Review: The Globe and Anchor Men - U.S. Marines and American Manhood in the Great War Era by Mark False

Review:

 

The Globe and Anchor Men – U.S. Marines and American Manhood in the Great War Era 

Mark Ryland Folse. Lawrence, Kansas : University Press of Kansas, 2024. Kindle Edition. Notes. Illustrations. Bibliography. Index.

 

Reviewed by John S. Naylor

 

In this work, Mark Folse has assembled a truly insightful interpretation of Marine Corps cultural history. As he describes it, “A gendered analysis of the Marine Corps…” has not been a traditional path taken in exploring the Corps’ history. However, this work provides answers for questions rarely posed. Much of Marines’ history is grounded in popular iconography and dogma. Historians examine the individual Marines, the battles, the weapons, the training and militaria associated with the service; however, examination of WHY Marines were they the way they were is not a well-trodden path.  

 

Mr. Folse examines this ground through three movements, “Elements of the U.S. Marine Corps”, “The Great War”, and “Consequences of War and Counterinsurgency”. In the first, he ably recounts events and movements within the Corps from its inception, and places them in juxtaposition to American societal norms. He accomplishes this by looking at how Marine Corps culture presented itself to the public, and in how Marines viewed themselves, through the prism of gender roles. This examination of the history of the Marine Corps up to the end of the 19^th century is outstanding and complement’s works such as Jack Shulimson’s “The Marine Corps’ Search for a Mission, 1880-1898” and Heather Venable’s “How the Few Became the Proud: Crafting the Marine Corps Mystique, 1874–1918”. 

 

In Globe and Anchor Men, Folse highlights the existential threats to the Corps since its inception, and the conventional wisdom exposition surrounding the closure of the American West, and the outward orientation of mercantile colonialism. Mark accurately exposes the lack of development in the Corps structure and mission prior to the Spanish War, despite some internal training developments. Where the force did evolve was in its recruiting methods and structures, a full reflection of the mores and virtues of the leaders and times. 

 

In this analysis takes the time and effort to introduce terminology probably unfamiliar to casual military historians. He lays out the differences in “manliness”, “masculinity”, and “manhood” and why they matter in an examination of culture, both within and without the service, and how “military manliness” differs from that of greater society. Mark makes the point that due to the unique nature of the Marine Corps, serving both on land and at sea, sets the Corps apart from sailors and soldiers of the era. And, for the uninformed, Mark delineates the difference between masculinity and manliness; the former regarding “physical characteristics and actions, imagery and artwork” and the latter “physical and moral characteristics of men.”

 

From here, Mark examines the imagery of recruiting material, and how it mirrored the identity of Marines. Of import, this facilitates the examination of the readiness movement leading into World War I, and how the Corps exploited their innovative and powerful recruiting and public affairs apparatus to secure the manpower required. Additionally, Mr. Folse explores “whiteness” and the Marines’ identity, in an age when the two other services both enlisted African Americans in limited or segregated roles. Since written instructions on restricting blacks from enlisting in the Marine Corps don’t exist, his explanation of attitudes on race go a good distance to explain why the force did not accept blacks until 1942, the popular image of the Marine simply wasn’t anything other than a white male.

 

In the second part, Folse shows how the First World War was instrumental in building the reputation of the Marine Corps in greater American society, through the greatest sacrifice imaginable in the fields and woods of France. And while the American public was preoccupied by actions in France, the Corps was not solely occupied by fighting the Germans. Folse takes great pains to explain the difficult and ugly fight the force experienced in Haiti and Santo Domingo, and how Marines’ attitudes and actions towards the non-white native populations negatively affected public opinion. Mark paints an accurate and unflattering portrait of Marines on Hispaniola showing the depth of his scholarship on the occupation of the island. 

 

Disturbing atrocities in the Caribbean, and their ensuing investigations, forced the new commandant, John Lejeune, to create an alternative image of Marines to maintain recruiting and appropriations needed to keep the Corps relevant, through public displays, sporting events, academic programs, and outreach. This built on decades of the Marines recruiting machine experience in presenting the mythical white, male, ideal Marine, influencing the Army efforts made in recruiting of the era. 

 

Mr. Folse closes his thesis with a focus on how the Marines’ gendered focus during the Great War and after would affect ensuing generations of Marines, both for the good and the ill. Folse recounts how, during World War II, Commandant Holcomb, in keeping with the beliefs that Marines were exclusively white males, sought to halt integration of the service, creating what was in effect, a “Jim Crow Marine Corps.” Following this shame, the author tracks perception of Marine roles through Korea, Vietnam, and into the era of the Global War on Terror, touching on his own personal experience as a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

In his closing, Folse points out that as society changes, the historical investigation of our institutions must reflect those changes. Military historians, conservative by nature, would not expect a “gendered” examination of the Marines, an organization that remains largely dominated by white males in power. A greater understanding of the force, as it becomes more diverse, requires an understanding of why it previously hadn’t been one.

 

My one minor criticism, considering the in-depth examination of whiteness and gender, is that it only addresses the experience of the LGBTQ+ community in Marine Corps culture in the time period since the suspension of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Gay Marines’ experience in the face of pervasive expressions of “manhood” and “manliness” would be a complex and intense subject of investigation for any historian. In any other sense this is an excellent cultural history. 

 

Globe and Anchor Men ably recounts the cultural history of the Marine Corps and is a suitable continuation in many ways of the work of Jack Shulimson and Heather Venable. The discussion of gender may be awkward for historians unaccustomed in dealing with it, as with yours truly, but this work explains so much of the cultural history of the Marines in the past century and a half that it should not be discounted. At the heart of it Mark explains the WHY behind the mythos of the Marine Corps, oft neglected in the maelstrom of battle histories and tactics of amphibious warfare. 

 

Highly recommend this work.