in Puerto Rico were assigned to the 65th Infantry Regiment or to the Puerto Rico National Guard." [I apologize if fallacy is too strong a word, please let me know.]

The 65th Infantry Regiment was the best-known Puerto Rican regiment during World War II, as it was ready before World War II started, fought in World War I, World War II, and in Korea. However it was not the only all-Puerto Rican unit. In Panama at least 12 battalions of drafted Puerto Ricans served, being trained while in tactical antiaircraft artillery positions. They could have been attacked at any time! Ignoring these battalions means you are wrongly attaching about 8,400 Puerto Ricans to a different unit, thus dishonoring them of their service.

The sources include two histories written by the United States Army, available from the National Archives and Records Administration, and Unit History Cards available from the US Army History Center, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

Since I was not sure how to post changes or contributions, I wrote an extensive page under my user page. If you want to see more information, please see that page. Or let me know if I should post suggested changes here.

I just did not want to post nilly-willy here, as this is a featured article.

Take care,

Luis Ramos

Flyer333555 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look into this and take it up with Luis. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken care of! Luis was right, increased induction of Puerto Ricans from the island into the armed forces, permitted that units which were made of "mainland" soldiers in Panama and the British Islands be replaced by Puerto Ricans from the island. This was done with the intention of sending the mainland soldiers to fight overseas. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

European Theatre
"Hispanic Americans in World War II fought in every major battle in the European Theatre" Really? Did they fight in Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.5.199 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence continues, "...in which the armed forces of the United States were involved". The US wasn't involved in the three battles you list (which were all Germany vs. Soviet Union), so obviously Hispanic Americans did not fight in them. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's changed now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.5.199 (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Guarding "the" Atomic bomb?
How could Bernacett have guarded "the" atomic bomb when there were three made and two were dropped on Japan? Which one did he guard? --Arnos78 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?
Is there something special about Hispanic American involvement in WW2 that requires a separate article? I hope that doesn't sound bad, I don't mean it to be. It's just that in my country, Spanish people are just another people in Europe, like French, Italian or Finnish. Maybe it's an American thing? -OOPSIE- (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't sound bad and I can understand because in the country where my parents come from people are not divided by ethnicity like they are in the United States, therefore it is as you said in your country, Spanish people are just another people in Europe. Unfortunately, in the Unites States, citizens are divided by ethnicity and are often negatively stereotyped. If you read about the discrimination that went on in the United States prior 1960s you will realize that the contributions which Americans who belonged to minority groups made never mentioned and were often omitted from the history books. That is why articles such as this one are important to the understanding of the scarifies which so many groups have made to the United States and the world in general. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I think you're missing the point: for the most part it doesn't seem like these soldiers were exceptional; they're just Latino. Aside from the section on discrimination and a few cultural issues, this article mostly seems like a way for Latinos to show that they served in the War just as much as every other racial group did, and it seems kind of like overkill. Brutannica (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question Brutannica and Oopsie, but there's a reasonable answer too. One reason is that the way the war was presented at the time (1941-45) made it look as though everyone looked like me -- white, Anglo-Saxon and male. Look at newspaper photos, or posters for recruiting or war bonds for example. If African-Americans or women (for example) appear at all, it is because the poster was directed at that community specifically (women on posters recruiting nurses for example). Another reason is that some (certainly not all) Hispanic Americans had experiences that were significantly different because of their Hispanic heritage -- for example serving in predominantly Hispanic units. Another example of this would be the experience of Hispanic women, where Latin American culture was less supportive of women working outside the home than the prevailing Anglo-American culture. The fact that they were Hispanic made a difference in a way that being German-American, or Italian-American, would normally not have made. All these argue in favor of looking at their experience collectively -- not at the expense of articles on individuals, units, or battles, but in addition to it. Hope that helps (and makes sense!) Darkstar8799 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I understand. It is true that the article shows that Hispanic Americans served in the war and in some cases as commanders, however as I stated before it is only fair that the positive contributions of a group that has in the past and in the present been negatively stereotyped be told. I guess that it comes down to this: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. By the way, Brutannica, everything aside, I noticed that you have been around Wikipedia as long as I have, we must be crazy (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
Does the phrase "Hispanic Americans" need specific explanation in this page rather than a reference link to Hispanic Americans? 8472 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. The terminology section was apporved by those who oversaw the "FAC" of the article because there are many people who do not know the difference between the terms "Latin" or "Latino" (which includes the people of Brazil, Surinam and etc.) and "Hispanic" and the definition is short and concise. The article which you mention "Hispanic Americans" redirects to Hispanic and Latino Americans is long and confusing to such a point that it has been the subject of many edit wars. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)