Dance Floor Democracy: The Social Geography of Memory at the Hollywood Canteen

The Hollywood Canteen has been pinned to the wall of American History as a squeaky clean image of The Good War and all that's right with America. There's nothing wrong with that, because The Hollywood Canteen "was" this in many ways. But, as with most anything, the reality is not always the collective agreed upon memory, but individual experiences and interpretations of things. Some people won't want to delve into that aspect of anything. So it might be for some who read this book. I disagree with the reviewer who says it's "not very balanced". The book is, in itself, a balance to the sugar coated nostalgia of how this topic is often portrayed. And this is not to say that it's portrayed in a negative light. It's just portrayed through a lens of difference. I find this book eminently fascinating.The author provides a great deal of research into how the canteen operated within the social mores of the time. How women in the military viewed the canteen, different races, men who weren't in the military, a gay man who volunteered there, the politics of those operating the place and other viewpoints that don't nullify the good the canteen is deservedly known for, but to offer a broader perspective of it's existence within all these facets.Trust me, I love the Hollywood Canteen and the feel good nostalgia it brings along with it. But I never find it detracts to learn about the entirety of experience that various peoples have within that nostalgia. It enriches it. It's not negative to point out variations of experience, it's just reality and can be appreciated. One's experience doesn't negate someone elses, in fact it can enhance your views to find out the personal in any given historical category rather than the unreality of one static view, as Brokaw has done by labeling one specific generation as the "greatest." His viewpoint is easy to write. Sherrie Tucker has walked a tightrope and ultimately succeeded on a very high and more worthwhile level. Thanks for listening.

The book is not a very balanced portrayal of the USO. The author cherry-picks and stresses negative examples of the USO to further a nonobjective agenda of the era.