Scan barcode
A review by iffer
Courage Has No Color: The True Story of the Triple Nickles: America's First Black Paratroopers by Tanya Lee Stone
3.0
I enjoyed Courage Has No Color very much, and I think that it's definitely a good read for younger readers. Courage Has No Color is easily-understandable and engaging, with photographs (many which hadn't been seen for decades since information about the contributions of black servicemen during WWII was oftentimes ignored, or even suppressed) on nearly every spread. The book is very informative not only about the Triple Nickles, the first and only all-black paratroopers during WWII, but also touches upon many other facets of WWII about which young readers, depending on their education, may or may not have heard: Japanese relocation camps, Japanese balloon bombs, the vital role of black troops on D-Day and the in the Battle of the Bulge, and the GI bill. I also like the fact that the author explored the idea that blacks were willing to fight in WWII, for freedom and justice, despite the fact that they were treated as second class citizens.
However, I feel that I need to include the caveat that Courage Has No Color made me feel a little uneasy for a couple of reasons.
1) As the title would imply, it's a common thread throughout the book that the ideal is a "colorless" society. While this sounds good, at least in the sense that people should be judged by their character and abilities rather than their race, and it might just sound like me being a ridiculous over-educated liberal, but the idea of a "colorblind" society has always bothered me, because it's not only impossible, but it also ignores and/or devalues the positive contributions of race and culture. For instance, one of the reasons that I think that the Triple Nickles, and the other black military contingents described in the book, were "the best" (many interviewed for the book said this) is at least partially *because* they were black. They had a strong motivation to succeed, to prove to themselves, and everyone else,that blacks were capable and willing to serve their country honorably (even though they shouldn't have had to). (I suppose that the same people who are bothered by the "melting pot" versus "salad bowl" metaphors for American multiculturalism might feel the same as I did.)
2) Although I understand the historical and cultural reasons that blacks in the armed services during WWII were incensed at being largely confined to service jobs (cooking, cleaning, maintenance), I felt like the book overly stressed the "honor" of armed combat. While this is obviously how many people felt from their quotes, I feel that, overall, the tone of the book was too optimistic about the heroism of war, and winning "glory" in battle.
3) While I agree that it's a civil rights victory that the US armed services are now fully integrated, and that the GI bill provides many with the opportunity of education regardless of race, once again, I thought that the book may have had an overly optimistic tone, especially in light of the fact that now, people of color and those of lower socioeconomic status tend to be overrepresented in the military for complex reasons, and not always for the better.
However, I feel that I need to include the caveat that Courage Has No Color made me feel a little uneasy for a couple of reasons.
1) As the title would imply, it's a common thread throughout the book that the ideal is a "colorless" society. While this sounds good, at least in the sense that people should be judged by their character and abilities rather than their race, and it might just sound like me being a ridiculous over-educated liberal, but the idea of a "colorblind" society has always bothered me, because it's not only impossible, but it also ignores and/or devalues the positive contributions of race and culture. For instance, one of the reasons that I think that the Triple Nickles, and the other black military contingents described in the book, were "the best" (many interviewed for the book said this) is at least partially *because* they were black. They had a strong motivation to succeed, to prove to themselves, and everyone else,that blacks were capable and willing to serve their country honorably (even though they shouldn't have had to). (I suppose that the same people who are bothered by the "melting pot" versus "salad bowl" metaphors for American multiculturalism might feel the same as I did.)
2) Although I understand the historical and cultural reasons that blacks in the armed services during WWII were incensed at being largely confined to service jobs (cooking, cleaning, maintenance), I felt like the book overly stressed the "honor" of armed combat. While this is obviously how many people felt from their quotes, I feel that, overall, the tone of the book was too optimistic about the heroism of war, and winning "glory" in battle.
3) While I agree that it's a civil rights victory that the US armed services are now fully integrated, and that the GI bill provides many with the opportunity of education regardless of race, once again, I thought that the book may have had an overly optimistic tone, especially in light of the fact that now, people of color and those of lower socioeconomic status tend to be overrepresented in the military for complex reasons, and not always for the better.