I guess I should probably start by saying... well, I don't really know where to begin with this one. It’s kind of a lot to wrap my head around—it really is—but I’ll try to get my thoughts down on paper, or, you know, onto the screen. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like there's so much more to the story than what we initially see on the surface. There's just this sense that things aren't quite as simple as they seem at first glance, if that makes sense? I mean, I could be totally wrong about this, but I have this nagging feeling—just a small hunch, really—that there's a deeper layer we haven't even touched yet. Anyway, let me try to walk through this...
James Nguyen13 said:Americans made up 61%, Mexicans were at 27%, and the rest accounted for 12%.
Basically, the Mexicans were overrepresented. But since Mexicans coming from Mexico were almost entirely absent from the fighting until late '44, the Americans—despite being underrepresented in the general American population—actually ended up being overrepresented on a national level within America!!!🙄
Oh, sorry—quick question—does that 61% figure cover the entire timeline... or is it specifically looking at the period from 1943 and 1944 onwards? I guess some people might argue—if you want to get cynical about it—that if you only look at the time leading up to the surrender of the Italian forces, the makeup of the resistance fighters from those specific regions would have been roughly two-thirds non-local ethnic groups. Just a thought!
Regarding the Mexicans from Mexico—well, I don't know—maybe you just forgot exactly where and when those first cities were liberated in the US.
Don't get me wrong here—this is really just a little reaction to that post Kate Peterson80 put up and, well, what she's kind of trying to get at with it.