Latinos Protest Latest Ken Burns Documentary

When my uncle was killed in the Battle of the Bulge, he wasn't listed as a "Danish/Norwegian" soldier, he was listed as an "AMERICAN SOLDIER". Back then people were fighting FOR the American way of life. This is America, not Mexico (Latino), enjoy it, love it, but most of all ADJUST to it.

Reply

I believe Ken Burns would leave out Rock and Roll icon “Santana” if he ever made a documentary on Woodstock. I think I now question what he left out of his famous “Civil War” documentary. I know one tiny tidbit Ken Burns left out of his Civil War Documentary; it was written in Samuel Eliot Morison, Harvard PHD, WWII Rear Admiral, book AN OXFORD HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE which details that in 1832 a young lieutenant army officer named Abraham Lincoln commanded and massacurred over 1000 men, women, and babies of the Fox and Saux Indian tribes for returning to their own soil in Illinois, USA. That never gets mentioned in Ken Burns Civil War documentary and it should because “Black Hawk” the Chief of these tribes gets his life saved by another US army commander who is none other than a young lieutenant Jefferson Davis.

Reply

What really bothers me is the notion that to include Latino vets it to pander to an insignificant, but vocal minority group at the expense of artistic freedom.

The issue here isn't race or ethnicity, but accuracy. If Burns is going to call his work a documentary, then he needs to get the history right.

Thirteen Latinos (eleven Americans of Mexican descent and two Puerto Ricans) received the Congressional Medal of Honor from FDR and Truman for their service in WWII. Yet their stories are not good enough for the history books, documentaries, or Hollywood movies? I don't think so.

If Burns cannot see how egregious his omission is, then he shold stop presenting his work as non-fiction and move to Hollywood with the other liars.

Reply

It's not a surprise that all these people who are not bothered, and even ANGRY about the inclusion of a peoples (latinos/indigenous) in burns upcoming film, but it does make one ponder. My question is why would anybody be so upset by including a large group of people that participated in a war in which, brought such great nationalistic pride in "americans" that we still, until this day, have such "great pride" that we allow our "american" rights to be trampled on as we speak, for the good of "america", oh, and by the way, to which these people fought and DIED for. To include these people who made such an impact could ONLY make the movie that much more powerful, it's inclusion is TRUTH and INSIGHT, not a story line to enhance the plot, why would anybody want to be DENIED that? Shame on those of you who protest the inclusion, and shame on Burns for not even entertaining the thought of including this important little tidbit. Burns creates work as a source of testimony to historical events, it's a disappointment to me knowing that he had to be ENCOURAGED to make the correction, and yet, still does not surprise me of the exclusion in the year 2007. Now, if he can olny make a movie on the westward expansion "MANIFEST DESTINY" and put forth this unfortunate historical event and understand why the latinos/indigenous people feel, and rightly so, the need NOT TO BE IGNORED anymore.
from a granchild of a war veteran--deb

Reply

Julie Villarreal

Supervisor, Member & Viewer Services

I would like to apologize for my previous memo – it was hurried.

Look, I have watched Mr. Burns' documentaries for sometime. They are well crafted. However, they suffer from an anti-Mexican and Latino bias. Mr. Burns in other words is color blind and cannot see outside his ethnocentric box. This is not usual. As a historian I have studied history books by conservative and liberal authors. Most pre-1970 U/S. history texts were very well written but see life in terms of black and white. Some attempted to correct their bias by tacking on supplementary chapters. This has made the sleight worse.

From my understanding, the Burns' documentary runs for hours before a twenty minute segment on Mexican Americans, Latinos and Native Americans is tacked on. Pray tell, who after stays to watch a tack on? I have been around for some time. I have attended marvelous films. At the end, the management pleads with the audience to stay around for a short documentary. The movie house clears out.

I have read the Burns Web Page carefully, and as of this moment I cannot find any mention of the omission or better still the disparate treatment of Mexicans, Latinos and Native Americans. You have forced us to enter the house through the backyard door and want us to be grateful.

KCET offers no explanation or apology for its disparate treatment of Mexicans, Latinos and Native Americans. PBS has totally ignored the controversy hoping that its efforts to buy off a handful of Mexicans will bail them out.

I went to the bookstore yesterday and I saw Ken Burns' book on WW II with a ringing endorsement by PBS. In doing so, it is endorsing racism.

To add insult to injury, you sent me this letter signed by Julie Villarreal, Supervisor, Member & Viewer Services. The email says "Kcet President wrote….." I think this is mendacious. Ms Villarreal you are probably a very sincere person -- but you are not the president. Indeed, KCET does not list a single Spanish surnamed person on its Board of Directors.

Just like Burns it does not know or care what they look like. I am disappointed. I do believe you are a racist organization. My wife is a subscriber -- but not for long.

One last word -- I think that you would be more sensitive if the documentary had omitted women.

Rodolfo F. Acuña, PhD

Reply

"Instead it looks at WWII through the experiences of four American towns -- Waterbury, CT; Luverne, MN; Mobile, AL; and Sacramento, CA -- that perhaps had no Hispanic citizens or soldiers in them."
__________________________________

I take issue with that. I found an online interview with Geoffrey C Ward, one of the writers of The War, and he makes it clear that they found the veterans they wanted to interview and THEN used their hometowns as an organizing device. Furthermore, they interview vets in the film who do not live in any of the four towns mentioned in the film.

Based on his recent comments, it's obvious that Burns doesn't think anybody of Hispanic descent is really American. He doesn't care if they shed their blood for his freedom--the freedom to make government movies--he has convinced himself that Hispanic-Americans were fighting a different WWII defending a different America.

Burns can tell any tall tales he wants, but from now on he should do it with his OWN money, not our tax dollars.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20070920-world-war-II-pbs-geoffrey-c-ward-ken-burns.shtml

"Luverne was picked because the eloquent pilot Quentin Aanenson came from there. Mobile was the home of the late Eugene Sledge and of his boyhood friends Sid and Katherine Phillips. Sacramento was picked in part because we were interested in the Japanese internment story and knew that several veterans of the segregated 442nd combat team lived there. We also wanted a Northeastern town, and when Lynn discovered the surviving members of poor Babe Ciarlo’s family, Waterbury was added to the list. In every case, we found more riches than we could possibly use."

Reply

How dramatic was the hispanic presence? 500,000 out of 16 million? 3%?

"The Second World War was fought in thousands of places, too many for any one accounting. This is the story of four American towns and how their citizens experienced that war. "

Break that down even more to Mobile, Alabama; Sacramento, California; Waterbury, Connecticut; and Luverne, Minnesota. How many hispanics now?

If people want to be offended by a lack of representation in a documentary where racial representaion made up 3% 60 years ago, then they've got a real problem. The facts can't be changed. Men and women died because they represented a country, not a race. Nazis didn't care if they were killing white men, black men, hispanics, or whatever. If you were an American, you were the enemy.
The Hispanic lobbies that take issue with the documentary choose to divide and segregate based on a fabricated injustice. These Hispanic lobbies continue to place themselves in opposition to that which they claim to represent by empowering themselves with misinformation passed down to the "constituents" they represent in an effort to empower themselves. If there is an injustice and disrespect here, it is that the agenda being pursued here infringes upon the freedom that the Hispanic lobbies purport to uphold. Is it better to threaten people to do what you want or to do for yourself what you need?
If you continue to view yourself the way others view you, then you will always be what others perceive you to be. If you choose to feel disrespected, they you will be disrespected. If you choose to feel angry, then you will be angry. But, if you choose not to feel disrepected, then you are not. If you choose not to be angered, then you are not. The choice is always your own to make. Don't let someone turn race into an issue when the truth is far from it.

Reply