Quite disturbing. I'm curious what the hatrackers younger than age 30 are being told in school? Was America the "real" bad guy in WWII?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That was an excellent piece.
Posted by jasonepowell (Member # 1600) on :
I was raised in the north (New Jersey), and I got a pretty good look at WWII. In high school I took a Post-WWII history class as an elective that also encompassed WWII, so my learning was pretty comprehensive. My wife, on the other hand, was raised in the south (Richmond, VA), and learned mostly about the Civil War. She's said that she only learned about WWII from one history teacher while she was in high school or below.
We laugh about it, but it's pretty sad that the south is still so hung up on the Civil War, because I, as a northerner, spent the same amount of time on the Civil War as I did WWI. We did spend a lot of time on Slavery though, so maybe the north just fixates on what good came from the Civil War whereas the south fixates on the fact that they lost? :-)
I'm 25, btw.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Interesting analysis.
-Trevor
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
"Hey, we weren't as bad as the Nazis."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:If there were any justice in the world, we would have the ability to transport our most severe critics across time and space to plop them down on Omaha Beach or put them in an overloaded B-29 taking off from Tinian, with the crew on amphetamines to keep awake for their 15-hour mission over Tokyo.
But alas, we cannot. Instead, the beneficiaries of those who sacrificed now ankle-bite their dead betters. Even more strangely, they have somehow convinced us that in their politically-correct hindsight, they could have done much better in World War II.
Yet from every indication of their own behavior over the last 30 years, we suspect that the generation who came of age in the 1960s would have not just have done far worse but failed entirely.
For me, this ending piece undermines his entire thesis. Mainly because it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of who and what he is criticizing.
I don't deny that to someone who made the sacrifices inherent in the Second World War, any criticism at all must seem like a slap in the face. But the intent is not that at all. And people are sometimes responsible for their own misinterpretations of other's motives.
I think this is almost certainly the problem here. They guy thinks that it's revisionist history, when it is simply highlighting -- for the purpose of completeness -- the "other, darker" side of the story.
It's not the fault of the people pointing this stuff out if people are uneducated about the WHOLE story. If you have to retell the entire story EVERY TIME in order to have credibility in criticism, then no critique is ever possible.
The facts are such that the great war, like every war, was horrible. Things that might've avoided the war failed. Those failures involve more than just evil bloody-mindedness of the Axis leaders. Economics played a key role. As did lots of other factors.
And, hyperbole aside, there's a good exhibit on US war propaganda in a US military museum in New Orleans that speaks a lot.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I have to disagree with the comments on Mao Tse-tung, most of the Chinese deaths were a result of mostly all the various civil wars and the war against Japan. Also if you took a look at it it was official Red Army policy in China to respect the people, don't steal, don't rape the women etc etc in order to gain their support in the war against Chiang Kai Shek who was doing the least effort to fight the Japanese. And actually saving all the aid and what not not to fight Japan but to crush the communists when the allies finished the war it took a coup d'etate against Chiang inorder to get him to agree to freakin agree to a unified front against Japan and wa spending his time before that fighting Mao.
The Chinese leadership tended to live like Peasents while the Nationalists lived like fat greedy capitalists and there will not be a single Han Chinese person who has lived under Mao who will not say that things are better then before. Everyone who died in the Chinese civil wars was essentially collateral damage or starvation as a result of it. After Liberation in 49' during the Great Leap Forward an extremly effective rationing prevented mass starvation as the Chinese also bought food from Canada and austrailia.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Alot of my history teachers at my college have views like this. They constantly spout off nonsense about how the U.S. was horrible in WW2 with the way we bombed cities. They say the U.S. was not needed in WW2 and how Russia would have liberated Europe without our help. They essentially say the U.S. was not a driving force in winning WW2. They also complain about the use of the atomic bomb in WW2 and how we should have invaded instead of using the bomb. It gets very annoying. Not to mention I am the student that helps international students get acquainted with our campus and the surrounding area. Every year once they start to speak english a little better they always start discussing politics and past history. They love to demean any accomplishment the U.S. has. Not all of the international students but alot of them act this way. It is almost as if they came here to find fault with our country and make themselves feel better about their own. Alot of them take constant cheap shots about our history and foreign policy.
I am not sure if that had anything to do with this essay but it seemed to fit. Like I said not all of the international students are like that, but I would say about 1/3 to 1/2 are like I described. The other students are usually extremely positive and looking for great experiences while abroad.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:They guy thinks that it's revisionist history, when it is simply highlighting -- for the purpose of completeness -- the "other, darker" side of the story
There is nothing wrong with looking at the other, darker side of things. The problem is when only that side is presented.
My daughter's history book does indeed spend a lot of time talking about internment camps and the horrors of the atomic bomb. I read it, and we spent a long time talking about what was going on in the world. I didn't excuse the interment camps, but I did tell her somethings about what was happening during WWII across the world.
You can look at all aspects of history, but those that emphasize only the "dark" side of America's involvement in the war are just as guilty as those that emphasize only America's greatness. America did some great things in the war. America did some things that weren't so great. Teaching only one side of the story, regardless of which side it is, is not teaching real history.
Let's teach what happened, and dwell on both some positives and some negatives. What is frustrating is history classes that spend days talking about how unfair the internment camps are and let the courage of the GI's in Europe and the enormous sacrifices of America to win a war against a tyrannical regime go barely mentioned.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree with Belle. I think the story in school books should be complete. And going too far into rah-rah land, or going too far into mea-culpas are equally bad.
And anything that puts the blame on GIs for anything other than actual war crimes committed (against orders, especially), does a serious disservice to people who deserve our thanks and admiration.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Awww, I was hoping this thread would be about Harry Turtledove's Worldwar/Balance series. That's the kind of revisionist history that's much more fun.
--Enigmatic
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, excellent taste in books.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Sid, I agree with your point about Chiang -- he was a Machiavellian fool insofar as that's possible -- but you must acknowledge that Mao did far more harm than good. The man was completely sick. Especially later in life (e.g. the Great Cultural Revolution).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Maybe this historian had a point, he probably did. But the wau in which he attemptes to present this point makes him sound like an angy old man, not an historian.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
'Revisionist history' is one of those phrases people like to throw around that says a lot but means nothing, and is thus perfect agitprop. It marks anyone using it as the most rabid kind of partisan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:single Han Chinese person who has lived under Mao who will not say that things are better then before.
Are you kidding? What about that delightful 'Cultural Revolution'? You're spouting nonsense. Try finding a Han Chinese in China who will freely speak a critical thought to a Westerner about Chinese government or Mao, and you should start playuing the lottery-your luck is phenomenal.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: 'Revisionist history' is one of those phrases people like to throw around that says a lot but means nothing, and is thus perfect agitprop. It marks anyone using it as the most rabid kind of partisan.
So, if I debunk a false history, I am a partisan?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Easy enough, there's a Chinese girl living here for about a year and she says that things are diffenatly better then before.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So, if I debunk a false history, I am a partisan?
Exactly. I say you're not, but the way 'historical revisionism' is used in this kind of article, the connotation of 'historical revisionists' is that they are academics and elitests, etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How on Earth would she know, if she's only been there for a year? I can't fathom how you can possibly think Mao was good for China.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I think he meant she'd been in Canada for a year, Rakeesh.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I don't recall that history textbooks through high school go into detail on much of anything. The detail and "the rest of the story" - (i.e., the other POVs) were the province of college studies - unless you lucked out and had parents that talked openly and kept other source materials handy - such as their old college textbooks.
And even then, remember - all history is revisionist. It is written over and over, with a tweak here, an omission there, an addition in chapter X. The victor writes the first round, and then the scapegoats chime in. And back and forth, etc., etc., etc.
My .02.
Carry on.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I thought that Mao's biggest accomplishment was weaning the nation off of opium and instilling a sense of Nationhood. I've been struck by the parallels between Mao's China and the Nation of Islam, and to an extent, you can see the trend from Jesus and Joseph Smith's efforts.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Just a little comment on Victor Davis Hanson, since he is a local around here. You have to read his work in the context of the fact that he is part of a group of Central California conservatives who use the code phrase "historical revisionism" to describe anything that does not jibe with their particular reading of history.
I find it interesting that he laments the emphasis on the Japanese internment camps, considering the fact that when I was in school and learning my U.S. and world history in the 1970s, the internment camps were never, to my recollection, mentioned at all. I learned about them from my mother, who saw her neighbors of Japanese ancestry hauled away during the war. Also, we were taught in school that the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vitally necessary to saving hundreds of thousands of American lives that would have been lost in an invasion. This was in a post-1960s southern California school district that wasn't exactly known for the conservatism of its teachers. Yet Hanson contends that "...most Americans never learned the standard narrative of World War II - only what was wrong about it." So he can't say that he is only talking about what kids are being taught now, not with that "never" in that sentence.
I'm afraid that Hanson suffers from the ailment that many highly ideological thinkers on both the right and the left suffer from - the illusion that because they hold the ideology that they do, they know more than everyone else...about everything.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
armchair!
woot! woot!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
lma...I was in So-Cal at the same time and our curriculum had nothing about Japanese Internment camps either. I found out about them on a trip to Hawaii as an adult, or perhaps it was a documentary not much before then. Bit hazy on the details, but it was MUCH MUCH later.
And while I'm not entirely sure what he means by "the standard narrative," I suspect that since I grew up with a huge dose of hero worship for American GIs even through the Vietnam era, I suspect I probably learned whatever it was he's thinking of. All I knew is that we were the good guys, saved Europe's bacon, and Hiroshima probably saved thousands of American lives.
It's kind of interesting that Nagasaki isn't mentioned. There's a pretty good exhibit on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the Truman Presidential library. What an agonizing decision the SECOND nuclear bomb was. I mean, nobody in the administration could believe that Japan didn't fold after seeing the devastation from the first one.
Can you imagine deciding to drop another nuclear bomb? I admire Truman more than just about any American President, and certainly I think he's the best of the 20th Century in many, many ways. But that decision was probably wrong, all things considered. He couldn't have known it, but still...it's not easy to look at and think anything but "I hope we never do that again."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What did you know about the Bataan death march before the History Channel aired a special about it? Did you know that American POW's created teh foundation of wealth for Japanese companies like Mitsibishi, because American POW's were used in violation of international law as slave labor...and then those very POW's were told BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to sign non-disclosure agreements preventing them from any legal action against the Japanese, as part of the treaty we signed?
And that anyone who refused to sign initally were refused passage home until they signed...once again as part of a secrect agreement between the Japanese government and our own?
I personally have heard a LOT of people trying to rewrite the history book about WWII, including a lecturer who claimed that the Nazis didn't really kill that many Jews in the death camps.
This isn't just about a PC label people use too muvh, it is a very real effort to completely change the history of WWII, and not to reflect greater truth.
There was one guy who was allowed back into the US without signing that disclsure...and he sued and was awarded millions.....one man sued about teh internment camps, adn was awarded millions as well.
These were NOT misuses of the judicial system, and were very important decisions....
But I had to search out them, because no one was reporting on either, not like they deserved.
You get the idea.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I'm 20, so I just graduated from high school a couple years ago. I went to public school in metro Detroit, and our AP History book seemed to cover everything fairly well. Honestly I don't remember as I've taken so many college history classes since then, it's overwritten anything I knew before.
The American history class I just took last semester that covered WWII seemed to cover things from many points of view. It was mostly pro-American, and our discussion on the atomic bombs was more of a debate, rather than the professor pushing one view over the other, he let the class go and answered questions whenever something was unclear.
But we only spent time on that particular issue because everything else was so clear. Oops we screwed up on the internment camps, big time, but we also made massive efforts to save large portions of Europe from harm. So we did far more good than evil, and that was widely accepted. But since the bomb dropping by many is in contention, it was more hotly debated.
Personally, I think dropping the bomb was a good idea from many reasons. I think America did a good deed in that war, with some smaller misdeeds along the way, but they were certainly no greater than those committed by the other players involved.
Posted by not hansenj (Member # 8066) on :
I am also 20, and here is my 2 cents worth: I think my high school AP history teacher did a good job covering both the good and the bad, but I definitely learned more about internment camps than things like Bataan, but not without good reason. Learning about how internment was allowed to happen is very relevant in keeping something like that from happening again in our society. On the other hand, having visited Dachau, I was sickened by comparisons made between internment camps and the Holocaust. From my perspective, they were not comparable.
In college now I am a History Education major, and I have taken several American, World, British, and WWII history classes at a conservative university here in the states and while studying in London. I have encountered a lot of criticism about U.S. efforts here in the states, but not at all in Europe. In the national museums in London the American role is, of course, not emphasized as much as the British, but it is both natural and acceptable in this case to focus more on your own nation. The main difference between the British story and the American story is D-Day. It wasn't a tragedy for the U.K. They had fewer casualties than expected, not referring to the entire Normandy campaign of course. In France people and museums were fully willing to criticize America now and in the past several decades, but there was a deep respect regarding WWII America and her GIs, especially from the older people. Even during times of greatest tension between France and the U.S., the American Cemetary at Normandy has never beed disrespected.
Of course terrible things happened on both sides, but I have realized through my study that it is impossible for us today to understand what it was like then. Total war did not mean the same thing for American citizens that it did for Europeans even then. I think it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past, and study the good and bad to get a more balanced perspective, but I think it is important that we remember that most of the soldiers involved were not career soldiers nor politicians nor controllers of large corporations. I hesitate to say they were heroic because that word has been cheapened by overuse, and so I will simply say that the vast majority of Anglo-American WWII soldiers deserve our deepest respect and admiration for sacrificing and getting the job done, though that respect is in no way exclusive to British and American individuals.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree with "not hansenj." I was surprised by the British Museum's down-playing of America's role in the liberation, but it does make sense.
And your last bit about the GIs is also spot on, IMHO.
Kwea...I'm not sure what you were responding to. Earlier you said the article was excellent. Were you trying to explain why you thought it was excellent?
I thought your post and and the links you gave were better coverage of the issue than the diatriabe in the first link.
It seems our children are at least learning a more balanced history lesson than the kids in Japan are. Maybe we should stop comparing our kids on math tests and use history instead. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Who else here first heard about the Japanese-American internment camps from The Karate Kid?
Okay, that might not be entirely accurate. I might have first heard about them from Wonder Woman.
Of course, I didn't actually LEARN about them until my college roommate, a second/third generation Japanese-American, wrote an enormous research paper on the subject.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for Sid's friend, how old is she? How does she know things are better? From Chinese public school textbooks?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Likewise, I didn't hear about the internment camps, fire bombing of Dresden, Bataan Death March, nor the "Raping of China", until in High School and College, and none of it came from my textbooks, that I can recall.
-Bok
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Clearly, the international liberal cabal(tm) needs to get cracking.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
She's around 18-ish but she has parents that have their own parents and the stories are passed down. Also there are hard historical facts that Chiang Kai-Shek was not a good thing for china for many reasons, you may dislike the Communists in China for X reasons but they are far better then the Nationalists who would've made peace and givenup the coast to Japan for as long as they could crush the Communists instead, the fact that thousands of his troops disserted to the Communists should also say something, no Communist regime ever comes to power without the support of the people and the PLA had it for acting far more civily then the Nationalists. Times pre 1949 were far worse then post 1949, find me some solid reason to the contrary and I'll listen. I for the most part will list things that happened afterwards:
Equal rights to women controlling China's drug problems eradicating pests (mesquitoes, tics etc) controlling STD's which is currently considered an epidemic in America Rapidly increase China's industrial growth and agricultural growth increased the living stand of the average peasent making China a strong nation in the eyes of the world and rectifying the past humiliations And many others.
Now I won't say Mao was perfect, he was more of peasent originals and a guerilla fighter at hearts and felt that China should be developped through continued participation by the masses rather then say a rational economic policy, but far less deaths were needed in creating China as we know it today then in creating Soviet Russia, and those deaths weren't caused by the actions of the Communists.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Likewise, I didn't hear about the internment camps, fire bombing of Dresden, Bataan Death March, nor the "Raping of China", until in High School and College, and none of it came from my textbooks, that I can recall.
-Bok
Do you really think that kids should be taught that stuff BEFORE they get to high school?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it'd be better to wait until they are older, can understand it better, and care more.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bob, I do think the article was excellent as it raised several good points. I didn't say it was perfect..the ending was a little bombastic, to be honest, but overall some very good points were made.
I have seen a lot of people second guessing what the US did in the war lately, but it is easy to criticize now, many years later, when we don't have the same problems. Back then we had had very heavy casualties, and were facing many more, and we felt we had had enough. . .so we ended the war in the way we felt was best for our side.
So many things have been glossed over by the Europeans and the Japanese, but they turn around and accuse US of atrocities....
Only 1% of all American POW's died in German hands, but 38% of all POW's died under the Japanese work camps...and the very companies that used those POW's so horribly have products in almost every American household, but o not one cent has been paid as reparations by the Japanese government, and no apology was every demanded by, or offered.
But Japan has no problem complaining about the nuclear bombs dropped on them, even though they had armed their entire population, and told them never to surrender under any circumstances. I understand the civilian losses were horrible, but then again...if the population is armed and ready to fight to the last man, woman and child, are they really civilians?
How many Americans would have died in the on assault the Japanese mainland? No one knows....and in wartime, those types of calculations are necessary , as horrible as that sounds. How many Chinese workers died in those camps? Countless, well over 10,00 according to most reports, if not more.
Not one cent paid, not one apology issued.
But we are the bad people, the arrogant ones?
War sucks all the way around, but there has been plenty of time to at least try to make amends.
Kwea
[ May 24, 2005, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: ...no Communist regime ever comes to power without the support of the people...
Tell that to my many South Vietnamese friends.
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: Times pre 1949 were far worse then post 1949, find me some solid reason to the contrary and I'll listen.
The people are repressed and the state controls and colors news. The Communist state is so popular in China that it required the slaughter of students in Tiananmen Square to keep themselves in power. They rule by fear.
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: Rapidly increase China's industrial growth
By reacquiring Hong Kong and pirating American software and movies (Probably even Civ).
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: making China a strong nation in the eyes of the world
Strong, as in belligerant, but not necessarily universally respected.
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: far less deaths were needed in creating China as we know it today then in creating Soviet Russia,
See comments about Tiananman Square
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but tens of millions of Russians were killed during the Soviet rise to power, and then during their reign. What are the numbers out of China?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
While we learned about American mistakes and offenses, like Japanese-American internment, we only spent a few pages out of a large chunk of the history books (both the US history post Civil War book and the World History post Industrial Revolution book, which is pretty much where HS history was at, earlier stuff having been covered in Elementary and Jr. HS), although we did focus some on it in English classes. Mostly, we learned about the causes, course, and effects of WWII, from what I think was a pretty fair perspective, and we were also assigned and required to do independent research and reading using various sources, so I think we got a fair and pretty global look at WWII.
Of course, I was in the advanced track program in a school where the regular track was more advanced than what much of the state was doing. So I don't know what to tell you.
(I just turned 22, and grew up north of L.A. and Pasadena, CA.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I figured one of the reasons that criticism ramps up many years later is that documents describing it all become declassified and scholars get a chance to review and revise the official "history" at that point.
I'm not sure that's what's been happening in the case of the 2nd World War in recent years, but it would make sense that much of the "stuff" that was originally classified might be not just sensitive, but also contrary to the established truth that was deemed important to foster at the time.
Just a thought.
It wouldn't necessarily indicate that people were setting out to undermine the reputation of their own country, but rather that the newest, freshest information contains at least SOME nasty little secrets and that's what is naturally going to get the most attention because it CAUSES a revision in people's thinking.
Historians doing that kind of work really can't be expected to stop and worry about whether they are presenting a full and balanced picture, especially if they are writing for other historians. What happens to it in the popular media and culture is also not their responsibility. If the rest of us are ignorant of all the context, and thus, the reasons for continued pride and belief in the core narrative, is that really THEIR fault?
I think the term "revisionist history" is a lot like "activist judges." It's a fancy term for "I don't like what you did or said and I think you shouldn't have the right to do it or say it." It's a smokescreen. It is used to attack the messenger rather than address the real issue -- ignorance in this case.
Oh well...
I also think that textbooks need revision, but as long as we allow local school boards to pick and choose, and as long as TX is the state that drives what's in the Nation's textbooks at the macro scale, I don't see this problem getting solved any time soon.
All I can recommend is people educating their children in the things they feel are important. Afterall, if the average parent today thought that a realistic perspective on the 2nd World War was critical to their children's upbringing, wouldn't we already have that balance in their education?
It's all about priorities.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh. So she wasn't there at all, and has passed-down stories to 'prove' her position. That's what I was hinting at, and quite different from what you originally suggested.
I did not say Chiang was good, or better than Mao...but let me ask you, Sid, where would you rather live? Taiwan, or the PRC? Let me be blunt and say that if you answer PRC, you're a liar or under delusions.
The numbers out of China include grossly stupid decisions by the delightful Mao that involve the starvation of millions upon millions of the 'peasants'-are you of aware at how much that word reveals, Sid?-that he didn't manage to kill in installing his autocratic government. China to this day oppresses, frequently with brutality, anyone who does not toe the party line in religion (Mao), government (Maoist-Communist), press (Maoist-controlled).
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think the term "revisionist history" is a lot like "activist judges." It's a fancy term for "I don't like what you did or said and I think you shouldn't have the right to do it or say it." It's a smokescreen. It is used to attack the messenger rather than address the real issue -- ignorance in this case.
The comparison to activist judges is silly. There are hundreds of examples of judges who rule based on their own opinion rather than constitutionality. I'm still waiting for somebody to point out where California's proposition 187 violatd the constitution, yet it was overturned by ONE 9th circuit extremely liberal activist judge, and the people of California have no recourse.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, but tens of millions of Russians were killed during the Soviet rise to power, and then during their reign. What are the numbers out of China?
I made no such comparison.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Direct murder? Unknown, to my knowledge. Murder through negligence (i.e., hey, let's have every 'peasant' make their own steel for the state!)? Many, many millions.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
"By reacquiring Hong Kong and pirating American software and movies (Probably even Civ)."
Woah! The great leap forward in the 50's quite unmistakedly spurred massive industrial and agricultural growth and if I am aware Hong Kong wasn't given back to China until 1991... hmm....
As for South Vietnam, some did support it some didn't nothing there was 100% for either side.
Now don't you have any idea what it was like in the PRC pre 1949? Oppression by Nationalists, oppression by the land lords and rich peasents, oppression by the Japanese in 1932 onwards. Oppression anbd humiliation at the hands of westerners remember the sign "No dogs and Chinese allowed" in a Shanghai restuarant? And what about the famines and the mass starvation caused by the fact that local governors wouldn't even empty their granaries to help the peasents?
And if I remember correctly I said that millions of lives were saved from mass starvation during bad harvets years through an extremely efficient rationing system and food imports from Canada and Aussies.
Now, the point of what I was saying that things were better under Mao then under Chiang Kai Shek not that things were perfectly goodie goodie like it is in America *cough* presently. And you unless you can give me hard facts and references to the Chinese civil war statistics of how many died and accuratly give how many died supposedly at the hands of Mao and the CCP your aren't worth a fart. The fact that Mao, out numbered and out gunned somehow completely turned the tables on Chiang who possesed a multi million man army supplied by America some how managed to win a completely astounding victory.
I'll tell you how it happened Mao had the support of the People and the masses of China who gave the Communists food, intell and eager volunteers. All for the purpose of saving China.
Also, I find it interestng how no one seems to be refuting my points of the things that happened post 1949.
Now as to where I'ld want to live, I may want to live in China if I'm offered a job plenty of people including Americans and Canadians have moved to China for work. And yes the girl I talked to was born in China and came here about a year ago.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sid, you have no clue.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wasn't saying they should learn before, I was just mentioning my own chronology, and the fact that if it weren't for outside sources, I would have learned a "Rah-rah!" version of World War II that glossed over or omitted certain events of that war.
And I went to High School in a prep school in bleeding heart MA.
-Bok
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Bok, you are so white you make Caspar the Ghost look like he has a tan... Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Unforunate is all I have to say I was mistaken. However I still say things were better under Mao then under Chiang Kai Shek that I will hold onto.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sid, I agree with Kwea, you're clueless when it comes to Mao. Things were bad under Chiang and the Nationalists, that's why the revolution had popular support. But Mao didn't improve things. Don't even mention The Great Leap Forward as a plus, without research.
quote:The death toll of Mao’s visionary land reforms, leaps forward, political purges, re-education programs and wayward cultural revolutions has “been exceeded only once,” says Mao biographer Philip Short, and that was “by all the dead in the Second World War.” Though the actual number of Mao's victims remains incalculable, the tally may exceed 60 million.
from Kwea's 3rd link.
Also, the Chinese girl who you know was likely indoctrinated in Maoist propaganda her whole life.
[ May 24, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And as for comparisons between Mao and Chiang...look at the standards of living, the freedoms, of Taiwanese, and Chinese people (though they both consider themselves Chinese), and ask yourself who was the better leader.
'Unfortunate'? Sixty million people died as a direct result of Mao's stupidity. I realize China is the land of epic population statistics in all areas, but that is a catastrophic, reprehensible fact.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Actually, I'd have to say that Mao was good for China at least in the sense that he banned the practice of foot-binding, which had effectively made chinese women physically inferior to men. On the other hand, he made all those women who had foot-bindings romove them, which was very cruel on his part.
The fact of the matter is, so-called "communist" nations have always arisen to power with empty promises on the part of would be totalitarians.
Furthermore, as was said before, it is easy to judge the past by the present's standards. The people in China honestly did think that they'd be better off under Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong was able to do what he did by transforming communism into a "truth" or religious fervor.
Was China better off post 49 under Mao? Well the fact of the matter is there was no one else ruling China during that time and under those circumstances, so any speculation as to which was better, more humane, or otherwise is a totally fruitless endeavor. What happened, happened and China is now under an Totalitarian regime (by my estimation).
Lastly, nobody here is clueless (or maybe everyone is) and Mao was not stupid, it takes a smart man to con an entire people (much less the entire world: Tianamen Square is currently our word against the Chinese, despite the documentation of the event.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The comparison to activist judges is silly. There are hundreds of examples of judges who rule based on their own opinion rather than constitutionality. I'm still waiting for somebody to point out where California's proposition 187 violatd the constitution, yet it was overturned by ONE 9th circuit extremely liberal activist judge, and the people of California have no recourse.
NO recourse? Really? Seems odd given that there's both a State Supreme Court, a Federal Supreme Court, and a legislature (which could choose, of course, to redraft the bill to meet whatever Constitutional test it fails should the attempt to reverse the Circuit Judge's opinion fail.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's no question in my mind that the Prop 187 probably was unconstitutional.
Weird.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1) The Kuomintang was politically-structured based on their admiration for Stalinist cadres. 2) The Kuomintang made second-class citizens of Taiwanese on their own island, confiscating land and other assets to award to the thieves who followed the Nationalists from the mainland. 3) Taiwan was heavily subsidized by the US government -- both directly through the US "military umbrella", grants, and inexpensive loans; and indirectly through most favored nation status in trade and technology transfer -- as an irritant to the Mainland even after Nixon announced the US committment to the OneChinaPolicy. 4) Most of the true improvements in Taiwan governance and economics occurred after the OneChinaPolicy stripped the Kuomintang/Nationalists of their seat on the UN Security Council and awarded it to China, and otherwise increasingly deprived Taiwan of its status as an equal among nations.
Pure speculation of course, but based on the level of preWWII and WWII corruption as well as the Kuomintang's handling of Taiwan until the "One China Policy", presentday China would be far behind India both economicly and socially if the Kuomintang had been allowed to remain in power. Certainly far far less of a global power than India; with a virtual certainty that India would have seized the Tibetan Plateau.
Not saying that Maoism -- the personality cult which launched the GreatLeapForward and the CulturalRevolution -- wasn't a disaster. Am saying that the Kuomintang would have been worse.
[ May 24, 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm still waiting for somebody to point out where California's proposition 187 violatd the constitution, yet it was overturned by ONE 9th circuit extremely liberal activist judge, and the people of California have no recourse.
No one will accuse me of supporting judicial overreach, but this statement is just flat out wrong. First of all, Gov. Davis decided not to appeal the lower court decision. Had he done so, at least 12, and probably 20-something, judges would have reviewed it at some point.
Second, the decision itself provides reasons why the law was unconstitutional. "Field preemption" has a long-standing judicial history, and is necessary in a federal system. Congress could have passed a law stating, "Nothing in the act known as the PRA shall preempt the states from making more stringent restrictions on benefits to illegal aliens." Had the President signed it, the Prop would have passed the preemption test.
The remainder of the Constitutional issues were not ruled on, because this issue was decisive.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Yay! I'm not alone. I'm pretty sure that was my original point, correct me if I'm wrong was that Mao was better for China then Chiang Kai Shek. Not nessasarily that China is a perfect workers utopia under Mao which I'm certain I did not say.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sid, you came on pretty strong for Mao, to be honest. Perhaps that isn't what you meant, but that is how it came across, at least to me.
Kwea
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
You can't help to feel stong for Mao if you start reading in into the history of the Chinese civil war. It's a side effect of mine of when reading something I imagine what it would be like to be near these figures in histery... erm.., hard to explain.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Like umm... I not nessasasrily Pro Mao, I just think he did many good things for China and also many mistakes, but one has to consider everything including the motivations before making a judgement argh! I can't explain it.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
>> Also, I find it interestng how no one seems to be refuting my points of the things that happened post 1949.
There is no point in disputing something that is indisputable. In fact, I was not commenting at all on the Shek vs. Mao debate. My point, following the reasonable train of logic of how well is China doing today, with full advantage of hindsight. My points were on what China evolved into. I believe that today the Chinese have a strange, paradoxical, unstable, and extremely dangerous Communist-Capitalist hybrid. They would have been far better off had the Tiananmen Square events succeeded in overthrowing the government. I watched those events unfold daily while I was a grad student--sitting in the student union with between one and three Beijing citizens who happened to be my fellow students. My opinion echoes what theirs were.
Even on your point, I'm more inclined to listen to the well educated 40-year old Chinese engineer with whom I work than an 18-year old. I'll ask him about this next time I have the chance. He was, however, very clear about how today, even speaking negatively about the government can cause people to disappear for a very long time.
Between the choices of Mao and Shek, the better choice might well have been Mao. (The point that Japan would have given back the coast as part of unconditional surrender not withstanding.) However, we have no idea whether a China under Shek might have taken the path of post-war Japan, becoming a world superpower (and not only militarily) far earlier than under Mao, or if they would have devolved into further chaos, civil war, or some kind of fascist dictatorship.
[ May 24, 2005, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Hiroshima ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How, then, do you get around the field preemption issue?
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
Why would Gray Davis appeal a decision against prop 187? He was against prop 187. In any case, I wouldn't put an ounce of trust in anything off the ACLU web site. These are the guys who support NAMBLA, remember.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: In any case, I wouldn't put an ounce of trust in anything off the ACLU web site. These are the guys who support NAMBLA, remember.
Hiroshima, go find the opinion and refute it then. This is a very basic concept of constitutional law: the Supremacy clause gives federal statutes made pursuant to the constitution precedence over state statutes, constitutions, or referenda. The federal government has explicit power to regulate immigration. The federal government passed a law intended to occupy the field. States lack the power to enact laws contrary to the federal law.
At least pretend to understand the argument before declaring there's no basis for it. If I have to choose between the ACLU saying X with a series of legal reasoning and you sayin not X with no backup whatsoever, why on earth would I pick you?
quote:Why would Gray Davis appeal a decision against prop 187? He was against prop 187.
The people of CA elected Gray Davis. The decision to appeal was in his power. He chose not to. Further, this decision could be changed by act of Congress, although we don't know if the due process and equal protection arguments would succeed or not.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*rolls eyes* The ACLU has rabidly defended people on all sorts of issues, including the KKK and NAMBLA, yes, but also thousands of other groups and individuals, and always because their organization sees a serious rights violation issue. To steal from a particularly disgusting man who soundly protected his own rights to be disgusting, if the worst among us have their rights protected, the rest of us do.
You could look at the decision itself, which does a very nice job of pointing out how blatantly unconstitutional the prop was, and I'd have thought you'd have looked at it before denouncing how it was impossible to see a way it could be unconstitutional.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote: In any case, I wouldn't put an ounce of trust in anything off the ACLU web site. These are the guys who support NAMBLA, remember.
Hiroshima, go find the opinion and refute it then. This is a very basic concept of constitutional law: the Supremacy clause gives federal statutes made pursuant to the constitution precedence over state statutes, constitutions, or referenda. The federal government has explicit power to regulate immigration. The federal government passed a law intended to occupy the field. States lack the power to enact laws contrary to the federal law.
At least pretend to understand the argument before declaring there's no basis for it. If I have to choose between the ACLU saying X with a series of legal reasoning and you sayin not X with no backup whatsoever, why on earth would I pick you?
quote:Why would Gray Davis appeal a decision against prop 187? He was against prop 187.
The people of CA elected Gray Davis. The decision to appeal was in his power. He chose not to. Further, this decision could be changed by act of Congress, although we don't know if the due process and equal protection arguments would succeed or not.
They also booted him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you have no reason why the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply to this law?
You said you were waiting for someone to point out where it violated the Constitution. Several people did.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
C'mon, at least try to respond to the important points.
edit: to remove excessive snarkiness
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
Look, I happen to disagree with the entire premise that the states cannot enforce what the federal government refuses to enforce. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state law cannot be more strict than federal law.
There are many other instances where state law is more strict than federal law (highway speeds, for instance). Why haven't those laws been struck down as unconstitutional? Where in that link is the actual TEXT of the proposition?
I lived in California in 1994. The anti-187 people were extremely desperate. I received phone calls telling me that passing 187 would endanger the lives of police officers by publishing their home addresses. There is no such text in the proposition. The 9th circuit is very creative in interpreting the constitution. I recall some politicians at the time publicly declaring that the proposition would overturned by whatever means necessary. Teh 9th circuit divines its own agenda into "the spirit of the letter," rather than the words on the paper. I give this ruling zero credence. This ruling was based on a law NOT in the U.S. constitution, and supported by one in the California constitution--which I'm sure they looked very very hard to find. This underscores my point, the judges are activists.
Feel free to post any rebuttals, but I will no longer participate in this sidebar.
[ May 24, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Hiroshima ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, this is amusing.
Federal laws regarding highway speed limits specifically allow the states to set stricter standards. Furthermore, states aren't even actually *required* to follow the federal speed limit laws, they just have to if they want the highway *dollars*.
And you have read this part of the Constitution, I'd hope:
quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If Congress makes a law in an area they constitutionally can saying "this is the way things are", that's the way things are. That is what "the supreme law of the land" and "any Thing in the . . . Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" means.
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
"American textbooks discuss World War II as if a Patton, Le May, or Nimitz did not exist, as if the war was essentially the Japanese internment and Hiroshima"
That is for the most part true...All we learned about the Japanese in our coverage of WWII was that we wrongly imprisoned them in internment camps and later dropped 2 atomic bombs on their country, we didn't really even learn that Japan was one of the most rutheless, bloodthirsty countries of WWII.
Posted by Hiroshima (Member # 7970) on :
>>Wow, this is amusing
I know I said I wouldn't respond...but I am not a lawyer, and many people will be able to out-lawyer me, just like most lawyers can't do math.
>>If Congress makes a law in an area they constitutionally can saying "this is the way things are", that's the way things are...
Herein lies the problem. I am looking at this from a founding fathers point of view. A sad side-effect from the Civil War was the complete destruction of the concept of the intended United States, with states rights being the main victim.
Over and out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Did you even read the clause quite clearly stated in the Constitution? Its not equivocating. The Constitution is the law of the land. The statement of mine you quote is not some modern thing, its been in there from the beginning, I merely restated an exceptionally clear section of the Constitution. Try reading the original document.
As for the whole "founding fathers point of view" shtick, the founding fathers themselves debated the whole voluntary union vs leaving only with consent of the whole (or violent revolution) thing. This wasn't something that all the founding fathers thought one way on which then got usurped. While at the Constitutional convention an explicit decision was put off, the people in favor of it being a leaving only with consent of the whole (or violent revolution) thing won out.
Even a government founded on the ideal of revolution against injustice (not that the British were actually all that harsh, we'd condemn people rebelling for the same reasons as terrorists most likely nowadays) must assert its own sovereignty or it fails to be a government.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Mao is responsible for some 50M deaths, mostly from a planned famine but also from mass executions. It's hard to see how he could have been worse.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Last I checked, there is no national speed limit. When there was one (instituted during the Energy Crisis of the 1970's) it was a MAXIMUM. That's how it was written.
Bad example if you're looking for states being more restrictive than Federal law. The law didn't set a minimum at the Federal level, so there's really no comparison.
I suppose if a state had tried to set a speed limit of zero on an interstate road (effectively closing a Federal Highway) there would've been a firestorm of protest and some kind of official reaction from Washington.
It is also worth pointing out that most state law has provisions for assigning the responsibility to determine speed limits to an entity like "the Department of Transportation" or the secretary thereof and the legislature usually only sets the maximum speed limit.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
The famines weren't "planned" to happen. It's sad but you have to understand that Mao believed that the popular masses are the only true revolutionary tool and that it was up to them to bring about socialism. The main problems with the GLF and the TGPCR was that they were so disorganized and badly planned that bad harvests and skewed educational and industrial plannign resulted.
However, TGLF massivly improved China's heavy industry and pretty much laid the gorund work for rational industrial and agricultural planning.
As for Tienamen Square sad that it failed since quite possibly it would've set the stage for a more democratic socialist government that could've quite well made Socialism work past the dictatorship stage and I doubt it would've broken up as Russia did since I doubt anyone in China would see it as acceptable for Tibet and Siking to break away. Though in way I feel more secure since it means there's a super power that can keep things balanced with America.
Posted by Spaceman (Member # 8107) on :
Just so everyone knows, I changed my username to Spaceman because it occured to me that some people might be offended by the name Hiroshima (even though it was from the band, not the city).
I'm not trying to duck my incorrect, lame and stupid opinions, by which I still stand.
- Spaceman (aka Hiroshima)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
All good man, thanks for letting us know...not because I thought your opinions were (or weren't) stupid, but because it was the cool thing to do, letting us know.
As far as out-lawyering you, well, you were stating a definite opinion about the legality and constitutionality of a proposition, so to be honest you kinda asked for that.
The ruling was NOT based on "legal activism" whatever that means....it was based on a well defined legal principle that is stated clearly (with tons of presidents) in the very Constitution. You can agree or disagree with the decision, or course, but when you claimed it was based on anything BUT legal jurisprudence you made a claim that was easy to refute.
That isn't their fault, you know.
Kwea
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
My junior high and high school history classes taught me very little about WWII because it's always toward the end of the book and we never get there before the school year ends.
Seriously.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Also, Hiro/Spaceman, I just thought I'd point out that your referring to Chiang Kai Shek as "Shek" is incorrect. In Chinese names, the family name comes first, so Chiang would be the correct way to refer to the surname, just as Mao is the correct way to refer to the surname of Mao Tse Tung.
Posted by Spaceman (Member # 8107) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: (with tons of presidents) Kwea
My turn...I think you want precedents. Let's drop this legality thing and get back to the topic. We've strayed way too far.
Posted by Spaceman (Member # 8107) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Also, Hiro/Spaceman, I just thought I'd point out that your referring to Chiang Kai Shek as "Shek" is incorrect. In Chinese names, the family name comes first, so Chiang would be the correct way to refer to the surname, just as Mao is the correct way to refer to the surname of Mao Tse Tung.
How do you know I wasn't close buddies with him? Actually, I know that and I just screwed up because I was in a hurry.
By the way, I spoke with my engineer friend today, he quite disagrees with Sid.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You are right, I just can't type well. Or rather, I can, but not that and fast at the same time, I fear.
Kwea
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Blah everyone disaggress with me at one time or another. Notin new. But.....
For the Revolution! Arise workers of the world unite for you have nothing to lose but your chains!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And your cars, and houses, and Rolexes...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
and your lives...if you don't happen to agree with the Communist government and want actual freedom instead.
Praising Communist China as being "better" than any other brutal regime that it replaced can only come from ignoring a major portion of that regime's own brutality. If you can explain Tiananmen Square to me as anything but an act of the utmost stupidity and brutality, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
There was a short blurb in the paper about a middle school history textbook jointly written by scholars, teachers and historians of China, Japan and South Korea published this month.news link I couldn't find a more recent link.
I wonder, will a history book written by a huge commitee work? This short essay "The Problem with History" by Donald Granberry claims multiple authors from different countries is the only way overcome subjectivity and nationalism problems in history, but I wonder.
You might think modern media would overcome some of these problems of subjectivity, with video clips, live TV etc...but it doesn't. Two of the most massively covered events in the past 50 years, 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination, have only led to countless conspiracy theories about what REALLY happened.
Video has to be put in context, and whoever does the analysis has lots of power to manipulate.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
editing helps too. The Terry Schiavo case was plagued with experts rendering opinions based on edited videos given to them by one side or the other.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Editing has even more power than analysis. I took that for granted but should have stated it, Bob. Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Hardly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
How ironic...
That FDR video and book are exactly the kind of thing people are going nuts about when they talk about revisionist history in the US. That some people might watch/read that before understanding the "canon" of WWII.
And it proves my point, I think, about how information becoming declassified in recent years has fueled not revisionist history, but an explosion of both interest and fleshing out of details.
I think people owe it to themselves to study everything, not just the newly uncovered declassified stuff.
If anything begs for a context in which to place it and define it, it is war.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
No victor in any war is ever as innocent and benevolent as they wish to be portrayed.
That being said, I think what is being called revisionist is not the facts that have come to light but thier portrayal, and the selectivity of facts used. There is a pervasive attitude by a defined group to vilify the US in all that they do and they will find the facts to prove it.
I am not defending the fire bombing of Dresden, or the JapaneseAmerican internment and other atrocites committed in a spirit of what might have been revenge and often profiteering. However I believe the necessity of US involvement in the war is a given.
The very threat of US invasion diverted the troops that allowed the USSR to begin thier invasion of what became thier sattelite states. They kept as thier own every inch of land they occupied. If we were not involved, with both industrial bombing, and in the North of Africa Hitler may have been able to crack the defences of Russia the next summer and obtain every supply they needed to become unstoppable. If by what I would consider a miracle, Russia prevailed, Does anyone believe that when they reached Berlin they would have stopped there? I don't believe that the war after Russian occupation of all of Europe would have been cold and I also don't believe we would have been the victors.
Yes many US military and political leaders did things that in retrospect seem atrocious and although I do not excuse it, I believe that they often made the best dicision they could make based upon who they were and what thier world view was.
It is important to remember that as flawed as thier actions and decisions were, they are what has sustained the freedom we have to be debating thier actions. Because under Der Dritte Riech or the USSR we wouldn not have these freedoms, and I don't think it is propoganda or exaggeration to say that those were potential outcomes of the Second World War.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)