MovieChat Forums > John Wayne Discussion > Outrage after actor's decades-old interv...

Outrage after actor's decades-old interview resurfaces

posted 5 years ago by Rorikon (16361)
29 replies | jump to latest

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/03/02/john-wayne-airport-playboy-interview-ethan-wayne-smerconish-vpx.cnn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV4Kxf5Gqkk
https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Wild_Wild_Cold_War/files/2011/11/John_Wayne_Playboy_Int2.pdf

Playboy Magazine May 1971 where Wayne said, "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility."

Now the 'woke' folks call to remove his name from John Wayne Airport.

Imo I personally haven't really seen a lot of responsibility but I do see a lot of racism card usage if one does not get their way.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

I'd be perfectly happy to have the airport name changed. It's such a cheesy name, the guy was a lousy actor and a worse human being.

[–] Rorikon (16361) 5 years ago

I've seen many actors/celebrities have like streets named after them. Most recent that I could recall was:
https://fox2now.com/2018/12/15/cedric-the-entertainer-has-a-street-named-in-his-honor-in-north-st-louis/

I agree a lot of the names are cheesy but they do it anyway in honor of something.

He did most of the western movies back then, was nominated 3 times, won 1 Oscar. I wouldn't really call lousy (mediocre) but he sure wasn't an all too nice fella for sure.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

I never liked him as an actor. He was stiff and could barely talk, and his persona was based on a kind of unthinking brutality that I dislike him in real life. He wasn't really an actor at all, Dwayne Johnson is more skilled and expressive!

So even if he was a decent human being offscreen, I'd still resent having an airport named after a no-talent. And he wasn't a decent human being.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Interesting.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16135) 5 years ago

This was in 1971 though. Not 1871. The Civil Rights Movement was contemporaneous news. It's like saying there needs to be a pogrom against Jewish influence in 1951. It's simply not reflective of the times even for its time.

[–] Rorikon (16361) 5 years ago

Yeah, I found this old interview he did on minorities. None too pleasing but still very relevant to today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycU4_Fqne5M

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Asked for personal opinion and shared it ... don't agree with it? Good on you.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

I never was a fan and I distinctly remember some interviews he gave where his views on women were none too flattering either. He believed men were superior to women..And he was pro war when nearly everyone, even most conservatives, had finally come out against Viet Nam.
I am surprised about his comments on blacks but I don't feel the need all these years later to dismantle a man long dead.
I think digging up people is the wrong approach for the 21st century. It feels backward.
Just as rooting around in a persons distant past has become a national pastime.
At some point we have to look ahead.

[–] liscarkat (16476) 5 years ago

Abraham Lincoln said, "There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

A intelligent man like Lincoln, or John Wayne, looks around him at what's going on and forms a reasoned opinion. I may not agree with it, but he has a right to it. What is more important is his behavior, and we know neither Lincoln nor Wayne behaved badly toward black people.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

There ya go..
It was a different time and place...and in the end actions do speak louder than words.

[–] chilidoggg (13005) 5 years ago

Yikes. As for "actions" I'm pretty sure more african-americans (as a percentage of african-americans) went to Vietnam than did the white boys.

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

Why is it that, when discussing adult males, blacks are always referred to as "MEN", while whites are always referred to as "BOYS"?

There's no anti-white agenda though. Sure.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

Pretty sure?
Every male was equally discriminated against when it came to the draft.

[–] chilidoggg (13005) 5 years ago

Between October 1966 and June 1969, 246,000 soldiers were recruited through Project 100,000, of whom 41% were black, while blacks only made up about 11% of the population of the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Disproportion_of_African-American_casualties

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Yikes. As for "actions" I'm pretty sure more african-americans (as a percentage of african-americans) went to Vietnam than did the white boys.

Both percentage of population and percentage of casulties were about 10%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790–2010)
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics

[–] chilidoggg (13005) 5 years ago

Blacks often made up a disproportionate 25% to 80% or more of combat units, while constituting only 12% of the military.20% of black males were combat soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Disproportion_of_African-American_casualties

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

From the wikipedia link, it seems that due to the lack of skill and preparation, blacks were more likely to be assigned to be soldiers. And since soldiers are more likely to die than, let's say, a doctor or a logistics officer, blacks had higher casualty rate.

That makes sense.

And then, because that was racist, the US government took action to decrease the black casualty rate. However, since blacks were mostly soldiers, the only way to do that is to prevent them from entering battle.

So, late Vietnam war, you had black soldiers playing cards in the rear while white blue-collars guys were sent to die, to 'compensate' the low casualty rate of white officers, or technicians, or seacrew. So the 'global racial statistics' were correct.

Wonderful.

And that was the 70s.

[–] chilidoggg (13005) 4 years ago

From the Wikipedia link:

"As a result, by the war's completion, total black casualties averaged 12.5% of US combat deaths"

"blacks only made up about 11% of the population of the US."

In May 1971 John Wayne said, "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility."

I'm guessing Wayne would agree that the most "responsible" thing for any citizen is to die for his country.

[–] chilidoggg (13005) 4 years ago

"From the wikipedia link, it seems that due to the lack of skill and preparation, blacks were more likely to be assigned to be soldiers. And since soldiers are more likely to die than, let's say, a doctor or a logistics officer, blacks had higher casualty rate.

That makes sense."

...

I'm guessing you're getting your "seems" from this part of the Wikipedia link:

With the draft increasing due to the troop buildup in South Vietnam, the military significantly lowered its admission standards. In October 1966, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara initiated Project 100,000 which further lowered military standards for 100,000 additional draftees per year. ...Many black men who had previously been ineligible could now be drafted, along with many poor and racially intolerant white men from the southern states.... The number of US military personnel in Vietnam jumped from 23,300 in 1965 to 465,600 by the end of 1967. Between October 1966 and June 1969, 246,000 soldiers were recruited through Project 100,000, of whom 41% were black...

I'm guessing a very small percentage of white draftees were doctors or logistics officers.

[–] kuku (3510) 4 years ago

I'm guessing a very small percentage of white draftees were doctors or logistics officers.

Actually, a big part of any army are non-combat jobs.

WW2, for example, non-combat jobs were about 40% in US army.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers

Movies lead to believe that war are just battles. But there's a lot of work behind those battles. There's a saying, something like: bad commanders know about tactics, good commanders know about strategy, great commanders know about logistics.

[–] chilidoggg (13005) 4 years ago

I'm thinking a better explanation for the higher representation of blacks in Vietnam might be the practice at that time for judges to offer, as an alternative to a jail sentence, enlistment in the armed forces. I have no facts to back that up, and no worthless anecdotal evidence. It might be totally wrong. Just a thought.

[–] jason88cubs (2346) 5 years ago

i mean hes right

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

I copy from my answer in another thread:

That's not being racist.

Actually, judging a community by their behavior is the opposite of being racist.

The SJW modern position is the true racist one: black community is wonderful, no matter the crime rate, the issues with the law and the lack of civility, because... you know, black skin. Black skin is special and it overwrites behavior. Well, that's racism.

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

Spot on. Well said.

[–] Wuchak (8077) 5 years ago

Thanks, kuku.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"I believe in white supremacy" is an understandably troubling choice of words, regardless of whatever is stated before or after it. He should have worded himself differently. i don't think he was trying to be racist. He wasn't. I get that back then people were more likely to openly talk in a way that would be perceived as troubling these days.

[–] TheArgentinian (6423) 4 years ago

👆 Shit racists say.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Perhaps they could compromise and rename it Da Dook Airport.

[–] BourbonKing (5612) 4 years ago

The airport existed before it was named after him so renaming it is no big deal.

We rename sports stadiums after corporate brand names now so I don't care if Marion loses his moniker at O.C. Intl. Airport