In Module 18, we began to explore the tensions and conflicts between the United States’ outward messaging about equality and multiculturalism and the reality of racial segregation and discrimination during WWII. In the last part of that module, we focused mainly on the experiences of Black Americans.
In this module, we'll look at the heightened racial and ethnic tensions surrounding American responses to the Holocaust, and Mexican and Mexican American presence in the US during the war. Then, we’ll turn to Japanese internment.
We’ll end our discussion of the WWII home front with an exploration of women’s contributions to defense industries, including the iconic image of Rosie the Riveter below.
Three questions will guide this module blog post:
How did WWII affect American race relations?
How did WWII transform the role of the American state in the lives of ordinary citizens?
How did the war challenge assumptions about gender and women’s roles in society?
Let's get started!
Part I: World War II and Racial Ideology, Part II
American Response to the Holocaust
In 1941, Hitler embarked on what he called the “final solution,” the mass extermination of “undesirable” peoples—Slavs, Romani people, gays and lesbians, and above all, Jews. By 1945, 6 million Jewish men, women, and children had died in Nazi concentration camps.
Initially, most US embassies and the State Department did relatively little to aid European Jews. Roosevelt spoke out against the persecution, and withdrew the US ambassador to Germany after Kristallnacht. But the US did not do anything to help the countless Jewish refugees who requested asylum in the US.
For example, in 1939, the German ship, St. Louis carried over 900 Jewish refugees. They could not find a country that would take them. The passengers couldn’t receive visas under the US’ quota system. The ship even cabled the president for special permission, but he didn’t do anything. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where hundreds of its passengers would die in the Holocaust.
Historians speculate that Roosevelt was unwilling to speak publicly to increase immigration quotas—the political price was too high. In 1938 and 1939, the US Congress debated a bill which would allow 20,000 German-Jewish children into the US, but it was opposed by roughly 2/3rds of the American public and was defeated.
Widespread anti-Semitism and distrust of Jews are responsible for US indifference to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in the 1930s. In 1938, a poll indicated that 83% of Americans opposed admitting additional refugees, and in 1943, 78% of those polls expressed the same opinion. [1]
Knowledge of the full extent of the Holocaust was slow in coming. When the existence of Nazi concentration camps was confirmed, military officials felt they had limited options. Bombing the camps or the railroads leading to them was rejected by those who argued that it wouldn’t stop the deportations, would distract from the war effort, and could cause the death of concentration camp prisoners.
Roosevelt formed the War Refugee Board (WRB) in 1944, primarily because of a report drafted by the staff of Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, the only Jewish member of Roosevelt’s cabinet, which detailed the anti-refugee policies of the State Department. The WRB had no authority to bring refugees into the United States.
American Jewish organizations, activists, and members of the WRB worked hard to lobby the government and introduce bills in Congress calling for temporary refugee havens in the United States. None of the bills ever made it out of committee.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson strongly opposed plans to establish temporary havens, arguing that Congress and a large part of the American public would reject the idea out of “fear that the location of so many Jews in this country would become permanent after the war.” Stimson also feared that it would be “almost impossible to be sure that they [the Jews] would be taken back” after the war. If they were to remain in the US, it would violate the “quota policy which I believe in.” [2]
Samuel Grafton, a New York Post columnist, suggested the creation of free ports—temporary havens for refugees, where refugees could be housed just until the end of the war. During April and May 1944, the White House received numerous letters and petitions endorsing the idea of free ports, not only from major Jewish organizations, but also from labor organizations, the YMCA, and the American Friends Service Committee, as well as the editors of major newspapers.
Although there was popular support for for some sort of temporary haven for refugees, Congress did not share the same enthusiasm and President Roosevelt was unwilling to endorse the plan without Congressional approval. However, although Roosevelt opposed admission of large numbers of refugees into the US, he was willing to accept 1,000 refugees as an example to other countries to spur them to open their own temporary havens.
Fort Ontario Refugee Shelter
The one refugee camp in the US was created at Fort Ontario in Oswego, New York. Roosevelt probably agreed to the establishment of this camp in part because he wanted to be seen as a humanitarian in an election year, and the camp would placate American Jews and their sympathizers without risking alienating those opposed to immigration in Congress. Historian Harvey Strum has argued that the “agreement to admit 1,000 refugees was merely a token gesture by President Roosevelt; it was not a change in policy.” [3]
Approximately 3,000 people applied for admission to the US. Applicants came from internment camps in southern Italy. The directives were that families weren’t to be broken up, and no family could be selected with a male of military age. Roosevelt also emphasized that he wanted an ethnic and religious mix—this, he believed, would prove better public relations and would give immigration restrictionists less to protest if the group was not exclusively Jewish.
In the end, 982 refugees were chosen. 93% of them were Jewish and most of the rest were Catholic. The group consisted of Yugoslavians, Austrians, Poles, Germans, Czechs, and a few other nationalities.
The camp was administered by the War Relocation Authority (WRA)—the same federal agency responsible for administering Japanese internment camps in the US. They were provided with basic shelter, food, and medical care. Children attended local schools in Oswego. Relations between the camp and the Oswego community were generally good, and residents of Oswego favored the camp because they thought it might help the local economy.
Refugees were not allowed to leave Oswego, except for special medical treatment, and could only visit the town for six hours at a time. A fence and security guards kept the refugees from leaving Fort Ontario without authorization. The refugees performed maintenance, recreational, educational, and religious duties at Fort Ontario, and were provided with stipends for the work performed. The WRA forbade work outside the camp, however, waived the restrictions during the fall of 1944, when local farmers appealed for farm workers to harvest crops.
A few months into their residence, refugees at Fort Ontario suffered from low morale. The residents resented their lack of freedom, which they thought would only be temporary. There wasn’t a genuine sense of community, and the residents divided into nationality groups. Even Judaism failed to provide a common bond—Orthodox Jews found themselves divided with non-Orthodox Jews, and separate congregations were formed based on language differences.
After the end of the war, the refugees tried to obtain permission to remain in the US as immigrants. In their petition to President Harry Truman, they wrote, “We have now been at Fort Ontario, held virtually as prisoners, without the right to join our family and friends, or to plan for the future.” [4]
After much debate and conflict within the Justice and State Departments, and after lobbying from Jewish organizations, President Truman decided to allow the Oswego refugees to re-enter the US as immigrants, utilizing existing quotas.
Bracero Program
Another program which arose out of WWII was the Bracero Program. The war gave large agricultural growers a pretext to systemize the use of Mexican labor. The Bracero Program was a bilateral agreement with Mexico, where Mexican laborers would be admitted into the US on a temporary basis. Under their contracts with growers, they would receive wages and housing. After their contract was up, they would leave.
About 4.5 million laborers came through the Bracero Program. In addition, there was an uptick in undocumented immigration at this time, as many braceros would leave their contracts early and remain in the US outside the purview of this arrangement. Although braceros were supposedly given adequate housing and working conditions, they actually were subject to harsh treatment. Labor unions were hostile towards the program, because they believed it would drive down wages for all farmworkers, which it in fact did.
The Bracero Program lasted until 1964 (well after the end of World War II). We’ll revisit some of the legacies of the program in the next module.
Zoot Suit Riot
During WWII, migration from Mexico grew substantially—both through the Bracero Program and other immigration. The government officially reversed the policy of repatriation from the Great Depression. In Los Angeles, the Mexican community grew and began to establish more stores, small shops, and movie theaters, in the downtown commercial zone. The majority of the Mexican community in Los Angeles consisted of American-born children of Mexican immigrants. More and more of these men and women enlisted in the military or worked in defense plants, and began to assert their rights as citizens—rejecting racial discrimination and segregation, restricted job opportunities, and police harassment.
A substantial group of Mexican American youth began to wear zoot suits (pictured in the photo above). A small, but visible number of youth formed into neighborhood gangs or peer-groups, at times engaging in petty crimes or other illicit activities, which the police responded to very harshly. The murder of one Mexican American man at a house party in the summer of 1942 (known as the Sleepy Lagoon murder) resulted in a sensationalized trial covered in the press, which fanned local fears of crime, gangs, and violence and demonized Mexican Americans as delinquents and criminals.
In LA during World War II, there was also an increase in armed services personnel on military bases for training in preparation for embarkation to the Pacific War. When on shore leave, soldiers and sailors crowded into the city’s entertainment venues. One training school for the Navy was located in Chavez Ravine, a large Mexican neighborhood, and its presence exacerbated social tensions. Men in zoot suits and sailors’ uniforms traded insults and verbal conflicts turned into fistfights.
This ongoing social tension erupted on June 3, 1943, when a band of sailors armed themselves with makeshift weapons, left their naval base, and went searching for young Mexican Americans in zoot suits in downtown Los Angeles.
When they found a zoot suiter, they beat him, stripped him of his pants, or tore his jacket. Over the next few days, more and more white civilians joined in the rampage, targeting mainly Mexican Americans, but also African Americans and Filipinos. Some Mexican Americans fought back and confronted the servicemen and civilians. A petty officer quoted in the Los Angeles Examiner asserted, “We’re going to do what the police haven’t been able to…we’re going to make the streets of Los Angeles safe for sailors, for sailors’ girls, and for the general public.” A quote from the Chicago Tribune was more harsh: “We’ll destroy every zoot suit in Los Angeles before this is over.” [5]
The Los Angeles police raised a riot alarm and began arresting scores of Mexican American youths, seeing them as instigators and believing they could quell the conflict by taking them off the streets. On June 8, military authorities declared LA to be out of bounds for the servicemen. No one died, although 94 civilians and 18 servicemen were treated for serious injuries. Of all the servicemen who participated, the police only arrested two. [6]
Poll #1:
The war engendered significant movement both into and within the country, as refugees and immigrants moved to the US, and as people moved around for jobs in defense industries and military service. Which do you think contributed more to heightened social and racial tensions? Domestic migration? or immigration? Answer the poll below, or access it here.
Part II: Japanese Incarceration
We’ll wrap up the examination of racial ideology during World War II by exploring the forced removal and confinement of Japanese Americans—both the fears and ideologies behind the US’ decision to lock up Japanese Americans and Japanese peoples' responses to incarceration.
*For more on why I use the word "incarceration" rather than "internment" see this statement on terminology from the Densho Archives.
As mentioned in Module 18, Japanese people were seen as an enemy or threat to the American people. This sentiment extended to Japanese Americans and Japanese immigrants living in the United States. Starting in the 1930s, the US government increased surveillance against Japanese communities, claiming it was important for “national security.”
Before the US got involved in WWII, it passed the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which compelled all non-citizens to register with the government. They were concerned about Italians and Germans as well as Japanese. Under this act, 5 million non-citizens were registered. The Census Bureau also collected data on Japanese, German, and Italian community members, especially community leaders such as priests, schoolteachers, and business leaders, looking out for any sign of sympathy towards a foreign government.
Thus, after Pearl Harbor was bombed, the US was ready to spring into action, since they had already been collecting data and tracking “suspicious” people or those that could potentially pose some sort of threat.
The day after Pearl Harbor, 1,700 Issei (first generation Japanese) were rounded up, and just months later there were 2,000 Issei imprisoned under blanket warrant. In addition, the Justice Department required all Japanese households to surrender radios, binoculars, cameras, and anything else that could be a tool for espionage.
As officials and leaders along the West Coast articulated their worries about a terrorist attack, and politicians claimed that Issei and Nisei (second generation, American citizens) were not really loyal to the United States, there was increased public hysteria.
Executive Order 9066
General John DeWitt, who was in charge of the defense of the West Coast, argued that all Japanese people should be detained since they were an “enemy race” with “enemy blood.” He claimed that one couldn’t tell who was an enemy and who was friendly, and a preemptive strike was necessary before the Us was attacked. In his rationale for locking up Japanese Americans, he stated “…the Germans and Italians…you don’t have to worry about them as a group. You have to worry about them purely as certain individuals. Out here, Mr. Secretary, a Jap is a Jap to these people now.”
On February 19, 1942, FDR issued Executive Order 9066, which:
Designated military areas, where any person could be removed in the name of national security.
Authorized federal troops and state/local law enforcement to assist in removal.
About 110,000-120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry (Issei and Nisei) on the West Coast were placed in Assembly Centers. More than two thirds were American citizens.
Assembly Centers were temporary, and quickly constructed at racetracks, fairgrounds, and other large spaces. From the Assembly Centers, Japanese Americans were moved to camps in California, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, and Arkansas. These camps were overseen by the War Relocation Authority (WRA).
What was the reaction of incarcerated Japanese Americans? One significant portion of Japanese Americans preached accommodation with incarceration. These people were mainly represented by the Japanese American Citizens League, or JACL. This organization was made up of second generation Nisei, and restricted its membership to American citizens only. They argued that they were 110% American, and essentially shunned their Japanese heritage.
The JACL cooperated with the US. They believed that in order to fight the discrimination they faced, they had to be as friendly and as understanding as possible. They argued that the incarceration was only a temporary violation of their civil rights, and if they cooperated, their rights will be restored back to them more quickly. The JACL caused controversy within the camps because they developed a reputation of working with the camp staff, and policing other Japanese Americans, especially those who were more devoted to their Japanese culture, spoke Japanese, or practiced Japanese religions (Shintoism and Buddhism were banned in the camps).
Others actively resisted incarceration. For example, in August 1942, Japanese Americans at Tule Lake went on strike from their camp jobs, demanding an improvement in their living conditions. They wanted to assert a sense of dignity in spite of the fact that they had been locked up. Others actively resisted the draft. While some Japanese Americans enlisted in the army, forming the 442nd Infantry Regiment, others argued that they did not want to be separated from their family and fight for a country that disregarded their civil rights. Members of the Heart Mountain Fair Play Committee argued that they would only agree to be drafted if all of their civil rights were restored. They argued that they were loyal to the principles of the United States, but did not want to serve a military that had locked up their families. Members of this committee were arrested and placed in jail for 3 years.
#/media/File:442nd_Infantry_regimental_colors_on_display_in_Hawaii_1946.jpg)
Conflict and tension between Japanese Americans and camp administrators was also seen in the answers Japanese Americans gave to certain questions on loyalty questionnaires. Two questions on these questionnaires stood out in particular:
Question 27: Are you willing to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States on combat duty wherever ordered?
Question 28: Will you foreswear unqualified to the US and faithfully defend the US against any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese Emperor, or any other foreign government, power, or organization?
These questionnaires generated a lot of concern and questions. For the Issei, who were not citizens but “aliens ineligible for citizenship,” answering Question 28 in the affirmative would basically render them stateless—foreswearing allegiance to the US when they did not have any citizenship rights in the US. People were confused about Question 27, wondering if they would be automatically drafted if they answered yes. For Nisei, if they answered “yes” to Question 28, they wondered if authorities would assume that they once did have loyalty for the Japanese Emperor. Many refused to answer these questions at all, or wrote qualifying statements explaining their answers on the questionnaires. This can be seen as a method of resistance, because they were refusing to accept the construction of Japanese mentality and behavior that the US government was assuming that they had. [7]
Poll #2:
In your opinion, which tactic do you think was most effective in combatting (or coping with) incarceration? The JACL's philosophy of accommodation, cooperating, in the hopes that it was only temporary? Or, the draft resisters’ philosophy of refusing to fight for a country that denied their civil rights, and risking jail time? Answer the poll below, or access it here.
Korematsu
We’ll briefly examine two court cases which challenged the constitutionality of internment. Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld Executive Order 9066 as constitutional. Fred Korematsu, a US citizen and resident of California, refused to comply with the evacuation orders. He was arrested in May 1942, by the FBI, under the charge of violating the military evacuation order. The court ruled that evacuation was necessary, and because Korematsu had refused, he violated military orders and was subject to detention. In 2018, Chief Justice Roberts stated that Korematsu decision was wrong and a majority of the court no longer found the argument persuasive. (For a great overview of the case and its implications, check out this episode of the Radiolab podcast, More Perfect.)
Endo
On the very same day the court issued its decision in Korematsu, it also decided Ex Parte Mitsuye Endo (1944). Mitsuye Endo was a test case sponsored by the JACL. She was an “all-American” girl—a Methodist who spoke English, whose brother had enlisted in the Army while they were interned. Unlike Korematsu, she went along with government orders for evacuation. She filed a writ of habeas corpus, protesting her unlawful detention. The Court found that the US had no grounds to continue her internment, as she was a loyal US citizen. At this stage, the federal government began to backtrack and slowly release people from the camps.
Word Cloud #1:
What do you think? Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of Endo and not Korematsu? Enter a response in the word cloud below, or access it here.
Poll #3:
I asked this same question in Module 18. Consider whether you changed your answer based on the material from this module. In your opinion, did World War II represent a positive turning point for American race relations? Answer the poll below, or access it here.
Part III: Women on the Home Front
Rosie the Riveter
Due to economic expansion and the loss of 16 million male workers to the armed services, there was a great need for women to enter the workforce in ways they had not before.
A vast increase in the employment of women occurred as a result. Between 1940 and 1945, some 6 million women entered the labor force, the number of women wage earners increased by over 50 percent, and by the war’s end, more than one-third of civilian workers were women.
As women took jobs in the defense industry, they moved into airplane plants and shipyards, steel mills, and ammunition factories, running cranes, repairing engines, cutting sheet metal, mining coal and making other supplies for the war industry.
In order to lure women into working in defense industries, the Office of War Information put out propaganda and advertisements, even infusing their narrative into popular women’s magazines. This propaganda stressed the message that women could and should occupy all sorts of jobs.
Women were represented as self-sacrificing, putting the needs of the nation above their own.
Thus, the new expanse of women into the workforce did not serve to generate an ideology that women had the right to be treated fairly and equally as individual workers.
Rather, defense work was depicted as temporary, and not a challenge to the status quo, because women were performing service to the nation and expected to give the jobs back to men once the war was over. [8]
At the war’s end, defense plants closed, and industries prepared to make room for returning veterans. Between 1944 and 1946, some 4 million women lost their jobs. Towards the end of the 1940s, with the expanding postwar economy, many women once again entered the labor force, but in much more traditional jobs—sales, service, and clerical work.
Word Cloud #2:
The iconic image of Rosie the Riveter has become a symbol for the modern feminist movement (not to mention, it remains extremely popular--you can find it on mugs, shirts, magnets, etc.!). How do you compare this particular image to the other Rosie posters?
Answer in the word cloud below, or access it here.
Also, if you're interested in looking at more war propaganda posters, check out this exhibit from the National Archives!
Consumers' Republic
Historian Lizabeth Cohen has argued that after WWII, a strategy emerged that served to reconstruct the nation’s economy and reaffirm its values through promoting the expansion of mass consumption. It was supported by both conservative and liberal groups, who saw the ideal mass-consumption driven economy as one that would provide “jobs, purchasing power, and investment dollars” while allowing Americans to live more abundant lifestyles than ever before (taking full advantage of FDR’s “Freedom from Want”). [9]
Because the economic recovery resulting from mass consumption served the national interest, the consumer became a “purchaser as citizen,” whereby satisfying material wants was actually good for the country. This ideology imbued the consumer with more power and stake in the country’s well-being, through his/her own consumption of goods. Furthermore, consumers were supposedly exercising their freedom of choice, and celebrating democratic values by participating in mass consumption. [10]
You can see how consumption was tied to expectations of citizenship in the Whitman's Chocolates ad pictured for this couple’s “post-war plan." The text at the bottom left reads: “Tom will resume his law career. Sally plans to give up her job, so she can be home to greet Tom—and the gift he’ll bring home often, a Whitman sampler.”
Office of Price Administration
One example of this “consumer citizenship” was the battle over the Office of Price Administration (OPA) in the postwar period. FDR established the OPA in 1941. Rationing went into effect in January 1942. The OPA required merchants to set ceiling prices for goods and granted itself specific powers of enforcement. By the end of the war, nearly 90 percent of all goods sold came under price control administration. While consumers cooperated with this system, business owners, manufacturers, and advertisers complained that they cut into profits. However, price controls were extremely effective in staving off inflation (where prices rise steadily, and dollars buy fewer goods) and enabled crucial military material to find its way to the front. [11]
The OPA was so effective because it mobilized citizen volunteers to serve on War Price and Rationing Boards. These volunteers organized consumer centers in their neighborhoods to hand out ration books and investigate violations of price controls. Being a good consumer became a way to exercise patriotic citizenship, and aid in the war effort on the home front. Check out the Consumer’s Pledge Song, sung to the tune of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”:
Consumer’s Pledge Song
“There’s a simple way in which to serve the country you love best,
Just read and listen to the US Government’s request;
By taking the Consumer’s Pledge—the best way to invest, in Peace and Victory.
“I will be a wise consumer,
Gladly do so with good humor,
That’s the way to win the sooner
To Peace and Victory!” [12]
FDR made the case for price controls and rationing of scarce commodities, “so that they may be distributed fairly among consumers and not merely in accordance with financial ability to pay high prices for them.” In so doing he invoked a sense of traditional American values: commitment to democracy and equity. Gallup polls documented Americans’ support for OPA market regulation in the 80 and 90 percent range.
Poll #4:
In your opinion, was WWII empowering for American women? Answer the poll below, or access it here.
Moreover, because wartime employment and market regulation led to a remarkable redistribution of income, this reinforced the sense that the war emergency was promoting this long-held ideal of greater equality in America. Between 1941 and 1944, family income rose by over 24%, with the lowest fifth gaining three times more than the highest fifth, essentially doubling the size of the middle class.
Even when they were salvaging, rationing, and abiding by market regulations, Americans managed to live better during the war than they had during the Depression. Spending on non-durable goods like meals in restaurants, movie-going, entertainment, clothing, drugs, liquor, flowers, etc. climbed during the war years.
Additionally, citizen consumers were urged to save today so that they could purchase more after the war was over. Restraining purchases during the war would restrain inflation and encourage citizens at the war’s end to spend, preventing a postwar recession.
Additionally, citizen consumers were urged to save today so that they could purchase more after the war was over. Restraining purchases during the war would restrain inflation and encourage citizens at the war’s end to spend, preventing a postwar recession.
More and more citizens invested a portion of their income in war bonds and personal savings accounts. By 1945, personal savings reached an average of 21 percent of personal disposable income since 1941, compared to 3 percent in the 1920s.
Companies and businesses advertised for the war’s end and touted their contribution to the war effort. For example, the 1942 ad for Royal typewriters pictured above read, “We are proud of the fact that the Royal Typewriter Company has been called upon to halt its normal business in mid-air and to ‘go all out’ for the defense of Democracy.”
And then, “By manufacturing ordnance now, Royal is hastening the day when you, a free man living in a free country, can once more walk into any store in the land and buy anything you want! THAT, AS WE SEE IT, IS WHAT THIS WAR IS ALL ABOUT!”
Now, to conclude, with a question:
Poll #5:
For Americans on the home front, was the goal of World War II more to ensure democracy and equality abroad? Or "freedom from want" at home? Answer the embedded poll below, or access it here.
Conclusion:
The war exacerbated existing issues of racial tension and immigration. Moreover, in the context of WWII, the US government incarcerated over 100,000 Japanese Americans, many US citizens, depriving them of their civil liberties.
Ordinary citizens were drawn into the war effort in myriad ways, from working in defense industries, to conceptualizing their consumption of ordinary household goods.
Women entered into defense industries and other industrial jobs, filling in the gaps left by men serving overseas. In doing so, they challenged many existing stereotypes about “women’s work,” but at the same time, their jobs were viewed as temporary.
Citations:
[1] Harvey Strum, “Fort Ontario Refugee Shelter, 1944-1946,” American Jewish History 73, no. 4 (June 1984), 398.
[2] Strum, "Fort Ontario," 402.
[3] Strum, "Fort Ontario," 405.
[4] Strum, "Fort Ontario," 412.
[5] Kathy Peiss, Zoot Suit: The Enigmatic Career of an Extreme Style (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), 110.
[6] Peiss, Zoot Suit, 106-107.
[7] Takashi Fujitani, Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans During World War II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 176.
[8] Maureen Honey, Creating Rosie the Riveter: Class, Gender, and Propaganda during World War II (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984), 51.
[9] Lizabeth Cohen, A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America (New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 403.
[10] Cohen, Consumers' Republic, 11.
[11] Cohen, Consumers' Republic, 65.
[12] Cohen, Consumers' Republic, 68.
How do you compare this particular image to the other Rosie posters?
I believe the "We Can Do It!" poster depicts women in a better light than many of the others that were used for propaganda. The previous posters still painted a narrative that women are inferior to men. I feel like this could have been a tactic to encourage women in the workforce but, it is just in poor taste, the posters subtly undermine the abilities of a woman which would motivate some to want to in fact prove the narrative wrong.
Hi all! I really like that so many people answered the question about whether the war was empowering for women. There are a lot of different layers at play here--for the women workers who participated in "male" jobs, there was undoubtedly a sense of empowerment. There's a reason why Rosie the Riveter continues to be such a powerful symbol today. However, it is almost a mirage--Rosie seems very strong in the most popular poster, but in the others, there are some clearly defined gendered power dynamics.
Khang's answer to the question on race relations was really interesting--we can't really make a firm judgement here on whether WWII was ultimately good or bad for race relations. What we can say for…
In your opinion, was WWII empowering for American women?
Even though that the posters were pretty sexist in saying how everyone thought women couldn't do a "man's" job, in the end, it still says how woman could do the same things as men.
With the war draft enlisting men to fight for the future of Europe. Women are the majority left behind to keep the country running. The need for workers to manufacture many things needed for the war effort. Now that women are taking over the jobs, the target consumer is primarily women. They work difficult jobs that are needed for the war. Then culture shifts to accommodate women in the workforce, and advertise not only jobs but also products to be purchased.
In your opinion, was WWII empowering for American women?
Yes, WWll clarified that women can do more than what people thought. They did not hesitate to supports their husband, their country whenever they need help. And it turned out that women could do good as men do, so WWll was empowering American women to show their ability to the world.