Air Force Bans White, Hispanic, Asian Airmen from 33-Person Mission

At Robins AFB, Georgia, the US Air Force recently celebrated the progress of a merit-based military by selecting a 33-person flight crew based solely on the color of their skin [emphasis added]:

“We have finally been able to come together and fulfill an entire African American aircrew,” [Capt. Dewey McRae] said. “Taking that a step forward, we not only had enough people for the actual mission crew but were able to fill additional seats with instructors and evaluators, taking a full jet of African Americans to represent the combat Air Force.”

In their own words, they worked for “years” to create a mission that prohibited Airmen who weren’t African-American from being onboard — even to the point of filling non-essential seats.

The practice of fielding a crew made up only of those who identify as African-American has become a veritable tradition in the military. What was once considered an anathema to the American spirit – a race-based preference system – is now not only accepted, but also expected. While previous exploits generated at least some negative publicity, this year’s displays saw only a few people express dismay that segregation had returned to the Air Force and the Air Force was sowing division, rather than unity.

It seems, though, that such social “justice” of racial preference — though only when that race is officially preferred — is now not only expected in the military, but also supported by law. Recent news reports highlighted that the recently passed $1.9T COVID “relief” bill provided aid for farmers – but only farmers who identified as African-American. Apparently the productivity of a plant is dependent on the color of the farmer’s skin.

In some ways, such “celebrations” of race-based government actions seem harmless enough. After all, who cares what a JSTARS crew looks like? Well, apparently, the US government does – and that should be concerning.

If today the US government can choose to prohibit non-black farmers from receiving aid or non-black US Airmen from flying a mission – only because of their “race” – and that action is met with a collective shrug, what will become acceptable in the future?

Will the government be able to give or restrict aid or military missions based on political ideology? How about preferred sexual activities? (Can we anticipate another GayWACS?) Religion? If you doubt that, you must have missed the military’s new definitions for “diversity,” as well as the push for the US military to combat “extremism” in its ranks – where extremism, according to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, seems to be conflated with social justice prerogatives [emphasis added]:

“We will not tolerate actions that go against the fundamental principles of the oath we share, including actions associated with extremist or dissident ideologies,” Austin said. “Service members, (Department of Defense) civilian employees, and all those who support our mission, deserve an environment free of discrimination, hate, and harassment.”

Of course, when the US Navy officially recommends its Sailors read “How to be an Antiracist,” “The New Jim Crow” and “Sexual Minorities and Politics,” you can start to get an idea of what the US military probably thinks “extremism” is.

Update: As some have pointed out, Travis AFB did the same thing with an “all Black” KC-10 flight.

An all-Black aircrew from the 9th Air Refueling Squadron, Travis Air Force Base, California, poses for a picture in front of a KC-10 Extender after a routine aerial refueling mission Feb. 18, 2021. The purpose of the heritage flight was to honor Black History Month. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Traci Keller)

Update: And Travis followed up a few months later with a “mostly AAPI” flight:

A U.S. Air Force aircrew stands next to a KC-10 Extender May 16, 2021, at King County International Airport-Boeing Field, Seattle, Washington. In observance of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, the aircrew from Travis Air Force Base, California, mostly made up of AAPI Airmen, showcased the KC-10 to the local community. (U.S. Air Force photo by Lan Kim)



  • How would this look if the aircraft goes down? If I were on that plane, I’d be more concerned for what the value of the mission is than the color of my skin.
    Farmers are next? $1.9T is all back door slush funds to bolster political party greed. We are becoming the laughing stock of the world.

    • Renee Lynn Reif

      of the world-no. only in the small minds of people who don’t care about the rest of the world.

  • Renee Lynn Reif

    1st-fighting systemic racism from over DECADES is not harming white people-it is helping those in need:
    “Among other things the bill would provide $5 billion in assistance to minority farmers, while $3.6 billion is earmarked to fund commodity purchases and to provide grants and loans to processors, farmers markets, producers and organizations to pay for needs such as workers’ personal protection equipment and to retool operations to “maintain and improve food and agricultural supply chain resiliency.”
    The most controversial of the ag provisions would pay off direct and guaranteed USDA loans held by minority farmers and ranchers. They would get payments worth 120% of the indebtedness to retire the loans and pay the associated taxes. ”
    2nd: addressing systemic racisim, the long legacy of discrimination in this country, to include the military, is not harming white people. It is HELPING balance the playing field for people of color and others, such as women of any color, who benefit; when progress is made for any one demographic, other demographics also benefit.
    You white, male, christian privilege is showing, my friend. Your inability to see beyond your nose is prominent, or are you truly so specifically, racist? If the latter is the case, you will find yourself becoming more and more relevant as the world continues to turn.

    • @Renee Lynn Reif
      Who said anything about “harming white people” — except you?

      Perhaps you’re right. Maybe a society that elevates, helps, or otherwise promotes people of one skin color over those of another skin color is systemically racist. Why do you think that is a good thing?

    • There is no systemic racism in this country, that is an absolute lie perpetuated by the Democrats like yourself on the left. Now I would agree that here is systemic antisemtism in this country, but nobody wants to talk about that. Democrats want to perpetuate segregation even more which is taking our country backwards from where it came from in 1964. Remember, it was Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and they were all for segregation of schools back then. Why should stimulus money just be for one race when there is only one race which is the human race.

  • Renee Lynn Reif

    you didn’t say the words “harming white people,” but you inferred this. And by inferring this, you refuse to see the “long legacy” of discrimination to people of color and even to women of any color. I’ve been in and around the military most of my life, and have seen this. I research and read-yes, I have read How to be An Anti-Racist and have The New Jim Crow on my desk…. because I personally have experienced repeated discrimination as a female and thus, can see it happening to others. It would be helpful if you could see the world thru the eyes of others who are different from yourself, so that you can better understand.
    FYI-white christian privilege does NOT mean you haven’t worked hard or that you have had things easy. It means that others have experiences and hurdles you will never have…. so as a fellow retired soldier and activist knee deep in this activism, I ask you to try to see the world thru the eyes of your peers, your fellow vets and service mbrs who are not white, christian, or male.

    • @Renee Lynn Reif

      you inferred this…

      No, actually, you did. If anything, the article above infers that preferring one “race” above another harms society. It seems you’re the one seeing the world divided by race.

      It would be helpful if you could see the world thru the eyes of others who are different from yourself…

      You seem to make an awful lot of assumptions. Empathy means someone may understand your point of view; it does not mean someone will agree with your point of view.

      To that point, the idea that someone believes a person with one shade of skin should be treated differently than a person with another shade of skin is “understandable.” But it’s still wrong. Frankly, it’s somewhat shocking that you think its defensible.

    • @Renee Lynn Reif,
      Should I call a wambulance for you, you poor little thing, having to be born a woman by God’s sovereignty and grace. I am white, retired, and was definitely not privileged at all. In over some 55 years of working experience, I only reached a yearly salary of $35K working for an online university. Lived from paycheck to paycheck, lived in moderate housing with cars over 100K miles on them. I was often discriminated with other jobs based upon my age though I was just as qualified or more than the younger ones who applied for the same job. I did not whine, but if you would like, I can give you some cheese with your whine if you like. So stop getting your panties in a bunch and deal with it. Maybe if you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior you would see things differently.

  • Anthony Litwinko

    It’s interesting that it has taken the Air Force 74.5 years to finally have a large enough black service member population on one AFB so that it can actually do something like this. Or on another AFB so that it could find a KC-7 crew of seven (with, incidentally, only one woman). Prior to this example from Robins AFB, did you object, when you were in active service, to all-white crews on the basis that there were inherently racial preferences that would have excluded any black crew members? Did you write articles or make suggestions after you retired that, say, asserted that crews should reflect—at a very minimum—the racial and gender composition of the population at large? I suspect you haven’t, but if you had, you might want to post a link or two to those incisive criticisms of a prior “race-based preference system.”

    • @Anthony Litwinko

      did you object…to all-white crews on the basis that there were inherently racial preferences…?

      The US Air Force hasn’t, as an institution, allowed the selection of “all-white” crews in at least three generations, if not more. To do so would violate Air Force regulations and, arguably, the law. See AFI 36-2706, prohibiting unlawful discrimination, where discrimination is defined through Title VII, etc., as “A showing of difference or favoritism in treatment based on an individual’s race.” To choose an Airman as a crewmember because of their race explicitly violates Air Force policy — even if said crewmember is African-American/Black.

      Did you write articles [that] asserted that crews should reflect…the racial and gender composition of the population at large?

      That… doesn’t make any sense. You’re apparently new. Within the constraints of the mission, military crew selection should be merit-based, not race- or gender-based. Not only because of the answer just given, but also because the crew is selected for its ability to accomplish a mission, not create a magazine ad.

    • @Anthony Litwinko,
      How about a crew made up of no particular race, but a crew made up of the most qualified no matter what their race is? If the most qualified is all white and male, so be it, or some white and some women, so be it. It was Obama the Muslim socialist who took race relations back several years. It was he who pitted black against white, hatred for police and Christians and Jews.

  • Anthony Litwinko

    You misquoted me. I was thinking it might be an oversight on your part, but since you bracketed “that” I have to say that you were creating a bit of a distortion. I wrote “Did you write articles or make suggestions after you retired”–very well aware that you might not have been able to make any such statements while on active duty. I mean after all, the mid-century history of the military suggests that there was a race-based selection process. Think Tuskeegee Airmen, think Japanese-American units fighting in Italy, think black troops doing crappy supply jobs rather than in the front lines. (You could also refer to W.E.B. Dubois if you want some racial discrimination as far back as WW1.) I mean even Harry Truman was reluctant to put things aright. It’s great that the US military has gone down the correct road of equality since the civil rights era, but in this case perhaps, you might be making a mountain out of a molehill. After all, this aircraft event might be taken as just an attempt to show that African Americans are no longer subject to racial exclusion. Someone indeed might look at your piece as merely an illustration calling for empathy and understanding and even perhaps a transformative opportunity, such as when someone says “now you know what it feels like.”

    • @Anthony Litwinko

      Ah, so you’re ok with racism when it’s a “molehill” or the result of an illustration of comeuppance. Glad we got that cleared up. That’s still wrong, though.

      an attempt to show that African Americans are no longer subject to racial exclusion

      There are plenty of examples of that which don’t have to be manufactured through segregation. In fact, if you’d looked at the links cited above, you would have seen one. Check out the picture at the end of this article and then tell the class why reality isn’t good enough to demonstrate true diversity in the US Air Force.