Talk:Rhineland bastard

Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
One cannot talk about "the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute", since there were many institutes, each called "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute" for such-and-such a branch of science. (Today they are called "Max Planck Institutes".)

Sebastjan

The N-Word
Der Begriff Neger bezeichnet Menschen mit dunkler Hautfarbe und bestimmten anderen phänotypischen Merkmalen und wird heute meist abwertend verwendet. Er gilt als rassistisch[1] konnotiert[2].

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neger

Translation: The term Neger describes humans of dark skin color and certain other phenotypic traits and is today mostly used in a disparaging way. It is considered racist.

The word "Neger" once was a neutral term, just like the English one, but is no longer. Negro always was a neutral term and still is, and was used by people who surely did not hate blacks (MLK, for example). I am just trying to transmit the message that the term is more insulting than the article portrays it to be. 80.128.236.141 00:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was once a neutral term. Nigger was never a neutral term. It was always slang. Neger links to Negro in interwiki, not to Nigger. There are also other usages of the word Neger with this etymology. It was even a surname . There is no reason to believe that the use of the term Neger in the early 20th century was intentionally derogatory. Your translation is a distortion. Paul B 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In Mark Twain's time, "nigger" was neutral.  Randall Bart    Talk   21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't always an insult, true. But it was always slang. Paul B 21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hans Massaquoi
I have deleted the follow comment and replaced it with more accurate and sourced material: "Hans Massaquoi, a German-Liberian from Hamburg, asserted in his autobiography that mixed raced Rhinelanders were rounded up and exterminated in Nazi death camps." The statement is not inaccurate in itself. Massaquoi does say this on p.2 of his book, but the information is simply false, and he even acknowledges that it is something he "learned" long after the war. His own experience as recorded in the book itself clearly contradicts the claim that black people were targeted in that way. Paul B 11:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed?
A disputed tag was added with the bizarre comment "yeah, it was Jews too. need citations for facts". What was "Jews too"? I have removed the tag on the grounds that it is nonsensical. There is no dispute at all about what the term Rhineland Bastard referred to. Paul B 10:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The term refers to the offspring of German women who were raped and consequently impregnated by the French black rape squadrons. The products of this shameful raping are called "Rhineland Bastards" because as rape products, they have no fathers. I don't know why the article doesn't clearly state this. I guess you are victims of post-war propaganda. Oh well, this is only wikipedia anyway. Far from reputable, unlike Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.119.235 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've no doubt that Britannica refers to "black rape squadrons" in its articles. Please be serious. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On a similar point, I've removed the note about a "dispute" over whether the "Rhineland Bastards" and the "Shame on the Rhine" was "racist" or just "nationalist," whatever that means. There is absolutely no doubt in the scholarly literature that race was at the very heart of the virulently racist publicity campaigns trying to build international and domestic opposition to the Entente occupation. While the general dismay over the occupation as a whole could be described as "nationalist," the demonization of black troops was entirely about race and visions of a colonial empire that had been taken away from Germans. When Germans talked about the children of relationships between black soldiers and German women ("black rape squadrons"? honestly...), those discussions were focused entirely around questions of race. On this there is absolutely no dispute. Trouser34 (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article states that there were about 800 (max) blacks living in Germany under Nazi rule, yet the 'Deutsche Welle' Internet page which is linked to at the bottom of the article tells me that there were about 20.000 to 25.000 blacks (including 'mixed') living in the Germany of that time. This difference is too big to be just a mistake, one of the two has got to be clearly wrong. Anyone more knowledgeable then me on this subject care to explain? 31.151.99.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC).
 * I think you are correct in your observation. The figures 500 to 800 should refer to 'the Rhineland children' only, and not the population in total. See Other Germans: black Germans and the politics of race, gender, and memory in the Third Reich. Will change accordingly, (unless someone shows I'm mistaken). RashersTierney (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. RashersTierney (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture
May be we can create a subsection called in popular culture and add Esi Edugyan Giller prize winning novel about these people ?Kanatonian (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just, to clarify: you are referring to the Giller Prize winning novel Half-Blood Blues? Paul B (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Irrational and nonsensical statement
This statement "The fact that it was carried out by what were viewed as "B-grade" troops (a notion that itself was drawn from colonial and racial stereotypes) increased the feelings of humiliation", is clearly irrational as well as unfounded in any rational argument.

The fallacy of the statement is compunded by the fact that the "source" seems to be a semi-academic and pseudoscientific paper made by Julia Roos, whose scientific credentials I cast into very serious doubt if indeed she has any at all.

The fact of the matter is that this statement is driven by what I must assume is a purely feminist and/or political correct agenda, and not by any rational or factoriented analysis of the situation. That such a gross generalization is used just adds to the authors lack of credibility. And Ipso facto to the lack of credibility of the article in general.

Another fact is that the term B-Grade troops has a specific meaning, which has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender. At all.

Instead it refers to the Division-sized grouping of military troops which was prevalent at the time. In this system the military commands operates with A, B and C Grade divisions and units as an expression of their combat readiness and general striking power. Comparable to this is the soviet system of category 1-3:

Category 1 meant that a division was fully operational in terms of men and equipment and ready to fight without a delay. Category 2 meant that a division was fully equipped but had about 75% of its required manpower but could become fully operational within a week. Category 3 divisions had the necessary equipment but were made primarily up of reserves and would take time to bring to full strength.

Hence the term in this context refers to the fact that the unit is a RESERVE unit and thus NOT what the author in her lack of knowledge claims. In other words then her lack of knowledge does not excuse her lack of research. Or for that matter her lack of non-circular or fraudulent pseudo-arguments.

Also and equally badly documented, the nthe following statement seems without any sources at all "The occupation itself had been regarded as a national disgrace by Germans across the political spectrum, and there was a widespread tendency to consider all forms of collaboration and fraternization with the occupiers as moral (if not legal) treason.".

With a statement as bold as that, then that is simply unaccpetable.

Thus I move for an immediate change, or I will affect a change myself shortly. Nick-bang (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure what you are getting at with this. The second statement you object to seems entirely uncontroversial. As for the first, there may well be a technical meaning of B-grade that the source hasn't quite grasped, but I don't think that makes her "pseudo-scientific". Paul B (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I second that the statement concerning the occupation being "regarded as a national disgrace" is uncontroversial (note that the statement does not refer to occupation by troops of a particular color or race, just occupation in and of itself.) Even in today's day and age, if YOUR country was occupied by foreign troops, what would be the feeling across the spectrum?  Look at how the Iraqis felt about the American occupation; politically, it was almost universally despised, hence the withdrawal.  I doubt there would be anyone saying, "OK, cool by me, stay as long as you like" if a foreign army was controlling your day-to-day life, violating sovereignty, etc. Regarding "collaboration and fraternization with the occupiers", look at the U.S. Patriot Act, and the hefty penalties it carries for "collaboration" with people on certain government "lists".  Please remove the "need quotation" tag. MarkGT (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not have access to the cited article, but perhaps the author meant something like "second-rate" when she said "B-Grade?" Provided that  someone with access to the cited source is able to verify it, I think it would be appropriate to change the Wikipedia quote to a paraphrase, avoiding confusion re: the specialized meaning of "B-Grade troops" that Nick-bang has identified. Neweaver (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that both the author and the journal are reliable sources and thus that the "unreliable source?" and "dubious" tags should be removed. Julia Roos is an associate professor in the Department of History at Indiana University Bloomington; she specializes in 20th century German history. You can see her faculty bio page here. Similarly, Central European History is "a peer-reviewed academic journal on history published quarterly by Cambridge University Press," per the journal's Wikipedia page. According to the third paragraph of WP:SOURCES, "[w]here available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science" (emphasis added). Granted, Julia Roos also specializes in gender and sexuality, per her faculty bio, which would suggest that she writes from a feminist perspective. Nevertheless, if Nick-bang is concerned that the statement in the article is "driven by what [he] must assume is a purely feminist and/or politically correct agenda, and not by any rational or fact oriented analysis of the situation," I think that the best remedy is for Nick-bang to research, add, and cite additional material from other reliable sources. Neweaver (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nick-bang has had plenty of time to defend his dogmatic assertions above, or to provide support for them. He has not done so, so it is time to remove his tags. Frankly, it's difficult to understand what this mysterious "feminist agenda" casn possibly be, since the sentence only refers to race. Paul B (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Title
Is it "Rhineland Bastard" or "Rhineland bastard"? NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Other African-Germans were unaffected"
> Other African-Germans were unaffected. Hans Massaquoi describes his experience as a half-African in Hamburg, unaware of the Rhineland sterilizations until long after the war. Massaquoi, Hans J., Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany, Harper Perennial, 2001. He mistakenly states that they were later murdered in the Holocaust, p.2

This is pseudo-sourced original research; "Massaquoi in his memoir mentions he was unaware of the Rhineland sterilizations" does not support the claim "other African-Germans were unaffected." It also appears to be false. Richard J Evans notes that "Rhineland bastard" was more of an ideological term meant to explain miscegenation as the result of French-African rapists than an actual description of the people affected, most of whom were children of German colonists in Africa. He goes into detail about an example victim who was not an actual "Rhineland bastard." TiC (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)