This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pndeleo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Removed sentence saying that Australian troops only being used in mop-up operations in Pacific . Quite incorrect .
I've lived in Brisbane for 8 years and never heard about it. I didn't even know there were American troops here in 1942. It's on Google Earth, but the description is replaced with a link to this article. Aleksei 08:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
talk:Stuntaneous|talk]]) 21:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The Saying Oversexed, Overpaid and Over here orginated in Britain. The British men started saying it and the Americans responded by saying The British were Underpaid, Undersexed and Under Eisenhower. It did not orginate in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.178.162 ( talk) 07:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
"...American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River". I don't buy that for a second. Guys, please don't paste passages from some site into this article just because it sounds provocative.
I'm assuming "Pte." is Private, which is abbreviated "Pvt." in the US. dafydd 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BB, I've removed what I believed to be spam from the infobox on this article. "(Unable to do much.)" was written after "Queensland Police" in the belligerents section.
If anyone has reason for that to be put back (I'm really not sure), then go ahead, but try to source it…I guess. -- Sauronjim ( talk) 13:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The section named "Differing views on race" is made up, and nothing in it is supported by ANY of the sources given.
The paragraph starts:
To a lesser degree there was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military.[8]
The source given is: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/battle-brisbane.htm.
Nowhere in this source is it said there is tension between the Australian troops and American troops over race, or segregation. It says:
The other, and the major problem, was the rapidly developing gulf between the US and Australian forces. The Yanks had smart, tailored uniforms, were well paid and accordingly drew the bulk of female attention and they were mostly extremely well mannered and pleasant. In the eyes of the hostile Aussies running second on their own turf the Yanks were "overpaid, oversexed and over here". Apart from the competition for the girls there was further friction caused by the lack of amenities for the Australians in the city. Australian units had wet canteens in their unit lines. The US Forces had well appointed clubs (P.X's') offering merchandise, food, drinks and cigarettes at very low prices. The Aussies were not allowed into those clubs.
It also says:
The town of Ipswich was out of bounds to blacks and in Brisbane they were confined to the south side of the Brisbane River. Accordingly they had a sense of being unjustly treated and provided much exercise for the gun toting baton wielding Yank MPs.
This says that black American soldiers felt unjustly treated, it has nothing to do with Australian soldiers or how they felt. The source eventually writes:
The bad feeling between the two forces came to a head in November 1942 a couple of weeks after we left Brisbane. Up to that time brawls between the two forces were frequent. According to one authority up to 20 occurring each night. The tension culminated in the famous "Battle of Brisbane". This started through the typical Digger concern for the underdog. The long smouldering animosity between the two forces ignited when a couple of Diggers saw an American M.P. bashing a drunken US soldier with his baton. In the US Army batons are used to control riots. In the Australian Army their use would provoke a riot. The Aussies went to the aid of the US soldier.
Race is not mentioned here at all as a factor.
I have removed this section, but a vandal has repeatedly put it back, and labelled my edits (fraudulently, and against the rules of Wikipedia) as "vandalism", a very dishonest thing to do. I will leave this section up here, if someone can quote a section from the source which backs up anything in the relevant section, I will leave it. If not, I will permanently remove the section, and the user will be reported.
110.175.159.167 ( talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Update (22/02/2016): It has been more than a month and there has been no objections to my proposal. I will now remove the section entitled "Differing views on race". Parts of the section do have a source, however they are not relevant to whether there were "differing views on race", and should thus be elsewhere in the document if they are still desired. I am not prepared to move them into the correct part of the document, someone else may do this. I will now remove the infringing section.
110.175.159.167 ( talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans...In other words the treatment of Aborigines by Aussies was no better than African-Americans and Native Americans by White Americans. This directly contradicts what is written in the latter portion and sourced to a third source which says nothing about "Aboriginies" in even a single instance, it doesn't talk about pay or meritocracy, it doesn't say anything about Aussies welcoming African-Americans, it does however detail that Americans were resentful of African Americans interacting with white girls and the Wacol race riot. So, parts of the material are completely falsely sourced. I will be removing those portions. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about, and I don't care. Stop it. Do not re-add controversial material w/o talk page consensus. Once that consensus is established it needs to be respected. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Trouble persisted, however, with a major race riot at Wacol, knife-fights in South Brisbane and individual black troops assaulted or killed by American MPs simply for crossing the Brisbane River to the north-side. One soldier was shot ‘just near the flame at Anzac Squareand now the section that you removed;
However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. The bigger issue is the lack of paraphrasing, and therefore copyright. I'll be re-instating the section once I am able to clear up any remaining mess. Due to the possibility of copyright infringement and lack of attribution, the IP is correct in removing the section, but, I disagree with the reason. Mr rnddude ( talk) 10:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
110.175.158.36 ( talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans.... Please take the time to read what other have written without giving pointy borderline PA responses. I am free to edit any article that I choose to do so without your claims of wrongdoing. You are free to challenge my edits if you have reason to do so, and I will challenge back if I have a reason to do so. That is what this talk page exists for. Mr rnddude ( talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolve this dispute here. The article has been locked for 48 hours. That should be enough time to sort this out. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Even now, the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion, where another user contributes references to the source material, and the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus by saying "Look, he agrees with me", when he clearly doesn't.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude & Wayne I'm sorry to drag you back into this mess again but it has been asserted by Senor Freebie that the most recent edit is supported by talk page consensus. I'm not seeing it but it is always possible I could be mistaken. Please have a look and let me know. 110.175.158.36 clearly dissents but consensus does not require unanimity. If everyone else is on board we can move forward. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
[I]f you can find those sources and put them in the article along with the material that is absolutely fine. In other words, I'll support only that which can be verifiably attested to by an appropriate source. So far;
... though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on meritstill requires attribution, Baker's work makes no mention of either the segragation of Australian forces (or lack thereof) nor of promotions based on merit.
This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different- and also this needs to be rephrased as Evans and Donegan do not suggest that the Wacol riots had any impact on the subsequent fighting between Australian soldiers and American MP's. It also wasn't "culture" difference between the two that led to fighting in Brisbane. To be far more accurate, the combat between the Aussie soldiers and Yankee MP's was entirely due to the abuse the Aussies endured from U.S. MP's and American servicemen on their own soil. Stabbings, shootings, and batonings abound and the two groups came to significant blows during an argument between a drunk Yank and five Aussies (Evans and Donegan) or alternatively a drunk GI and US MPs (Baker, p 35). U.S. MP's used force to get what they wanted eventually batoning one of the Australians. The result was that other Australians drinking in the canteen burst out onto the streets attacked the MPs and forced them to flee back to their PX, whereupon the combat escalated further resulting in one dead Aussie soldier and many wounded on both sides. The rest of that paragraph is already cited appropriately enough. Mr rnddude ( talk) 05:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on meritthat specifically supports that statement (since rnddude has said that the current source has failed verification); b) phrasing of the final sentence needs to be changed to remove WP:SYNTHESIS and be more accurate in meaning (per above comment by rnddude); c) the remainder of the paragraph is fine, except the first sentence and source, which still needs to be discussed. Alcherin ( talk) 23:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As some comments on the material here (made in response to a request for outside eyes at WT:MILHIST)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok. I'm done with the endless edit warring and personal attacks. I am now handing out blocks. Further edit warring will be dealt with severely. I have removed the section on race from the article and IT IS NOT TO BE RE-ADDED WITHOUT TALK PAGE CONSENSUS ON ITS EXACT WORDING. If there is any doubt on what I am referring to, ask before editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have read the material that has been removed. I believe that I have read similar in sources some time ago when I was researching another article but can't say I could definitely lay my hands on it again. The official policies on indigenous Australians at the time has been described as paternalistic (though misguided) and tended to marginalise the indigenous population. While far from perfect I also believe it is significantly different from the US - or particularly the southern states. Re merit in the armed forces of Australia, I believe that there are likely sources in Reg Saunders that might help. The AWM article [1] does identify race relations as an issue of significance. See also [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I hope this is of some help. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pasting this here so I can check the accuracy of the information on behalf of WP:MILHIST. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk)
| There was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military. [1] [2] In civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on merit. [3] [4] [5] Due to white American resentment towards African-American access to dance halls and for associating with "white girls on the streets of Brisbane", troops of the U.S. 208th Coast Artillery rioted for 10 nights in March 1942, fighting against African-Americans from the 394th Quartermaster Battalion. As a result, U.S. military authorities segregated African-Americans, restricting them to the south side of the Brisbane River. However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different. [6] Racial issues and segregation also played a substantial role in conflict between locals and Americans in both New Zealand the Britain. [7] [8]
UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
References
baker2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).PandC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
I found the source for a large segment of the disputed material;
A large part of this comes from
the Department of Veteran's Affairs; Indigenous servicemen in regular the militia, AIF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal Australian Navy (RAN) received equal pay (almost unheard-of in civilian jobs), could expect promotion on merit, and forged friendships with white men
. I pinged Nick-D on Senor Freebie's user talk page before realizing that it had been revoked. I have moved it here.
Nick-D (sorry for the additional ping, just noting I've moved this here instead) and every other potentially interested party;
Ad Orientem,
UNSC Luke 1021,
Cinderella157, Senor Freebie (not pinged due block) and
110.175.158.36 (who won't receive the ping due to being an anonymouse editor, but, pinged anyway). What do you think of the source specifically. Reliable or unreliable? trustworthy or untrustworthy? I tend to limit myself to using scholarly work only with the only exception being "in the news" events for which news sites are the most useful sources. The other sources I found contradict the above quite explicity. Please refer to my long post on Senor Freebie's page for examples and references located
here. Skip to the third paragraph, paras 1 and 2 are me responding to Senor Freebie. The main example here is
Defending Whose Country?: Indigenous Soldiers in the Pacific War by Noah Riseman pg13; the Aboriginal workforce received less pay than soldiers ... in fact army officials discouraged paying equal wages ... because they did not consider Aboriginal people as equals
. Note; this is pre-Aboriginal enlistment and refers to Aboriginal workforce and Australian soldiers doing similar work for different pay. At this time, Aboriginals were not soldiers but workmen/labourers. The question is, did this change when they formally became soldiery at the end of 1941? I haven't been able to find a source suggesting it had other than the .gov one above.
The other part of this dispute is over segregation which I have to say is disputed. Riseman doesn't say anything conclusive about it on page 12 of the same book; By 1940 as the demand for Aboriginal labor increased, the Department of Native Affairs was espousing policies of assimilation. Nonetheless there were calls to segregate the two races in the military
. There were calls both for and against segregation.
Fighters from the Fringe which has been mentioned somewhere above does indeed explicitly state that segregation did exist in the Australian armed forces. Refer to pages 32-33 of the book which discusses Torres Strait Islander; The creation of these segregated Islander units may have been seen as overcoming ... the problem of mixing white and black troops in barracks and permitting black NCOs to have authority over white soldiers
. The other important thing on page 33 that is being said is this; Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders serving in the units of the Torres Strait Force received about one third the pay of white Australian soldiers
.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 12:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
While race was not a direct causative factor in this instance, it has been cited as a cause of tension between Australians and Americans and as a contributing factor. [1] This tension arose from the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military. Racial issues and segregation also played a substantial role in conflict between locals and Americans in both New Zealand the Britain. [2] [3] While Baker reports that in civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, [4] Hall reports that institutional discrimination was "paternalistic", varying significantly from state-to-state. [5] Despite official policy ostensibly barring the enlistment of indigenous Australians, in practice, a more flexible approach was adopted that saw many indigenous Australians enlist. [6] Segregation was not practiced in the main and Indigenous Australians received equal pay, were promoted on merit [7] and were generally accepted and treated as equals. [8] [note 1]
Troops of the U.S. 208th Coast Artillery rioted for 10 nights in March 1942, fighting against African-Americans from the 394th Quartermaster Battalion. This was attributed to white American resentment towards African-American access to dance halls and for associating with "white girls on the streets of Brisbane". As a result, U.S. military authorities segregated African-Americans, restricting them to the south side of the Brisbane River. However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different. [10]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
baker2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).PandC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Suggest amendment as above. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This has been here for a bit. What are we going to do with it? Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If Hall is the second of the books, I have already provided a link to a gov site that has the first chapter in full plus google books. There is no qualification on the number of RSs that are required nor that they be available online - and only one out of nine inline citations isn't available online. What is it in what I have proposed is contentious in any way? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw this recently and think it sheds a bit more light on the concept there was some sort of huge gulf between Americans and Australians at the time regarding race that contributed to the Battle of Brisbane.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002193479502500304
It mentions that the first American ships that tried to bring Black GIs to Australia were refused entry, before eventually being allowed after US pressure. The original passage that claimed how much better Aboriginals were treated in Australia compared to black people in the US seems to fly in the face of the evidence. One passage from the paper I've linked reads: "A report made by the Office of Strategic Services in 1943 stated that the Aborgines "have no status in Australian Society and their existence is scarcely recognised".
"Because the Americans intended deploying Black troops to the Pacific theater of operations, measures were devised whereby they would be both fully used for the war effort while, at the same time, being contained in line with internal Australian practices".
The paper is relatively brief but it is well worth a read because it comprehensively stomps this fictional narrative of their being a great gulf between the Australians and Americans regarding race during the war and it somehow contributing to the Battle of Brisbane.
110.175.158.36 ( talk) 13:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Australia did have a "white Australia" policy and this was an issue wrt accepting entry of African-American servicemen and this was set aside for the duration. See Hall, Fighters From The Fringe, p 52.
Although Aboriginal and Islander military service and the suspicions that were sometimes levelled against the Aboriginal community were important factors affecting black–white relations during the Second World War, another important factor was the arrival in Australia of black Americans. Following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Malaya, the United States saw Australia as a convenient base from which to mount a counter-offensive. But the Australian government was resistant to the idea that black Americans should be included among the US troops sent to the Australian base. Such an idea was contrary to the White Australia Policy, the legislative instrument the government hoped would preserve Australia as a bastion of the white race in Asia. Nevertheless, with a major portion of its defence forces already tied up in the defence of British interests in Europe and north Africa, and with the Japanese pressing in Malaya, Australia had little option but to fall in behind American wishes and allow the entry of black troops.
There is no denying institutional discrimination against indigenous Australians nor the extent of this in some cases. There is however, a different social context giving rise to this. Hall deals with this at length, including the variation from state-to-state. [9] It is interesting that Saunders and Taylor, in quoting the OSS report, quote a work by one of the co-authors and not the original source.
It is interesting that Saunders and Taylor justify African-Americans carrying knives in consequence of them not being officially armed. I suggest that off-duty servicemen would not have been armed in a non-combat area and this is something of a red herring.
Military forces were 'dispersed' around Brisbane, including Camp Cable, well to Brisbane's south, occupied by US forces, and Redbank Plains, used by Australian forces. Other sources appearing above refer to racial tension leading to rioting within the US forces and a particular incident leading to African-Americans being excluded from the city and relegated to South Brisbane (across the river). This appears to have been a response by US command. While this may have appeased civilian authorities, to attribute it largely to racial motives of the civilian authorities ignores both the source of the segregation and the significant issues of public order and safety. The authors refer to "Black servicemen" being "mostly confined to the dilapidated south and east banks of the river". I would question whether this accurately represents the situation at the time or whether this is a perception of these localities in more modern times. Red Hill and Darra are both described as working-class, as if they are 'unsuitable' and I would think that Darra, at the time, was quite rural.
"'Southerners in the U.S. Army in Australia were a major consideration'; in framing both policy directives and establishing segregated facilities for Black troops". The authors refer to many instances of inter-racial tension, segregation and conflict that were intrinsic to the US forces and seek to make them extrinsic, to Australian society by transference, insinuation and implication - brushing over details, using 'white' to imply white Australia when this more often refers to 'white' US forces. This is not to deny that racism and discrimination existed in Australia at the time in question (or even now), both institutionally and in the broader community.
Hall (Fighters From the Fringe pp. 52-53) reports: "Some black Americans complained that they were rarely invited into the company of whites, though many also claimed that their treatment in Australia was better than they had experienced at home, though few would have gone so far as to say that no racism existed in Australia."
Saunders and Taylor report: "In the ensuing fight, the local civilian police acted with such restraint and adroitness that two policemen were recommended for the King’s medal for bravery."
While the authors do report such matters, they tend to gloss over them - such as the positive association between Australian soldiers and African-American soldiers - focusing only on the "official response".
Saunders and Taylor report: "Hurley believed that he was; shot by a white man who caught him in bed with his wife." This is a tenuous argument since it does not reasonably establish whether the white man concerned would only shoot 'Blacks' that he caught in bed with his wife and was therefore racially motivated.
Because of segregation in US forces, African-Americans were largely employed in service and construction units. While it may have appeased the Federal Government, it is hardly surprising that these were required for duty in regional and remote Australia. Another red herring.
It is difficult to view this as a well reasoned article based on a sustainable, coherent assessment.
See also: Darian-Smith, Kate, The Home Front and the Amerixcan Presence in 1942,(pp. 70-88) in Dean, Peter, ed. (2013). Australia 1942: In the Shadow of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03227-9. LCCN 2012464720
Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I am much more concerned about this section as much of what it is saying is temporally inaccurate - Buna, Gona and Sanananda were only just being fought and there was what effectively amounts to conscription. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems like all the people who held the view that the differences on race section contained unsourced material have now gone silent, now that each point has 2-4 sources backing it up. While there have been effectively no retractions or admissions of this, the lack of further arguments seems to indicate that the discussion is over to me. If anyone has any sources that demonstrate that the various works by historians, and the Australian government are in fact fictitious, then I think you should present them as soon as possible, because this section has been out of the article, due to what I still believe amounts to vandalism, for many months now.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Segregation was not practicedis completely nullified by
an exception is the small segregated forces raised for the defence of northern Australia and particularly the Torres Strait. That should (really must) be re-written so as to be clear and correct. E.g.; Segregation was not generally (or widely) practiced, however [insert exception here]. There are also exceptions, at the very least, to the "equal pay" statement. From pages 32 and 33 of Fighters from the Fringe;
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders serving in the units of the Torres Strait Force received about one third the pay of white Australian soldiers. Again, the term "generally" should be applied and an exception mentioned or explained. Other than that, I don't really have further issues to take with the section. It's been re-written and at least clarifies that it's relevance to the article is more tangential than causal. It's an improvement overall. Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude, withstanding this, I think we have a way forward and to some extent, as you suggest, the finer detail is somewhat off-base. The issue is that there was racial tension that was not a specific cause in this case but did contribute to social tension giving rise to the "battle". Senor Freebie's observations are correct in the most part but I don't think they are constructive. The article is not about segregation in the Australian forces but about how to represent the racial issues that were in play WRT this particular instance. I think that we have a way forward on the proposed section as amended. I am a bit busy for the next couple of days but I will be tidying this up to correctly reference and create the note, essentially as it now reads. I might say that the TI force (and similar in Arnhem land) were drawn from the local remote communities, as they were. Perhaps this might appease the contention and different views you both identify but I would rather omit this than create more contention. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. There is no consensus for many of the passages in what has been re-added. Please remove it immediately. 110.175.158.36 ( talk) 14:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Can we compile the list of sources somewhere so we can easily access all of them without hopping around? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 14:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that another Wiki user has made a couple of edits to the contested section of the article, including 'allahu akbar', and 'hi my name is sam harddick'. I have long held suspicions that there was an ideological motivation behind the removal of this subject from the article, and I would argue that this represents evidence of that.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 01:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I just came back here after being extremely busy for several months to find I've been accused of vandalising the article by Senor Freebie. Is there no depths to which you won't sink, mate? You think vandalism by a random IP somehow vindicates you? This is really awful and I must say makes me hesitant ever again to try and correct an error on wikipedia. The frequent abuse and lies I've suffered from you are beyond the pale. 110.175.158.36 ( talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
My earlier comments appear to have been lost in the uproar about race. The comments about each-others soldiers are largely out of place wrt time. Buna-Gona was just happening (just started) at the time of the battle of Bris. I am sure that many Yanks (with no battle experience) made asses of themselves by touting that they were here to save Australia, while there were Australians (of the 2AIF) with significant combat experience either returned wounded or recently returned. I am sure that this went over like a lead fart and the Australian veterans had a low tolerance for such bravado - as indicated in the text. The point is that the references in the text are largely inconsistent with the time-frame. Simply, Buna-Gona was just starting. While the comments may be valid, the justification for many of these comments (ie Buna-Gona) was not yet in the common knowledge in Bris and the specific references to Buna-Gona were not in interplay at the time of the Battle of Bris. In short, this section is challenged an needs a rewrite to make it consistant with the time-frame. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not seeing how this could really be called a decisive victory for the Australian rioters. Everyone got their toys taken away at the end of it, and resentment against the Americans continued as evinced by the later riots. Perhaps someone can elucidate the decision? 68.168.13.249 ( talk) 14:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
Hi, AustralianRupert, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7 and anybody else. I have been looking at this more closely since some recent tag-bombing. I have always been uncomfortable with the section Battle of Brisbane#Opinions of each other's soldiers - not because each "side" did not likely have negative views but because the "facts" presented don't sit well in time. However, there are references to US conduct at Milne Bay shouted during the riot. The Battle of Brisbane (Thompson, 2000 ,p 212) quotes Inspector Charles Price reporting: "You bastards are yellow; you used the baton on our mates but you ran away at Milne Bay." Same quote appears in They Passed This Way (Ralph, 2000, p 180). I think I read that an Australian was convicted on the basis of shouting that (dont you hate it - can't find it). My question is, is there any basis for somebody having shouted that? It would be nice to be able to reconcile the matter - ie there was something to it or not. It is reported by witnesses that there were members of the 2/9th involved in the riot. Alternatively, how to deal with the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Eddie Leonski had been executed in Melbourne just seventeen days earlier before this occured, could it have been a contributing factor too? LamontCranston ( talk) 12:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"their uniforms were more stylish"(below). Irtapil ( talk) 01:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This sentence was tagged in 2019, disputing the neutality: U.S. military pay was considerably higher than that of the Australian military[note 1] and U.S. military uniforms were seen as more appealing than those of the Australians.
[emphasis added]
This edit deleted the italicised section. No TP discussion was raised by the tagging editor to explain the reasons for the tag. The statement was referenced to Raymond Evans and Jacqui Donegan, "The Battle of Brisbane", Politics and Culture. Having reviewed an rewritten the article I can be quite certain about the source. While there was a version on-line, it is no longer available; however,
Britannica says essentially the same thing: American enlisted personnel were paid twice as much as their Australian counterparts, and the dress uniforms of American enlisted men were more stylish than those of Australian officers.
This is verifiable content and I fail to see how this can be considered to not be neutral. It has been reinstated and the tag removed.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 07:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This me as very suspicious? "…the reasons for the riot were not mentioned in the few Australian newspaper reports of the event."
That means the stated reasons are just one side of the story?
Irtapil (
talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pndeleo.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Removed sentence saying that Australian troops only being used in mop-up operations in Pacific . Quite incorrect .
I've lived in Brisbane for 8 years and never heard about it. I didn't even know there were American troops here in 1942. It's on Google Earth, but the description is replaced with a link to this article. Aleksei 08:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
talk:Stuntaneous|talk]]) 21:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The Saying Oversexed, Overpaid and Over here orginated in Britain. The British men started saying it and the Americans responded by saying The British were Underpaid, Undersexed and Under Eisenhower. It did not orginate in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.178.162 ( talk) 07:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
"...American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River". I don't buy that for a second. Guys, please don't paste passages from some site into this article just because it sounds provocative.
I'm assuming "Pte." is Private, which is abbreviated "Pvt." in the US. dafydd 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:BB, I've removed what I believed to be spam from the infobox on this article. "(Unable to do much.)" was written after "Queensland Police" in the belligerents section.
If anyone has reason for that to be put back (I'm really not sure), then go ahead, but try to source it…I guess. -- Sauronjim ( talk) 13:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The section named "Differing views on race" is made up, and nothing in it is supported by ANY of the sources given.
The paragraph starts:
To a lesser degree there was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military.[8]
The source given is: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/battle-brisbane.htm.
Nowhere in this source is it said there is tension between the Australian troops and American troops over race, or segregation. It says:
The other, and the major problem, was the rapidly developing gulf between the US and Australian forces. The Yanks had smart, tailored uniforms, were well paid and accordingly drew the bulk of female attention and they were mostly extremely well mannered and pleasant. In the eyes of the hostile Aussies running second on their own turf the Yanks were "overpaid, oversexed and over here". Apart from the competition for the girls there was further friction caused by the lack of amenities for the Australians in the city. Australian units had wet canteens in their unit lines. The US Forces had well appointed clubs (P.X's') offering merchandise, food, drinks and cigarettes at very low prices. The Aussies were not allowed into those clubs.
It also says:
The town of Ipswich was out of bounds to blacks and in Brisbane they were confined to the south side of the Brisbane River. Accordingly they had a sense of being unjustly treated and provided much exercise for the gun toting baton wielding Yank MPs.
This says that black American soldiers felt unjustly treated, it has nothing to do with Australian soldiers or how they felt. The source eventually writes:
The bad feeling between the two forces came to a head in November 1942 a couple of weeks after we left Brisbane. Up to that time brawls between the two forces were frequent. According to one authority up to 20 occurring each night. The tension culminated in the famous "Battle of Brisbane". This started through the typical Digger concern for the underdog. The long smouldering animosity between the two forces ignited when a couple of Diggers saw an American M.P. bashing a drunken US soldier with his baton. In the US Army batons are used to control riots. In the Australian Army their use would provoke a riot. The Aussies went to the aid of the US soldier.
Race is not mentioned here at all as a factor.
I have removed this section, but a vandal has repeatedly put it back, and labelled my edits (fraudulently, and against the rules of Wikipedia) as "vandalism", a very dishonest thing to do. I will leave this section up here, if someone can quote a section from the source which backs up anything in the relevant section, I will leave it. If not, I will permanently remove the section, and the user will be reported.
110.175.159.167 ( talk) 16:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Update (22/02/2016): It has been more than a month and there has been no objections to my proposal. I will now remove the section entitled "Differing views on race". Parts of the section do have a source, however they are not relevant to whether there were "differing views on race", and should thus be elsewhere in the document if they are still desired. I am not prepared to move them into the correct part of the document, someone else may do this. I will now remove the infringing section.
110.175.159.167 ( talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans...In other words the treatment of Aborigines by Aussies was no better than African-Americans and Native Americans by White Americans. This directly contradicts what is written in the latter portion and sourced to a third source which says nothing about "Aboriginies" in even a single instance, it doesn't talk about pay or meritocracy, it doesn't say anything about Aussies welcoming African-Americans, it does however detail that Americans were resentful of African Americans interacting with white girls and the Wacol race riot. So, parts of the material are completely falsely sourced. I will be removing those portions. Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about, and I don't care. Stop it. Do not re-add controversial material w/o talk page consensus. Once that consensus is established it needs to be respected. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Trouble persisted, however, with a major race riot at Wacol, knife-fights in South Brisbane and individual black troops assaulted or killed by American MPs simply for crossing the Brisbane River to the north-side. One soldier was shot ‘just near the flame at Anzac Squareand now the section that you removed;
However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. The bigger issue is the lack of paraphrasing, and therefore copyright. I'll be re-instating the section once I am able to clear up any remaining mess. Due to the possibility of copyright infringement and lack of attribution, the IP is correct in removing the section, but, I disagree with the reason. Mr rnddude ( talk) 10:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
110.175.158.36 ( talk) 12:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
in Australia, white attitudes toward the native Aboriginal people more or less mirrored white American attitudes toward African and Native Americans.... Please take the time to read what other have written without giving pointy borderline PA responses. I am free to edit any article that I choose to do so without your claims of wrongdoing. You are free to challenge my edits if you have reason to do so, and I will challenge back if I have a reason to do so. That is what this talk page exists for. Mr rnddude ( talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolve this dispute here. The article has been locked for 48 hours. That should be enough time to sort this out. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Even now, the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion, where another user contributes references to the source material, and the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus by saying "Look, he agrees with me", when he clearly doesn't.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude & Wayne I'm sorry to drag you back into this mess again but it has been asserted by Senor Freebie that the most recent edit is supported by talk page consensus. I'm not seeing it but it is always possible I could be mistaken. Please have a look and let me know. 110.175.158.36 clearly dissents but consensus does not require unanimity. If everyone else is on board we can move forward. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
[I]f you can find those sources and put them in the article along with the material that is absolutely fine. In other words, I'll support only that which can be verifiably attested to by an appropriate source. So far;
... though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on meritstill requires attribution, Baker's work makes no mention of either the segragation of Australian forces (or lack thereof) nor of promotions based on merit.
This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different- and also this needs to be rephrased as Evans and Donegan do not suggest that the Wacol riots had any impact on the subsequent fighting between Australian soldiers and American MP's. It also wasn't "culture" difference between the two that led to fighting in Brisbane. To be far more accurate, the combat between the Aussie soldiers and Yankee MP's was entirely due to the abuse the Aussies endured from U.S. MP's and American servicemen on their own soil. Stabbings, shootings, and batonings abound and the two groups came to significant blows during an argument between a drunk Yank and five Aussies (Evans and Donegan) or alternatively a drunk GI and US MPs (Baker, p 35). U.S. MP's used force to get what they wanted eventually batoning one of the Australians. The result was that other Australians drinking in the canteen burst out onto the streets attacked the MPs and forced them to flee back to their PX, whereupon the combat escalated further resulting in one dead Aussie soldier and many wounded on both sides. The rest of that paragraph is already cited appropriately enough. Mr rnddude ( talk) 05:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on meritthat specifically supports that statement (since rnddude has said that the current source has failed verification); b) phrasing of the final sentence needs to be changed to remove WP:SYNTHESIS and be more accurate in meaning (per above comment by rnddude); c) the remainder of the paragraph is fine, except the first sentence and source, which still needs to be discussed. Alcherin ( talk) 23:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As some comments on the material here (made in response to a request for outside eyes at WT:MILHIST)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok. I'm done with the endless edit warring and personal attacks. I am now handing out blocks. Further edit warring will be dealt with severely. I have removed the section on race from the article and IT IS NOT TO BE RE-ADDED WITHOUT TALK PAGE CONSENSUS ON ITS EXACT WORDING. If there is any doubt on what I am referring to, ask before editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have read the material that has been removed. I believe that I have read similar in sources some time ago when I was researching another article but can't say I could definitely lay my hands on it again. The official policies on indigenous Australians at the time has been described as paternalistic (though misguided) and tended to marginalise the indigenous population. While far from perfect I also believe it is significantly different from the US - or particularly the southern states. Re merit in the armed forces of Australia, I believe that there are likely sources in Reg Saunders that might help. The AWM article [1] does identify race relations as an issue of significance. See also [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I hope this is of some help. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pasting this here so I can check the accuracy of the information on behalf of WP:MILHIST. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk)
| There was also tension over the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military. [1] [2] In civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, though in the Australian military segregation was not enforced and Indigenous Australians were promoted on merit. [3] [4] [5] Due to white American resentment towards African-American access to dance halls and for associating with "white girls on the streets of Brisbane", troops of the U.S. 208th Coast Artillery rioted for 10 nights in March 1942, fighting against African-Americans from the 394th Quartermaster Battalion. As a result, U.S. military authorities segregated African-Americans, restricting them to the south side of the Brisbane River. However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different. [6] Racial issues and segregation also played a substantial role in conflict between locals and Americans in both New Zealand the Britain. [7] [8]
UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
References
baker2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).PandC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
I found the source for a large segment of the disputed material;
A large part of this comes from
the Department of Veteran's Affairs; Indigenous servicemen in regular the militia, AIF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal Australian Navy (RAN) received equal pay (almost unheard-of in civilian jobs), could expect promotion on merit, and forged friendships with white men
. I pinged Nick-D on Senor Freebie's user talk page before realizing that it had been revoked. I have moved it here.
Nick-D (sorry for the additional ping, just noting I've moved this here instead) and every other potentially interested party;
Ad Orientem,
UNSC Luke 1021,
Cinderella157, Senor Freebie (not pinged due block) and
110.175.158.36 (who won't receive the ping due to being an anonymouse editor, but, pinged anyway). What do you think of the source specifically. Reliable or unreliable? trustworthy or untrustworthy? I tend to limit myself to using scholarly work only with the only exception being "in the news" events for which news sites are the most useful sources. The other sources I found contradict the above quite explicity. Please refer to my long post on Senor Freebie's page for examples and references located
here. Skip to the third paragraph, paras 1 and 2 are me responding to Senor Freebie. The main example here is
Defending Whose Country?: Indigenous Soldiers in the Pacific War by Noah Riseman pg13; the Aboriginal workforce received less pay than soldiers ... in fact army officials discouraged paying equal wages ... because they did not consider Aboriginal people as equals
. Note; this is pre-Aboriginal enlistment and refers to Aboriginal workforce and Australian soldiers doing similar work for different pay. At this time, Aboriginals were not soldiers but workmen/labourers. The question is, did this change when they formally became soldiery at the end of 1941? I haven't been able to find a source suggesting it had other than the .gov one above.
The other part of this dispute is over segregation which I have to say is disputed. Riseman doesn't say anything conclusive about it on page 12 of the same book; By 1940 as the demand for Aboriginal labor increased, the Department of Native Affairs was espousing policies of assimilation. Nonetheless there were calls to segregate the two races in the military
. There were calls both for and against segregation.
Fighters from the Fringe which has been mentioned somewhere above does indeed explicitly state that segregation did exist in the Australian armed forces. Refer to pages 32-33 of the book which discusses Torres Strait Islander; The creation of these segregated Islander units may have been seen as overcoming ... the problem of mixing white and black troops in barracks and permitting black NCOs to have authority over white soldiers
. The other important thing on page 33 that is being said is this; Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders serving in the units of the Torres Strait Force received about one third the pay of white Australian soldiers
.
Mr rnddude (
talk) 12:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
While race was not a direct causative factor in this instance, it has been cited as a cause of tension between Australians and Americans and as a contributing factor. [1] This tension arose from the treatment and segregation of the African-American soldiers by the U.S. military. Racial issues and segregation also played a substantial role in conflict between locals and Americans in both New Zealand the Britain. [2] [3] While Baker reports that in civilian life white Australians treated Aborigines in largely the same way as white Americans treated blacks, [4] Hall reports that institutional discrimination was "paternalistic", varying significantly from state-to-state. [5] Despite official policy ostensibly barring the enlistment of indigenous Australians, in practice, a more flexible approach was adopted that saw many indigenous Australians enlist. [6] Segregation was not practiced in the main and Indigenous Australians received equal pay, were promoted on merit [7] and were generally accepted and treated as equals. [8] [note 1]
Troops of the U.S. 208th Coast Artillery rioted for 10 nights in March 1942, fighting against African-Americans from the 394th Quartermaster Battalion. This was attributed to white American resentment towards African-American access to dance halls and for associating with "white girls on the streets of Brisbane". As a result, U.S. military authorities segregated African-Americans, restricting them to the south side of the Brisbane River. However, trouble continued with a major race riot at Wacol, knife fights in South Brisbane and American military police assaulting or killing black troops simply for crossing the Brisbane River. This further incited the Australians, whose culture towards military police was notably different. [10]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
baker2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).PandC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Suggest amendment as above. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This has been here for a bit. What are we going to do with it? Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If Hall is the second of the books, I have already provided a link to a gov site that has the first chapter in full plus google books. There is no qualification on the number of RSs that are required nor that they be available online - and only one out of nine inline citations isn't available online. What is it in what I have proposed is contentious in any way? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw this recently and think it sheds a bit more light on the concept there was some sort of huge gulf between Americans and Australians at the time regarding race that contributed to the Battle of Brisbane.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002193479502500304
It mentions that the first American ships that tried to bring Black GIs to Australia were refused entry, before eventually being allowed after US pressure. The original passage that claimed how much better Aboriginals were treated in Australia compared to black people in the US seems to fly in the face of the evidence. One passage from the paper I've linked reads: "A report made by the Office of Strategic Services in 1943 stated that the Aborgines "have no status in Australian Society and their existence is scarcely recognised".
"Because the Americans intended deploying Black troops to the Pacific theater of operations, measures were devised whereby they would be both fully used for the war effort while, at the same time, being contained in line with internal Australian practices".
The paper is relatively brief but it is well worth a read because it comprehensively stomps this fictional narrative of their being a great gulf between the Australians and Americans regarding race during the war and it somehow contributing to the Battle of Brisbane.
110.175.158.36 ( talk) 13:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Australia did have a "white Australia" policy and this was an issue wrt accepting entry of African-American servicemen and this was set aside for the duration. See Hall, Fighters From The Fringe, p 52.
Although Aboriginal and Islander military service and the suspicions that were sometimes levelled against the Aboriginal community were important factors affecting black–white relations during the Second World War, another important factor was the arrival in Australia of black Americans. Following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Malaya, the United States saw Australia as a convenient base from which to mount a counter-offensive. But the Australian government was resistant to the idea that black Americans should be included among the US troops sent to the Australian base. Such an idea was contrary to the White Australia Policy, the legislative instrument the government hoped would preserve Australia as a bastion of the white race in Asia. Nevertheless, with a major portion of its defence forces already tied up in the defence of British interests in Europe and north Africa, and with the Japanese pressing in Malaya, Australia had little option but to fall in behind American wishes and allow the entry of black troops.
There is no denying institutional discrimination against indigenous Australians nor the extent of this in some cases. There is however, a different social context giving rise to this. Hall deals with this at length, including the variation from state-to-state. [9] It is interesting that Saunders and Taylor, in quoting the OSS report, quote a work by one of the co-authors and not the original source.
It is interesting that Saunders and Taylor justify African-Americans carrying knives in consequence of them not being officially armed. I suggest that off-duty servicemen would not have been armed in a non-combat area and this is something of a red herring.
Military forces were 'dispersed' around Brisbane, including Camp Cable, well to Brisbane's south, occupied by US forces, and Redbank Plains, used by Australian forces. Other sources appearing above refer to racial tension leading to rioting within the US forces and a particular incident leading to African-Americans being excluded from the city and relegated to South Brisbane (across the river). This appears to have been a response by US command. While this may have appeased civilian authorities, to attribute it largely to racial motives of the civilian authorities ignores both the source of the segregation and the significant issues of public order and safety. The authors refer to "Black servicemen" being "mostly confined to the dilapidated south and east banks of the river". I would question whether this accurately represents the situation at the time or whether this is a perception of these localities in more modern times. Red Hill and Darra are both described as working-class, as if they are 'unsuitable' and I would think that Darra, at the time, was quite rural.
"'Southerners in the U.S. Army in Australia were a major consideration'; in framing both policy directives and establishing segregated facilities for Black troops". The authors refer to many instances of inter-racial tension, segregation and conflict that were intrinsic to the US forces and seek to make them extrinsic, to Australian society by transference, insinuation and implication - brushing over details, using 'white' to imply white Australia when this more often refers to 'white' US forces. This is not to deny that racism and discrimination existed in Australia at the time in question (or even now), both institutionally and in the broader community.
Hall (Fighters From the Fringe pp. 52-53) reports: "Some black Americans complained that they were rarely invited into the company of whites, though many also claimed that their treatment in Australia was better than they had experienced at home, though few would have gone so far as to say that no racism existed in Australia."
Saunders and Taylor report: "In the ensuing fight, the local civilian police acted with such restraint and adroitness that two policemen were recommended for the King’s medal for bravery."
While the authors do report such matters, they tend to gloss over them - such as the positive association between Australian soldiers and African-American soldiers - focusing only on the "official response".
Saunders and Taylor report: "Hurley believed that he was; shot by a white man who caught him in bed with his wife." This is a tenuous argument since it does not reasonably establish whether the white man concerned would only shoot 'Blacks' that he caught in bed with his wife and was therefore racially motivated.
Because of segregation in US forces, African-Americans were largely employed in service and construction units. While it may have appeased the Federal Government, it is hardly surprising that these were required for duty in regional and remote Australia. Another red herring.
It is difficult to view this as a well reasoned article based on a sustainable, coherent assessment.
See also: Darian-Smith, Kate, The Home Front and the Amerixcan Presence in 1942,(pp. 70-88) in Dean, Peter, ed. (2013). Australia 1942: In the Shadow of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-03227-9. LCCN 2012464720
Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I am much more concerned about this section as much of what it is saying is temporally inaccurate - Buna, Gona and Sanananda were only just being fought and there was what effectively amounts to conscription. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems like all the people who held the view that the differences on race section contained unsourced material have now gone silent, now that each point has 2-4 sources backing it up. While there have been effectively no retractions or admissions of this, the lack of further arguments seems to indicate that the discussion is over to me. If anyone has any sources that demonstrate that the various works by historians, and the Australian government are in fact fictitious, then I think you should present them as soon as possible, because this section has been out of the article, due to what I still believe amounts to vandalism, for many months now.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Segregation was not practicedis completely nullified by
an exception is the small segregated forces raised for the defence of northern Australia and particularly the Torres Strait. That should (really must) be re-written so as to be clear and correct. E.g.; Segregation was not generally (or widely) practiced, however [insert exception here]. There are also exceptions, at the very least, to the "equal pay" statement. From pages 32 and 33 of Fighters from the Fringe;
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders serving in the units of the Torres Strait Force received about one third the pay of white Australian soldiers. Again, the term "generally" should be applied and an exception mentioned or explained. Other than that, I don't really have further issues to take with the section. It's been re-written and at least clarifies that it's relevance to the article is more tangential than causal. It's an improvement overall. Mr rnddude ( talk) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude, withstanding this, I think we have a way forward and to some extent, as you suggest, the finer detail is somewhat off-base. The issue is that there was racial tension that was not a specific cause in this case but did contribute to social tension giving rise to the "battle". Senor Freebie's observations are correct in the most part but I don't think they are constructive. The article is not about segregation in the Australian forces but about how to represent the racial issues that were in play WRT this particular instance. I think that we have a way forward on the proposed section as amended. I am a bit busy for the next couple of days but I will be tidying this up to correctly reference and create the note, essentially as it now reads. I might say that the TI force (and similar in Arnhem land) were drawn from the local remote communities, as they were. Perhaps this might appease the contention and different views you both identify but I would rather omit this than create more contention. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. There is no consensus for many of the passages in what has been re-added. Please remove it immediately. 110.175.158.36 ( talk) 14:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Can we compile the list of sources somewhere so we can easily access all of them without hopping around? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 14:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that another Wiki user has made a couple of edits to the contested section of the article, including 'allahu akbar', and 'hi my name is sam harddick'. I have long held suspicions that there was an ideological motivation behind the removal of this subject from the article, and I would argue that this represents evidence of that.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 01:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I just came back here after being extremely busy for several months to find I've been accused of vandalising the article by Senor Freebie. Is there no depths to which you won't sink, mate? You think vandalism by a random IP somehow vindicates you? This is really awful and I must say makes me hesitant ever again to try and correct an error on wikipedia. The frequent abuse and lies I've suffered from you are beyond the pale. 110.175.158.36 ( talk) 14:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
My earlier comments appear to have been lost in the uproar about race. The comments about each-others soldiers are largely out of place wrt time. Buna-Gona was just happening (just started) at the time of the battle of Bris. I am sure that many Yanks (with no battle experience) made asses of themselves by touting that they were here to save Australia, while there were Australians (of the 2AIF) with significant combat experience either returned wounded or recently returned. I am sure that this went over like a lead fart and the Australian veterans had a low tolerance for such bravado - as indicated in the text. The point is that the references in the text are largely inconsistent with the time-frame. Simply, Buna-Gona was just starting. While the comments may be valid, the justification for many of these comments (ie Buna-Gona) was not yet in the common knowledge in Bris and the specific references to Buna-Gona were not in interplay at the time of the Battle of Bris. In short, this section is challenged an needs a rewrite to make it consistant with the time-frame. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed something, but I'm not seeing how this could really be called a decisive victory for the Australian rioters. Everyone got their toys taken away at the end of it, and resentment against the Americans continued as evinced by the later riots. Perhaps someone can elucidate the decision? 68.168.13.249 ( talk) 14:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
Hi, AustralianRupert, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7 and anybody else. I have been looking at this more closely since some recent tag-bombing. I have always been uncomfortable with the section Battle of Brisbane#Opinions of each other's soldiers - not because each "side" did not likely have negative views but because the "facts" presented don't sit well in time. However, there are references to US conduct at Milne Bay shouted during the riot. The Battle of Brisbane (Thompson, 2000 ,p 212) quotes Inspector Charles Price reporting: "You bastards are yellow; you used the baton on our mates but you ran away at Milne Bay." Same quote appears in They Passed This Way (Ralph, 2000, p 180). I think I read that an Australian was convicted on the basis of shouting that (dont you hate it - can't find it). My question is, is there any basis for somebody having shouted that? It would be nice to be able to reconcile the matter - ie there was something to it or not. It is reported by witnesses that there were members of the 2/9th involved in the riot. Alternatively, how to deal with the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Eddie Leonski had been executed in Melbourne just seventeen days earlier before this occured, could it have been a contributing factor too? LamontCranston ( talk) 12:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"their uniforms were more stylish"(below). Irtapil ( talk) 01:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This sentence was tagged in 2019, disputing the neutality: U.S. military pay was considerably higher than that of the Australian military[note 1] and U.S. military uniforms were seen as more appealing than those of the Australians.
[emphasis added]
This edit deleted the italicised section. No TP discussion was raised by the tagging editor to explain the reasons for the tag. The statement was referenced to Raymond Evans and Jacqui Donegan, "The Battle of Brisbane", Politics and Culture. Having reviewed an rewritten the article I can be quite certain about the source. While there was a version on-line, it is no longer available; however,
Britannica says essentially the same thing: American enlisted personnel were paid twice as much as their Australian counterparts, and the dress uniforms of American enlisted men were more stylish than those of Australian officers.
This is verifiable content and I fail to see how this can be considered to not be neutral. It has been reinstated and the tag removed.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 07:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This me as very suspicious? "…the reasons for the riot were not mentioned in the few Australian newspaper reports of the event."
That means the stated reasons are just one side of the story?
Irtapil (
talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).