Re: [Marxism] Dunkirk, the War and the Amnesia of the Empire

[John Edmundson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

David wrote:

"Yes...there were Indian Muslim troops at Dunkirk. 4 companies to be exact.
That equals approx 1,000 to 1,600 troops...out of 400,000 or, about 1/4 of
1% of the total."

Technically, if 4 companies is correct it would have been more like about
4-600, because a British (or British Indian) company was only about 150
strong. But Khan's point is still a valid one. She really only uses Nolan's
film as a topical way to raise the issue of the "invisibility" of Britain's
colonial/Empire troops. As a New Zealander, I'm very aware of the role of
NZ troops', including the Maori Battalion's, role in the war, fighting at
El Alamein, Monte Cassino etc. I'm well aware of Australia's involvement
too, in the Desert War and later in the Pacific. I'm aware of the Canadian
Army's role in Normandy on D-Day and beyond. I've even seen reference to
the South African troops at Tobruk etc. But what do these British
Commonwealth/Empire countries all have in common? That's the point Khan
wanted to make and I think it's valid. Of course, film makers can't
incorporate all minorities into every film they make and watching Dunkirk,
I was just relieved to see the French being depicted as other than cowards
or irrelevant. Without knowing the specifics of which French units were
involved in holding the line while the Brits were evacuated, I couldn't
comment on David's suggestion that French colonial troops could plausibly
have been depicted in the film.

But the point remains that the role that Britain's non-white Imperial
possessions played and the price they paid, is not part of the mainstream
narrative of Britain's experience of WW2 and if the release of a big budget
movie by a celebrity director like Christopher Nolan presents an
opportunity for someone to make that point in the NY Times, then I say good
on Yasmin Khan for getting herself published there.

Cheers,
John

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:00 AM, DW via Marxism 
wrote:

>   POSTING RULES & NOTES  
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *
>
> The reviewer in criticizing C. Nolan, for his film 'Dunkirk' made a rather
> interesting omission. In deriding Nolan over his lack of people of color
> (save for one of the two scenes of *French* troops in the film). What the
> reviewer fails to draw on are any...facts. Yes...there were Indian Muslim
> troops at Dunkirk. 4 companies to be exact. That equals approx 1,000 to
> 1,600 troops...out of 400,000 or, about 1/4 of 1% of the total. I have no
> doubt that Nolan wanted to enforce the collective amnesia of Britain over
> the role of the Colonial Troops of which, the review noted, were over
> 2,000,000. But there were not 2,000,000 at Dunkirk OR in the whole British
> Army...most of these were recruited after Dunkirk.
>
> There were then two scenes that *should* of included the various South
> Asian and African participants that WOULD of made sense: the crews of
> various ships which is noted to have been over 50% and were not shown, and
> the scene of the one the British soldiers who makes it to French lines
> guarding the rear at Dunkirk, they could of shown the double-digit % of
> French African troops. That would of made sense. But on the beaches? I
> don't think so it was necessarily deliberate based on what I know about the
> composition of the British soldiers seeking to escape capture.
>
> David
> _
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/
> johnedmundson4%40gmail.com
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Dunkirk, the War and the Amnesia of the Empire

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The reviewer in criticizing C. Nolan, for his film 'Dunkirk' made a rather
interesting omission. In deriding Nolan over his lack of people of color
(save for one of the two scenes of *French* troops in the film). What the
reviewer fails to draw on are any...facts. Yes...there were Indian Muslim
troops at Dunkirk. 4 companies to be exact. That equals approx 1,000 to
1,600 troops...out of 400,000 or, about 1/4 of 1% of the total. I have no
doubt that Nolan wanted to enforce the collective amnesia of Britain over
the role of the Colonial Troops of which, the review noted, were over
2,000,000. But there were not 2,000,000 at Dunkirk OR in the whole British
Army...most of these were recruited after Dunkirk.

There were then two scenes that *should* of included the various South
Asian and African participants that WOULD of made sense: the crews of
various ships which is noted to have been over 50% and were not shown, and
the scene of the one the British soldiers who makes it to French lines
guarding the rear at Dunkirk, they could of shown the double-digit % of
French African troops. That would of made sense. But on the beaches? I
don't think so it was necessarily deliberate based on what I know about the
composition of the British soldiers seeking to escape capture.

David
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Dunkirk, the War and the Amnesia of the Empire

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

NY Times Op-Ed, August 2 2017
Dunkirk, the War and the Amnesia of the Empire
By YASMIN KHAN

OXFORD, England — Two and a half million soldiers drawn from Britain’s 
empire in South Asia fought in World War II. But they are missing from 
many British commemorations and accounts of the war — an absence 
reinforced by Christopher Nolan’s new film “Dunkirk,” which does not 
feature any of the Indian soldiers who were present at the battle.


The Indian soldiers at Dunkirk were mainly Muslims from areas of British 
India that later became Pakistan. They were part of the Royal India Army 
Service Corps — transport companies that sailed from Bombay to 
Marseille. The men brought with them hundreds of mules, requested by the 
Allies in France because of the shortage of other means of transport. 
They played a significant role, ferrying equipment and supplies.


The Germans captured one Indian company and held the men as prisoners of 
war. Others were evacuated and made it to Britain. Paddy Ashdown, a 
British politician, has spoken of his father’s being court-martialed for 
refusing orders to abandon the Indian troops under his command.


World War II is memorialized everywhere in Britain. The catchy wartime 
slogan “Keep Calm and Carry On” appears on greeting cards, coffee mugs, 
doormats. Towns still organize Christmas fairs with a World War II 
theme. Balls and parties that involve dressing up in 1940s styles are 
common on university campuses.


Yet Britain’s fixation with the war doesn’t do justice to the complexity 
of the subject. The focus on Britain “standing alone” sometimes risks 
diminishing how the war brought pain in many places, right across the 
globe. The war, especially when viewed from the East, was about two 
empires locking horns rather than a nation taking on fascism. Above all, 
the narrative of a plucky island nation beating back the Germans omits 
the imperial dimension of the war. Many people living in the colonies 
were caught up in a vicious conflict beyond their control.


Britain was always dependent on the colonies — in India, Southeast Asia, 
Africa and the Caribbean — for men, materials and support, but never 
more so than in World War II. Some five million from the empire joined 
the military services. Britain didn’t fight World War II — the British 
Empire did.


This has real significance for British South Asians. Baroness Warsi, a 
former Conservative Cabinet minister, said both of her grandfathers 
fought for Britain in World War II, a connection that 20 years later 
inspired her father to move from Pakistan to Yorkshire.


But others are unaware that their grandfathers or great-grandfathers 
were involved in two world wars. Generations of British schoolchildren, 
including me, sat through history lessons about World War II and never 
heard about the connection to Asia. British South Asians have only 
tentatively started to see their own place in this “British” story.


There are signs of change. Many historians, including Christopher Bayly, 
Tim Harper, David Olusoga, David Killingray and Srinath Raghavan, have 
written books about colonial soldiers and the war. The Imperial War 
Museum London is constructing new World War II galleries to reflect a 
more global story. Some schoolteachers make imaginative efforts to 
diversify their approaches to World War II histories in the classroom. 
Universities usually teach an even more complex and international 
picture. But the core idea that the British war was an imperial war 
still falls on deaf ears.


Perhaps this is because it is not a rosy, heroic tale of the empire 
coming to the rescue of the motherland. Young men in Asia and Africa 
often joined the army under duress. The war was fought for freedom, but 
Indian political demands were brushed aside in the 1940s, with 
nationalists enduring heavy-handed policing and imprisonment.


The British state bungled food supply in its empire. In Britain, wartime 
food shortages caused hardship and great inconvenience; in India, they 
caused mass starvation. At least three million Bengalis died in a 
catastrophic famine in 1943, a famine that is almost never discussed. 
The famine’s causes were a byproduct of the war, but as Madhusree 
Mukerjee has proved in her book “Churchill’s Secret War,” the imperial 
state also failed to deliver relief. Many soldiers signed up as 
volunteers to fill their belly.


A simple multicultural twist to war commemoration tells just part of the 
story. Histories of the imperial role in the war are convincing only if 
they tell an accurate tale, which is one both of great bravery and 
heroism but also of exploitation, uncertainty and