walter tull bbc east 22.3.18 6.30pm

[charlesmessenger]

20 hours ago, roughdiamond said:

 

Not sure if you are aware but the action Vasili claims Tull was recommended for the MC wasn't on the day he was killed but "The winter of 1917/18 in Italy where he led 26 men in a raid over the fast flowing river Piave and brought them all back safe".

 

Sam

If you look at the Battalion war diary, in which Tull's name is only mentioned twice, you will see that he commanded one of the flank parties on this raid, which was considerably larger than you make out.

 

Charles M

[Terry_Reeves]

Perhaps Hedley can produce some statistical data regarding the numbers of Afro-Carribean soldiers serving in predominately white regiments. I would suggest there were relatively few which might go someway to explaining the lack of gallantry awards. 

 

TR

[Buffnut453]

I must admit to being disappointed by much of the rhetoric in this thread.  Just because non-white soldiers receive gallantry awards or commissions is not evidence of the absence of racism.  Bigotry abounded whether based on race, religion or social status.  If Mr Vasilli, or anyone else for that matter, discovers documented evidence that an award was refused solely for racial or religious reasons, then I have no problem with that decision being overturned....but it must be documented contemporaneously, which sets the bar (rightly, IMHO) quite high.

 

Frankly, I don't care what colour a person's skin is.  Nor do I care what religion (or non-religion) they subscribe to. Nor do I care who their parents were.  If that person served in the Armed Forces, then they deserve my gratitude and my respect.  I do not want to see the social complexity of the First World War simplified to white Tommies being slaughtered in trenches because they were led by clueless "toffy nosed" officers.  Indeed, I feel we white Europeans owe an extra debt of gratitude to those who came from far-flung colonial outposts to fight "our" war, not least because many of the non-white contingent likely had little grasp of European politics and hence understanding of what they were fighting for.

 

While many on this forum may know Walter Tull's story, it was new to me.  If the BBC's coverage helps generate more interest in the role of non-white troops, then so much the better.  This isn't a zero-sum game where learning about one ethnic group somehow prevents understanding of the majority white experience.  Learning about Tull's contribution does nothing to diminish any anyone else's wartime role, except perhaps those who chase for superlatives (first, most, least etc).  Again, I don't really care about such labels because they're pretty meaningless, often being more a fluke of timing than anything else.

 

Surely we should applaud any effort that brings greater insight into, or increases public awareness of, the impact of that dreadful conflict?

[Hedley Malloch]

25 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Perhaps Hedley can produce some statistical data regarding the numbers of Afro-Carribean soldiers serving in predominately white regiments. I would suggest there were relatively few which might go someway to explaining the lack of gallantry awards. 

 

TR

No, Terry, I cannot.  There were not many, but perhaps they should have had something more to show for their collective effort than one DCM in over four years of fighting.  It might be useful to look at the awards made to the Afro-Caribbean regiment(s)?

More instructive than statistics would be to look at the pronouncements of officers on the fighting qualities of non-whites soldiers - or non-whites generally.

[Guest]

"Equality" may be the key to this matter- equality then and equality now. Nothing against Tull receiving an award whether the rules are observed, bent, revised, side-stepped- whatever. The argument of his advocates is that he deserves equality for an act of gallantry -which MAY have been held back by other factors-and then again, probably was not-just a recommendation not followed..

 

     I am disappointed that the proponents of an award for Tull do not seem to have extended their campaign to seek retrospective awards for others-but merely him, which brings into question their motives and agenda. To me-on a non-political basis- you cannot shout inequality as a reason and then seek to correct it by unequal means. The correction of one (alleged) inequality by another just doesn't stack up.

 

      As to others- I pick one of many others that will be known to GWF members up and down the country-   Captain Loscombe Law Stable, 2 RWF KIA 21st October 1914. There are a number of reports as to the act of bravery he showed when he was mortally wounded- bringing in a wounded Private of his battalion. His CO was widely reported in the Press and to his family as saying that had he lived he would have recommended Stable for the award of the DSO .  When the Tull lobby extend their activities to a GENERAL re-opening of awards for anyone else (in a similar way to IFTC for those who served but are not otherwise remembered by CWGC) then I,for one,, might have some faith in what their campaigbn is about.

Edited 25 March , 2018 by Guest

[Terry_Reeves]

1 hour ago, Hedley Malloch said:

No, Terry, I cannot.  There were not many, but perhaps they should have had something more to show for their collective effort than one DCM in over four years of fighting.  It might be useful to look at the awards made to the Afro-Caribbean regiment(s)?

More instructive than statistics would be to look at the pronouncements of officers on the fighting qualities of non-whites soldiers - or non-whites generally.

Hedley , there is very much a difference between what we perceive now and perceptions of a century ago. Your post started with "Afro-Carribean soldiers serving in white regiments"  Please tell me how you have identified these?  I agree that in the 21st century we see such attitudes unacceptable, quite rightly,  but in WW1 things were very different, and you have still to produce any substantial evidence that these men were refused gallantry medals on the basis of colour.

 

TR

[Guest]

 Do we have any idea of Tull's battalion and the award of honours while on service in Italy. If he displayed gallantry then my assumption, based on some local examples, is that this would not normally entail the award of an MC- MID would be more normal. Merely going on a trench raid and coming back safely may seem (righ;ly) exceptional gallantry to us of Century 21 but it was part of the job for front-line officers.  On a couple of similar local examples to me, the difference may have been engaging the enemy directly- and withdrawal under fire while being shot at is not a pleasant business.  Charles M. reports that Tu;ll was a side attack-a support- did the main attack force  leader merit an MC for that action on that occasion???

Edited 25 March , 2018 by Guest

[Hedley Malloch]

22 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Hedley , there is very much a difference between what we perceive now and perceptions of a century ago. Your post started with "Afro-Carribean soldiers serving in white regiments"  Please tell me how you have identified these?  I agree that in the 21st century we see such attitudes unacceptable, quite rightly,  but in WW1 things were very different, and you have still to produce any substantial evidence that these men were refused gallantry medals on the basis of colour.

 

TR

Terry, specifically we are discussing Walter Tull.  The case is being made that he should be retrospectively awarded a MC.  Let's see how that plays out.

You seem to be saying that it was perfectly correct to deny soldiers medals on the basis of their colour, a practise legitimised by custom and practice - the way we did things then.  Terry - it wasn't right then and it is certainly not right today.

[Terry_Reeves]

2 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

No, Terry, I cannot.  There were not many, but perhaps they should have had something more to show for their collective effort than one DCM in over four years of fighting.  It might be useful to look at the awards made to the Afro-Caribbean regiment(s)?

More instructive than statistics would be to look at the pronouncements of officers on the fighting qualities of non-whites soldiers - or non-whites generally.

Hedley , there is very much a difference between what we perceive now and perceptions of a century ago. 

 

6 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Terry, specifically we are discussing Walter Tull.  The case is being made that he should be retrospectively awarded a MC.  Let's see how that plays out.

You seem to be saying that it was perfectly correct to deny soldiers medals on the basis of their colour, a practise legitimised by custom and practice - the way we did things then.  Terry - it wasn't right then and it is certainly not right today.

Please Hedley, that is not what I said in your response to your original  post, and you know it. I have not said nor inferred "that it was perfectly correct to deny soldiers medals on the basis of their colour, a practise legitimised by custom and practice".

 

Can you please supply some evidence to that effect?

 

TR

 

[roughdiamond]

3 hours ago, charlesmessenger said:

If you look at the Battalion war diary, in which Tull's name is only mentioned twice, you will see that he commanded one of the flank parties on this raid, which was considerably larger than you make out.

 

Charles M

 

If you read the post again, that's a quote from a Phil Vasili interview Charles, certainly not my words.

 

Sam

[Hedley Malloch]

10 hours ago, Terry_Reeves said:

Hedley , there is very much a difference between what we perceive now and perceptions of a century ago. 

 

Please Hedley, that is not what I said in your response to your original  post, and you know it. I have not said nor inferred "that it was perfectly correct to deny soldiers medals on the basis of their colour, a practise legitimised by custom and practice".

 

Can you please supply some evidence to that effect?

 

TR

 

 

Umm, ... Walter Tull?

[Neil Mackenzie]

Sorry to be lazy - I am sure the info is on the GWF somewhere - but does anyone know which Company Walter was in?

 

Thanks

 

Neil

[MikeyH]

On 23/03/2018 at 12:56, MikeyH said:

There is a programme on Walter Tull on BBC Radio Northampton at 8.00 pm on Sunday 25th.

 

Mike.

 

Was a fairly interesting and well balanced programme, though at two hours perhaps a little too long.  Broadcast live from the Arras Memorial, the presenters included Graham Mckechnie

of BBC Northampton, who is a WW1 historian, and historian John Cooksey who acted as guide.  J.C. cited two coloured officers who pre-dated Walter Tull, one being George Bemand of the 

Royal Artillery (May 1915), the other was David Louis Clemonson (or possibly Clemontson)  he was the son of a wealthy Jamaican who attended Clifton College and Cambridge University.

He joined the Pembrokeshire Yeomanry/24th Batt. Welsh Regiment, and was commissioned First Lieutenant October 1915.  Like Tull he returned home from the front for treatment for shell shock, in Clemonson's case at Craiglockhart.

 

Yesterday a blue plaque was unveiled on the house at 26 Queen Street, Rushden where Tull lodged, this by three of Tull's brothers descendants.  There is also a Walter Tull Way in Northampton and a ward in an as yet unfinished wing of Northampton General Hospital is to be named in his honour.

 

Mike.

 

Edited 27 March , 2018 by MikeyH

[593jones]

6 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

 

Umm, ... Walter Tull?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Walter Tull was denied a medal because of his colour and that the evidence of this is that he was not awarded a medal he may have been recommended for?  How is this evidence?  How many servicemen were recommended for medals but did not receive them?  As has been pointed out in this thread, recommendation for an award does not mean it will automatically be awarded.

Edited 26 March , 2018 by 593jones

[Hedley Malloch]

1 hour ago, 593jones said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that Walter Tull was denied a medal because of his colour and that the evidence of this is that he was not awarded a medal he may have been recommended for?  How is this evidence?  How many servicemen were recommended for medals but did not receive them?  As has been pointed out in this thread, recommendation for an award does not mean it will automatically be awarded.

 

Lack of evidence is not to say that black soldiers were denied the medals that were due to them.  How do you think prejudice works?  Officers do not write in their diaries, personal or regimental,  'Today I turned down a soldier for a medal because he was black.'  It is much more subtle than that.  Prejudice is usually tacit, implicit and assumed with officers taking their cues from senior officers, rules (such as those prohibiting the appointment of negro officers), what your friends and colleagues are doing, who gets promoted and who gets sent into saps the night before then next big German push.  Then there is the wider context: Great Britain ruled a quarter of the globe and we thought we had a moral right to do because of a mindset which saw conquered peoples as inferior. That's how it works in any organisation - and nobody is arguing that the British army between 1914-18 was an organisation managed with an eye on diversity management and/or equal opportunities.

 

Remember - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

If you want evidence, look for evidence of the mind sets of senior management on the subject of 'lesser races', or even of other ranks.  Then ask yourself what are the chances of these guys getting a fair crack of the whip (no pun intended) with respect to rewards, or for that matter, punishments. 

 

To underline the point, here is a short quiz.

 

1.  Which senior British army officer said of which ethnic group: 'They are the most revolting form of living creatures I have ever seen.  They are the lowest known form of human beings and are the nearest thing to monkeys.'?

 

2.  On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the chances of this officer recommending a member of 'the lowest known form of human being' for:

i) an award for gallantry such as the MC;

ii) a firing squad in the case of a member of the class of 'the most revolting form of living creature' who had committed a disciplinary offence? 

 

No googling and no copying. 

 

 

      

 

 

 

Edited 26 March , 2018 by Hedley Malloch

[Guest]

On 3/26/2018 at 17:22, Hedley Malloch said:

If you want evidence, look for evidence of the mind sets of senior management on the subject of 'lesser races', or even of other ranks.  Then ask yourself what are the chances of these guys getting a fair crack of the whip (no pun intended) with respect to rewards, or for that matter, punishments. 

 

  HM-  The evidence as to "racist" attitudes in British society is irrefutable for the time of the Great War. But the evidence that  this was the reason for Tull not receiving an MC is  not there.  Evidence of the greater sin does not prove the case for for lack of award to Tull.

Edited 28 March , 2018 by Guest

[593jones]

2 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

 

To underline the point, here is a short quiz.

 

1.  Which senior British army officer said of which ethnic group: 'They are the most revolting form of living creatures I have ever seen.  They are the lowest known form of human beings and are the nearest thing to monkeys.'?

 

2.  On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the chances of this officer recommending a member of 'the lowest known form of human being' for:

i) an award for gallantry such as the MC;

ii) a firing squad in the case of a member of the class of 'the most revolting form of living creature' who had committed a disciplinary offence? 

 

No googling and no copying. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really have no idea who it could have been, nor do I think it is relevant to the point of this thread.  I would suggest that if, as you seem to suggest, that attitude was widespread in the British Army and British society as a whole, it is quite remarkable that Walter Tull was granted a commission in the first place, I think that, in itself, argues against the prejudice you claim existed.

[nthornton1979]

Edited... 

Edited 26 March , 2018 by nthornton1979
In hindsight, I can't be arsed getting involved.

[Buffnut453]

8 hours ago, 593jones said:

 

I really have no idea who it could have been, nor do I think it is relevant to the point of this thread.  I would suggest that if, as you seem to suggest, that attitude was widespread in the British Army and British society as a whole, it is quite remarkable that Walter Tull was granted a commission in the first place, I think that, in itself, argues against the prejudice you claim existed.

 

Equally, just because a few non-white soldiers were commissioned or received gallantry awards does not mean prejudice was absent from the British Army. 

 

Prejudice takes many forms ranging from behind-the-scenes modifying of duty rosters so that a particular individual or group always got the dirty/rough assignments through more overt verbal denigration to outright physical hostility.  No doubt there were some forward-thinking senior officers who literally did not see the colour of a man's skin, preferring to judge the individual by his qualities and actions.  However, I suspect they were in the minority during the period in question.  Having witnessed all sorts of prejudice even within my lifetime, it beggars belief that anyone can actually propose that racial discrimination was not present in the British Army of the 1914-1918 period.

 

As to Walter Tull specifically, I would not want to see him receive a posthumous gallantry award solely because of the colour of his skin.  However, if there is documentary evidence that he was treated unjustly (eg a diary entry from his CO complaining that his justified award recommendation was turned down purely because of his race) then surely a re-evaluation is in order?  Similarly for any other soldier, of any other station, race or religion for whom compelling evidence of injustice exists.  Clearly, the odds of finding such evidence are remote but, per my previous post, we should set the bar pretty high to justify any retroactive action. 

Edited 27 March , 2018 by Buffnut453

[Heid the Ba]

It was Edward VIII talking about Australian Aboriginies.  He was hardly the typical senior officer and I doubt he recommended any soldier for any award.

 

I can think of one or two officers offhand who thought the same about Irish catholics, and Shute hated his division and was hated in turn.  Did he recommend or approve fewer awards?  No googling etc.

[BullerTurner]

Why oh why can we not accept Walter Tull for what he was?  Rather than trying to create a new myth of a gallant, British gentleman which he doesn't need.  Tull as he stands is quite a character.  His significance in social and military terms is what it is.  A posthumous decoration will not change the society he lived in nor the officer he was.

 

the implications I have seen, that he wasn't honoured because he was black, are unworthy.  Indeed worse than that, unsubstantiated.  They are unhelpful in his case and seem designed to create mischief.  I also resent the attempt by some to make Tull "bigger" by alleging he was the first black officer.  Which I believe we have all come to accept was Bemand of the RFA.  Or that he was the biggest hero, though I decorated.  Which makes Allan Mills DSO MC of the RAMC look a bit at a loss??

[roughdiamond]

1 hour ago, BullerTurner said:

Which I believe we have all come to accept was Bemand of the RFA.  Or that he was the biggest hero, though I decorated.  Which makes Allan Mills DSO MC of the RAMC look a bit at a loss??

 

I mention Allan Noel Minns in my post #47, he entered Gallipoli in July 1915, 2L/t Bemand was Commissioned on 24th May of the same year and Gazetted 1st June https://m.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/29179/supplement/5315

 

Checking back Allan Minns was Gazetted on 6th October 1914 with his Commission date given as 26th September 1914 so far earlier than Bemand. https://m.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/28926/page/7920

 

So he's the earliest I know of so far.

 

Sam

 

 

[Moonraker]

3 hours ago, BullerTurner said:

Why oh why can we not accept Walter Tull for what he was?  Rather than trying to create a new myth of a gallant, British gentleman which he doesn't need.  Tull as he stands is quite a character.  His significance in social and military terms is what it is.  A posthumous decoration will not change the society he lived in nor the officer he was.

 

the implications I have seen, that he wasn't honoured because he was black, are unworthy.  Indeed worse than that, unsubstantiated.  They are unhelpful in his case and seem designed to create mischief.  I also resent the attempt by some to make Tull "bigger" by alleging he was the first black officer.  Which I believe we have all come to accept was Bemand of the RFA.  Or that he was the biggest hero, though I decorated.  Which makes Allan Mills DSO MC of the RAMC look a bit at a loss??

Very well summed up.

 

Moonraker

[Chris_B]

@BullerTurner

+++++++++++++1  

 

Two weeks after arriving at the front with a few months basic training, Samuel George Burge with rifle in hand advanced in line abreast into the maelstrom of battle.  It was as if he disappeared, no known grave, just one of thousands of names on the Menin Gate.  Perhaps he lies under a headstone, known only god, or his bones were ploughed up years ago.  His widow was left to bring up their baby son.  Now imagine if he had been black with pips on his shoulders.  Would they be making a radio programme about him now?

[Buffnut453]

1 hour ago, Chris_B said:

@BullerTurner

+++++++++++++1  

 

Two weeks after arriving at the front with a few months basic training, Samuel George Burge with rifle in hand advanced in line abreast into the maelstrom of battle.  It was as if he disappeared, no known grave, just one of thousands of names on the Menin Gate.  Perhaps he lies under a headstone, known only god, or his bones were ploughed up years ago.  His widow was left to bring up their baby son.  Now imagine if he had been black with pips on his shoulders.  Would they be making a radio programme about him now?

 

So despite the weeks-worth of films/documentaries and the acres of books devoted to the white PBI experience on the Western Front, you begrudge one, yes ONE, radio programme about a black officer? 

 

Not every soldier has enough documented history or, frankly, enough of an interesting story to merit broad interest.  Many of us have relatives who died bravely but with little detail or uniqueness to their stories.  That's not to denigrate them or their service, it's simply a practical reality.  That said, anyone who wants more recognition for any individual soldier or representative group has the liberty to do the legwork, write the story and try to get it published...or publish it themselves online. 

 

Frankly, I don't care about the retrospective MC issue, although I agree that he shouldn't be awarded it retrospectively just because of the colour of his skin.  However, I find it frustrating at the sniping of several people on this forum, often because Tull was black.  Tull was a pioneering man who broke established "rules" of white supremacy both on the football field and in his Army service, and he did so not because of the colour of his skin but because of his innate talents and abilities (including being able to deal with the racism of the day).  He may not have been "the first" black footballer to play in the English league, nor the first black/non-white soldier to lead white troops but he was certainly among the very early trailblazers. 

 

One final point...it's now over 100 years since Tull hung up his footie boots and yet, still today, we have louts throwing bananas onto football pitches to mock non-white footballers.  I feel more people need to learn more stories like Tull's in hopes that one day, just maybe, we can look on the qualities of a person rather than the colour of their skin (or pick your other bigotry of choice - religion, social status etc). 

Edited 27 March , 2018 by Buffnut453