Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Filmmaker Ken Burns has come under intense criticism for not including any Hispanic Americans in his new 14-hour PBS documentary about World War II.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Ken Burns, You're Better Than That!

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted April 2, 2007.


Filmmaker Ken Burns has come under intense criticism for not including any Hispanic Americans in his new 14-hour PBS documentary about World War II.
Advertisement

Imagine making a multi-hour, nationally broadcast series for public television about baseball -- but never mentioning Roberto Clemente. Or a multi-hour, nationally broadcast series for public television about jazz -- without referencing Tito Puente or Celia Cruz or Eddie Palmieri. Impossible, right?

So how did Ken Burns and PBS manage to construct a multi-hour, nationally broadcast series of public television about World War II without including any interviews with Hispanic American veterans?

Burns, whose reputation as one of pubcasting's leading documentarians rests on his penchant for producing exhaustive (some say exhausting!) examinations of epochal subjects and events, is coming under attack for what he didn't include in his forthcoming (September 2007) PBS series, The War.

Latino leaders from a range of civil rights, veterans' and media activism groups are calling for the series to be revised before it airs -- but PBS is refusing. Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is among them. "We continue to be invisible," Rivas-Rodriguez recently told the public telecommunications newspaper Current. "This is one that we're not going to allow."

Gus Chavez, a retired university administrator from San Diego who participated in a recent meeting with PBS execs, echoed her fighting words. The War documents a "major national experience and we're not part of it and we don't want it to be shown until it's corrected," said Chavez. "We are not going to sit still and let historical events of this nature be presented without our input and representation." Navy veteran Chavez has joined Rivas-Rodriquez in organizing "Defend the Honor," a campaign for recognition.

"We are totally geared to making the general public aware of our concern that this documentary is misrepresenting the war as it's presented to exclude the Latino experience," Chavez told Current.

But PBS President Paula Kerger says the network is standing foursquare behind Burns -- the star of her system. "While we acknowledge and respect the concerns you have raised, we do not agree that going back into production to revise a completed series that represents one filmmaker's vision is the appropriate solution," Kerger wrote in a letter to Rivas-Rodriguez, Chavez and other meeting participants. Instead, Kerger pointed to a Corporation for Public Broadcasting-backed outreach project tied to The War that is designed to bring out stories not told in Burns' series.

Kerger's muted response to the Hispanic concerns incensed Rivas-Rodriquez, who noted:

PBS is more concerned with maintaining its respectful relationship with Ken Burns than its relationship with the Latino community and its veterans of World War II. But it is public broadcasting -- funded in part by taxpayer money -- and it should be more respectful to the community than to any individual filmmaker.

Chon Noriega, a filmmaker and associate director of the Chicano Studies Research Center at the University of California in Los Angeles, believes the subject of World War II is "a sore point" in the Latino community.

"The Second World War," he told Current, "is where the community felt it had earned the right to citizenship that had been denied since 1848" -- the end of the Mexican-American War. "This is a critical turning point in their recognition as citizens and they're not there" in Burns' series, Noriega said. "You can understand why people would be upset." PBS is a "public entity receiving public funding to describe this history and they're just not there in the image."

Several Hispanic-American leaders released letters of protest to Kerger just before a recent congressional hearing on CPB funding. "A documentary on World War II that excludes the contributions of Hispanic Americans is inaccurate and incomplete, and thus fails to meet the standards of fairness and excellence for which PBS has been previously recognized," noted Congressional Hispanic Caucus chairman Rep. Joe Baca. The caucus asked Kerger to withdraw The War "until this omission is corrected." Hispanic soldiers in World War II received more Congressional Medals of Honor than other ethnic groups in proportion to their numbers in the armed forces.

Leaders of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists have also weighed in:

"[I]t escapes us how Ken Burns could have made a seven-part series that does not mention the contributions of Latinos," they wrote in a letter to Kerger. "His usually thorough work is seen as the contemporary documentation of U.S. political, social and cultural history on a wide variety of themes. For PBS to air the series as is would be a disservice to its viewers, giving them a skewed version of this important part of American history."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: the war, world war ii, latinos, hispanic americans, pbs, ken burns

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Stop whinning...
Posted by: ahmlco on Apr 2, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sick and tired of all the whinning that occurs when some sub-group of Americans feels that they're being slighted.

Why not call for Burns to go back and include Latinos, and Irish-Americans, and Polish immigrants, and exiled Swiss-Germans, and Navajoes, and OMG I almost forgot the Italians! And of course naturalized American Germans and Japanese who were harshly treated during the war. And how about Canadians? I'm sure SOME Canadian did SOMETHING important during the war.

And I'm sure that by mentioning Navajoes by name some Apache or Datoka tribe member is about to rise up and say, "Hey! We did this and that too! Why not increase the length of the show to 120 hours so you can mention OUR contribution?"

And why stop at race or nationality? I'm almost positive that the American Association of Cat Breeders made some major sacrifice during the war. (Of course, now I'm going to hear from all of the dog, bird, snake, ferret, turtle, mouse, and gerbil lovers out there who think they deserve THEIR turn.)

The problem is that while bitching is probably going to increase the visibility of your "group"... it's probably not going to do so in the way you'd hoped. But tell you what. If you think YOUR story really needs to be told, then finance it and produce it yourself... and see if anyone cares.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stop whinning... Posted by: mikelz
» RE: Stop whinning... Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Stop whinning... Posted by: mikelz
» RE: Stop whinning... Posted by: Gravitas
» whinning... Posted by: wleming
why are we paying for a movie about an imperialist war caused and
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Apr 2, 2007 4:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
inflamed by racism and orchestrated by internationalist bankers in the first place to aggrandise the Anglo-American banking cartel's influence in Asia and Europe? Is PBS trying to drum up support for the current machinations of the military-industrialist complex? Will this propaganda piece point out that the USA is the only country to actually use NUKES, and use them on a minority population no less? Will this program point out that the victorious "allies", and their banker masters, after allowing Hitler to eliminate "underdesireables" they essentially gave vast swaths of the world's continent to fake-communist, leaders like Stalin,Tito, and Mao who then proceeded to, literally, kill millions of people? And now whose "communist" parties runs an economy that is the wet-dream of these capitalist bankers, using prision labour, no worker protection, even selling organs to highest bidder, and swift 'law and order' policies to keep the poor "in check". WWII was not about 'democracy' but the bankers creating even more efficient states in which to exploit the workers for their gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmm, why does every minority have to be represented to the same degree as...
Posted by: ateo on Apr 2, 2007 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the majority? It's like when we put up a statue of a few men working together to overcome something. Do we make one white, one black, and one hispanic even if in reality they were all white?

Like the 9/11 fire fighter memorial where the picture it's based off of was 3 white fire fighters and the final product was going to be 1 white, 1 black, 1 hispanic. What % of NYC fire fighters are hispanic/black (3% each roughly).

So my point is, if there was 1 gay soldier in all of WW2 (obviously not the case, but just saying) should the contribution of that one gay soldier get equal footing with the contribution of several million straight soldiers? Ok, maybe that's a poor example but you get the general idea.

The % of troops who took part in WW2 that were latino/hispanic is probably something like less than 1%.

We know they were there, it's a matter of historical record. Does every WW2 movie and documentary necessarily have to devote a few minutes to talking about the .001% of troops in WW2 who were hispanic?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow! Alternet just figured this out?
Posted by: Bart Thesc on Apr 3, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been in the cartoon section of my daily paper for at least a month. I guess I should pay closer attention to the comics pages for breaking news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not letting this one go
Posted by: mviscid on Apr 3, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah I second that UT-Austin prof there.

My grandfather was born in northern Mexico at the time of the Mexican Revolution. They fled north from the violence to San Antonio when he was a kid (its about the same distance from WashingonDC to NYC). When WWII broke out, he didn't wait for citizenship before jumping a bomber en route to France. Took his oaths while in the air. Got a medal or two serving as a medic.

And three generations later, here in my birthwaters of Texas, I grew up hearing shitfaces tell me to "go back to Mexico."

Our history is this country's history. Your history. Sure, it's not to big deal to white Ken Burns--he doesn't have his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents' silent honor, sacrifice and suffering on his back. I don't know, maybe shit like this'll inspire Latino documentarians to do our own thing. Blow the lid off our stories. Sounds like that's what it's gonna take to get white America to see us as fellow citizens, instead of brown foreigners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not letting this one go Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Admit it.
Posted by: kirmabower on Apr 3, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I certainly am not asking for the imposition of any kind of 'political litmus tests' for documentaries..."

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing.

By the way, I refuse to read the full body of this article until you make proper mention of the Samoans -- but nonetheless feel fit to judge you personally for making this glaring oversight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

world war II sans Hispanices
Posted by: wleming on Apr 3, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is this possible: the Phillipines contain a great
many Hispanics, and MacArthur and an American
army fought and lost to the Japanese there... does Ken omit the
campaign?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was there ...
Posted by: cbreaux on Apr 3, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sat in the balcony of the Castro recently at the PBS-sponsored pre-screening of Ken Burns' saga and was furious! Only I'm African American and felt as marginalized sitting in that seat as I felt back during World War II working in a Jim Crow union hall. Described the experience in my blog (http://cbreaux.blogspot.com) at the time. Hearing Burns describe during the Q&A -- that he'd deliberately chosen not to tell the African American story in favor of those he did opt to go with was maddening. All those stories are compelling, but what the documentarians choose to hold up to public scrutiny tells us "what" and "who" is important to the nation's history. He failed us all by using 14 hours to tell a truncated slice of the American story that distorts by what is deliberately omitted. I'm not sure that I'll bother to see the completed sanctioned epic -- since -- from the pieces shown, it would appear to be far from the reality that I lived at the time; never being quite sure just who the enemy was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ken Burns responds...
Posted by: sunprairie on Apr 4, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ken Burns responds directly to this criticism in a new podcast interview with Wisconsin Public Television. You can hear it here: Ken Burns interview podcast

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO He's NOT, Roy...
Posted by: Urmutt on Apr 6, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Better than that" that is...

If you consult with the more serious Jazz crowd you will be interested to know that Burns so called 'document' on the music was the SCOURGE of that community passionately PANNED for his collusion with Wynton Marsalis who is also NOT well respected by veteran and more serious Jazz folks either. Marsalis is essentially viewed as the Corporate White man's pick to be spokesperson for Jazz but he does NOT represent the understandings of the more serious veteran Musicians and LOVERS of this music.

Marsalis is a wannabe Louis 'Satchmo' Armstrong clone and while certainly 'Satch' was well loved, there are FEW more contemporary Jazz Artists who trace their lineage to his influence as Marsalis (and Burns) suggested while those who ARE the important influences such as Miles Davis and Sonny Rollins and John Coltrane and Bud Powell and Thelonius Monk, etc. etc., the list goes on and on and ON, were relegated to only a minor consideration in Ken Burns 'Jazz according to Wynton Marsalis' CORPORATE Film.

AND going further, Louis was, like Marsalis, also considered guilty of 'Uncle Tomming' or ingratiating himself to far too great extent with the White Folks and the Corporate Establishment just exactly as Marsalis does himself, clowning around in the style of 'Stepen Fetchit' in other words as opposed to these other Artists I mention who demanded respect as serious musicians and refused to play up to the audience in Show Biz mode in that way. As you most likely know, Miles Davis even went so far as to turn his back on the audience and while he did so as he later related so he could HEAR the band better, it was also a symbolic way of making the point that this was ART he was doing and not just pedestrian Entertainment.

SO to make this clear for you, what ENRAGED the serious Jazz community is that Burns did NOT bother to really do his Homework and consult with the vast MAJORITY of Jazz folks to find out what was really WHAT, he simply 'signed on' with Marsalis and accepted whatever he had to relate as if he is the ultimate 'authority' don't you know, when in fact the only thing this guy really seems to know is how to 'Get Next' to the White Corporate structure and 'revise' the History of Jazz to suit THEIRS (and HIS) interests. The Ken Burns and Wynton Marsalis Jazz Series left OUT more than it included to sum it all up, it neatly avoided the more controversial TRUTHS of the Jazz scene to provide the more conventional or conservative public reinforcement of their own less astute understanding or appreciation of this great ART FORM...

SO NOW you KNOW that you should NOT have been at all surprised that he did similar injustice to the Hispanics, this is another example of historical revisionism to suit the more pedestrian and even biased audience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is Ken Bode now?
Posted by: Idon'tthinkso on Apr 8, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't he attacking Ken Burns for making a biased representation of WWII? He couldn't restrain himself from complaining repeatedly that the complaints of abused children about being placed in the custody of abusers were not "balanced" with the voices of the perpetrators who the kids said abused them. But no balance is needed for WWII? Bode is a hypocrite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is how...
Posted by: mlj on Apr 12, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So how did Ken Burns and PBS manage to construct a multi-hour, nationally broadcast series of public television about World War II without including any interviews with Hispanic American veterans?

Um... somewhere between 1.6% to 3.1% of those in the service in WWII were Hispanic. Even if we say that the true figure is 2.5%, if you randomly chose 40 servicemen, you wouldn't choose any Hispanics half of the time. It's called chance, people.

Twice as many African Americans were in the service as Hispanic Americans. Does this mean that Hispanic soldiers are not as deserving of recognition as black soldiers? Of course not. Buy a decent history book about Americans WWII, and my guess is that Hispanic soldiers are not ignored. To demand that one producer of one documentary include Hispanics in his documentary is ridiculous, given the numbers. If two hundred soldiers were interviewed for the film, and no Hispanics were interviewed, it would be a different story. Someone needs to do the math, though.

By the way, Ken Burns doesn't exactly write the definitive history of anything. The author of this article, as well as many of the commentators, seem to suggest that Burns' has some sort of monopoly on history. Go to a library, and you will see that this is not true. Your tax dollars fund libraries, just like they fund PBS.

Also, I agree with a previous reviewer who said that if Hispanics really want a documentary about Hispanic soldiers in WWII, they should make or finance one. I really can't see PBS NOT wanting to air such a documentary if it was good and it existed. Personally, I'd be very interested in watching such a film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Burns and PBS are Ignorant
Posted by: kandrade41@hotmail.com on Apr 16, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody from Burns's film company said that their intention was document a "universal experience" not one ethnic group's experience of the war. To him I say: What an incredibly asinine comment, and if you have a college degree, you should demand a refund.

Mexican-American soldiers fought in every theater of WWII, and were not segregated from anybody else. Eleven of them were honored by FDR and Truman with the Congressional Medal of Honor. In 1960, Hollywood even made a movie about Mexican-American veteran Guy Gabaldon called "From Hell to Eternity."

So please tell me what is NOT universal about that experience? Maybe that's the problem. Mexican-American soldiers were treated equally during WWII and were awarded for their service by FDR and Truman. Burns couldn't depict these soldiers as "less than" whites. So he decided to ignore them.

Ken Burns is NOT "better than that."

And to the poster here who said that Latinos were only 2%-3% of the soldiers in WWII, and should thus be ignored. Well, FDR and Truman didn't ignore them when they were passing out the Medals of Honor. Not bad for such a small group!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Burns and PBS are Ignorant
Posted by: kandrade41@hotmail.com on Apr 16, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody from Burns's film company said that their intention was document a "universal experience" not one ethnic group's experience of the war. To him I say: What an incredibly asinine comment, and if you have a college degree, you should demand a refund.

Mexican-American soldiers fought in every theater of WWII, and were not segregated from anybody else. Eleven of them were honored by FDR and Truman with the Congressional Medal of Honor. In 1960, Hollywood even made a movie about Mexican-American veteran Guy Gabaldon called "From Hell to Eternity."

So please tell me what is NOT universal about that experience? Maybe that's the problem. Mexican-American soldiers were treated equally during WWII and were awarded for their service by FDR and Truman. Burns couldn't depict these soldiers as "less than" whites. So he decided to ignore them.

Ken Burns is NOT "better than that."

And to the poster here who said that Latinos were only 2%-3% of the soldiers in WWII, and should thus be ignored. Well, FDR and Truman didn't ignore them when they were passing out the Medals of Honor. Not bad for such a small group!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Burns and PBS are Ignorant
Posted by: kandrade41@hotmail.com on Apr 16, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody from Burns's film company said that their intention was document a "universal experience" not one ethnic group's experience of the war. To him I say: What an incredibly asinine comment, and if you have a college degree, you should demand a refund.

Mexican-American soldiers fought in every theater of WWII, and were not segregated from anybody else. Eleven of them were honored by FDR and Truman with the Congressional Medal of Honor. In 1960, Hollywood even made a movie about Mexican-American veteran Guy Gabaldon called "From Hell to Eternity."

So please tell me what is NOT universal about that experience? Maybe that's the problem. Mexican-American soldiers were treated equally during WWII and were awarded for their service by FDR and Truman. Burns couldn't depict these soldiers as "less than" whites. So he decided to ignore them.

Ken Burns is NOT "better than that."

And to the poster here who said that Latinos were only 2%-3% of the soldiers in WWII, and should thus be ignored. Well, FDR and Truman didn't ignore them when they were passing out the Medals of Honor. Not bad for such a small group!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Burns and PBS are Ignorant
Posted by: kandrade41@hotmail.com on Apr 16, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somebody from Burns's film company said that their intention was document a "universal experience" not one ethnic group's experience of the war. To him I say: What an incredibly asinine comment, and if you have a college degree, you should demand a refund.

Mexican-American soldiers fought in every theater of WWII, and were not segregated from anybody else. Eleven of them were honored by FDR and Truman with the Congressional Medal of Honor. In 1960, Hollywood even made a movie about Mexican-American veteran Guy Gabaldon called "From Hell to Eternity."

So please tell me what is NOT universal about that experience? Maybe that's the problem. Mexican-American soldiers were treated equally during WWII and were awarded for their service by FDR and Truman. Burns couldn't depict these soldiers as "less than" whites. So he decided to ignore them.

Ken Burns is NOT "better than that."

And to the poster here who said that Latinos were only 2%-3% of the soldiers in WWII, and should thus be ignored. Well, FDR and Truman didn't ignore them when they were passing out the Medals of Honor. Not bad for such a small group!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blair
Posted by: Blair on Apr 25, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Ken Burns's documentary does not exclude Hispanic Americans. The documentary contains footage showing Hispanic American soldiers fighting alongside American soldiers of other ethnic backgrounds. Hispanic Americans are upset because Hispanic American soldiers are treated the same as soldiers from all other ethenic groups except African Americans and Japanese American. African American and Japanese Americans are singled out because they were forced to fight in integrated units. Hispanic American soldiers, by contrast, served as officers and enlisted men in ethically integrated units.

I think Ken Burns' decision to include Hispanic American vets in the interview segements is a good one. If 500,000 Hispanic Americans served, they would have made up 0.025 percent of the 20 million Americans who served in WW II. To accurately reflect their participation, they should make up 0.025 percent of veterans interviewed.

Hispanic Amricans may have won 11 of the 464 Medals of Honor awarded during WW II, but that's only 0.023 percent of the Medals of Honors awarded and is less than 1.2 percent of the Hispanic population during WW II. Japanese Americans, who made up a small percentage of the poplation, won 21 Medals of Honor during WW II. The truth is that no one knows which ethnic group won the most medals. If Hispanic Americans and Japanese Americans won a total of 33, that leaves 461, or 99 percent, of the Medals of Honor awarded unaccounted for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]