|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 25 2017 19:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote:
I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. Let's not whitewash the Native American tribes either. Conflict was rampant and there were killings and slayings and aggressive violence on both sides in relation to the fur trade. This narrative that Native Americans were peaceful people and didn't do anything to suggest the acts on colonists behalves is as much propaganda. When two sides are awful, picking one or the other is generally not a good proposition for moral high-ground (unless of course, you're a moral relativist and just hate white people, or vice versa). Indigenous people wouldn't have killed a single white person if they didn't come to the land indigenous people inhabited. Indigenous people weren't all the same and far from angels, but they were killing people who were there to commit genocide on them. White America didn't stop trying to kill/brainwash all indigenous people until pretty recently. I don't think you guys appreciate just how shitty white people were in the US territory from the 1620's on through until the 1960's. It's fair to say indigenous people weren't saints, but there's no comparison to the brutality of the people who tried for hundreds of years to eliminate them from earth.
Certainly there were evil men like Tecumseh Sherman, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the issue you brought up with T. Giving and the early-mid 1600s. The War you're referencing (Pequot War), was started by the Pequots killing a bunch of fur traders (who themselves, weren't the greatest of people, but they hadn't killed anyone) on specious grounds that they were Dutch (but weren't). I mean, you're even trying to justify any act of the Native American's because whites were worse, but even before whites ever came to Connecticut, Indians were fighting and killing each other over land/resources and power. Also, the people there weren't indigenous. The Pequots weren't even living there until the late 1400's early 1500s. That's just what people do - they migrate, they travel, etc. That's why I don't really like the term indigenous (which to me only applies to the first humans in Ethiopa).
By the way, if it matters at all for the identity-inclined people, I'm half-Cherokee (yes, 50%).
|
On November 25 2017 19:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 19:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote:
I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. Let's not whitewash the Native American tribes either. Conflict was rampant and there were killings and slayings and aggressive violence on both sides in relation to the fur trade. This narrative that Native Americans were peaceful people and didn't do anything to suggest the acts on colonists behalves is as much propaganda. When two sides are awful, picking one or the other is generally not a good proposition for moral high-ground (unless of course, you're a moral relativist and just hate white people, or vice versa). Indigenous people wouldn't have killed a single white person if they didn't come to the land indigenous people inhabited. Indigenous people weren't all the same and far from angels, but they were killing people who were there to commit genocide on them. White America didn't stop trying to kill/brainwash all indigenous people until pretty recently. I don't think you guys appreciate just how shitty white people were in the US territory from the 1620's on through until the 1960's. It's fair to say indigenous people weren't saints, but there's no comparison to the brutality of the people who tried for hundreds of years to eliminate them from earth. Certainly there were evil men like Tecumseh Sherman, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the issue you brought up with T. Giving and the early-mid 1600s. The War you're referencing (Pequot War), was started by the Pequots killing a bunch of fur traders (who themselves, weren't the greatest of people, but they hadn't killed anyone) on specious grounds that they were Dutch (but weren't). I mean, you're even trying to justify any act of the Native American's because whites were worse, but even before whites ever came to Connecticut, Indians were fighting and killing each other over land/resources and power. Also, the people there weren't indigenous. The Pequots weren't even living there until the late 1400's early 1500s. That's just what people do - they migrate, they travel, etc. That's why I don't really like the term indigenous (which to me only applies to the first humans in Ethiopa). By the way, if it matters at all for the identity-inclined people, I'm half-Cherokee (yes, 50%).
We're not really talking about anything at this point. Thanksgiving is a bullshit holiday that has some good stuff we tend to do on it now. While doing our best (until recently) to forget about the attempted genocide that came after the dinner that was tokenized.
Are you an active citizen? Just curious?
|
On November 25 2017 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 19:58 Wegandi wrote:On November 25 2017 19:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote:
I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. Let's not whitewash the Native American tribes either. Conflict was rampant and there were killings and slayings and aggressive violence on both sides in relation to the fur trade. This narrative that Native Americans were peaceful people and didn't do anything to suggest the acts on colonists behalves is as much propaganda. When two sides are awful, picking one or the other is generally not a good proposition for moral high-ground (unless of course, you're a moral relativist and just hate white people, or vice versa). Indigenous people wouldn't have killed a single white person if they didn't come to the land indigenous people inhabited. Indigenous people weren't all the same and far from angels, but they were killing people who were there to commit genocide on them. White America didn't stop trying to kill/brainwash all indigenous people until pretty recently. I don't think you guys appreciate just how shitty white people were in the US territory from the 1620's on through until the 1960's. It's fair to say indigenous people weren't saints, but there's no comparison to the brutality of the people who tried for hundreds of years to eliminate them from earth. Certainly there were evil men like Tecumseh Sherman, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the issue you brought up with T. Giving and the early-mid 1600s. The War you're referencing (Pequot War), was started by the Pequots killing a bunch of fur traders (who themselves, weren't the greatest of people, but they hadn't killed anyone) on specious grounds that they were Dutch (but weren't). I mean, you're even trying to justify any act of the Native American's because whites were worse, but even before whites ever came to Connecticut, Indians were fighting and killing each other over land/resources and power. Also, the people there weren't indigenous. The Pequots weren't even living there until the late 1400's early 1500s. That's just what people do - they migrate, they travel, etc. That's why I don't really like the term indigenous (which to me only applies to the first humans in Ethiopa). By the way, if it matters at all for the identity-inclined people, I'm half-Cherokee (yes, 50%). We're not really talking about anything at this point. Thanksgiving is a bullshit holiday that has some good stuff we tend to do on it now. While doing our best (until recently) to forget about the attempted genocide that came after the dinner that was tokenized. Are you an active citizen? Just curious?
No, I'm not an active member of the tribe, but how is that germane to my heritage?
Lots of things have BS histories, but I don't find that particularly relevant to how that holiday is in contemporary times. No, one, and I mean no one, is celebrating because the Massachussetts Bay Colony won the Pequot War. Arguing as such to dismiss the holiday is arguing a strawman.
|
On November 25 2017 20:22 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 19:58 Wegandi wrote:On November 25 2017 19:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 19:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 25 2017 17:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 13:04 Falling wrote:On November 25 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 11:34 bo1b wrote:
I don't think murdering thousands of natives is what people celebrate thanksgiving for. Mostly nope. We are aware of it has a troubled history. But to many it's a tradition about families gathering once a year. I would say all the way nope. Where was there a time where Thanksgiving was used to celebrate indigenous death? Washington used it to celebrate the conclusion of the Revolution, true. Lincoln used it towards the end of the Civil War to "“commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”" And very rarely were relations between indigenous and settlers as amicable as Tisquantum's contribution to the survival of the pilgrims and the following reciprocal feast. Nonetheless, it seems to me it has always been used an opportunity for thankfulness, rather than a celebration of death. Uh... Additionally, English Major John Mason rallied his troops to further burn Pequot wigwams and then attacked and killed hundreds more men, women and children. According to Mason’s reports of the massacre, “We must burn them! Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies.”
The Governor of Plymouth William Bradford wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”
The day after the massacre, William Bradford who was also the Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote that from that day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanks giving for subduing the Pequots and “For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.” SourceThen after the civil war they white washed Thanksgiving and told the lie about how the separatists and Wampanoags got along so well. It's nice that people use the holiday to celebrate other things too. But almost all of the pilgrim and indigenous people story is propaganda. Let's not whitewash the Native American tribes either. Conflict was rampant and there were killings and slayings and aggressive violence on both sides in relation to the fur trade. This narrative that Native Americans were peaceful people and didn't do anything to suggest the acts on colonists behalves is as much propaganda. When two sides are awful, picking one or the other is generally not a good proposition for moral high-ground (unless of course, you're a moral relativist and just hate white people, or vice versa). Indigenous people wouldn't have killed a single white person if they didn't come to the land indigenous people inhabited. Indigenous people weren't all the same and far from angels, but they were killing people who were there to commit genocide on them. White America didn't stop trying to kill/brainwash all indigenous people until pretty recently. I don't think you guys appreciate just how shitty white people were in the US territory from the 1620's on through until the 1960's. It's fair to say indigenous people weren't saints, but there's no comparison to the brutality of the people who tried for hundreds of years to eliminate them from earth. Certainly there were evil men like Tecumseh Sherman, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the issue you brought up with T. Giving and the early-mid 1600s. The War you're referencing (Pequot War), was started by the Pequots killing a bunch of fur traders (who themselves, weren't the greatest of people, but they hadn't killed anyone) on specious grounds that they were Dutch (but weren't). I mean, you're even trying to justify any act of the Native American's because whites were worse, but even before whites ever came to Connecticut, Indians were fighting and killing each other over land/resources and power. Also, the people there weren't indigenous. The Pequots weren't even living there until the late 1400's early 1500s. That's just what people do - they migrate, they travel, etc. That's why I don't really like the term indigenous (which to me only applies to the first humans in Ethiopa). By the way, if it matters at all for the identity-inclined people, I'm half-Cherokee (yes, 50%). We're not really talking about anything at this point. Thanksgiving is a bullshit holiday that has some good stuff we tend to do on it now. While doing our best (until recently) to forget about the attempted genocide that came after the dinner that was tokenized. Are you an active citizen? Just curious? No, I'm not an active member of the tribe, but how is that germane to my heritage? Lots of things have BS histories, but I don't find that particularly relevant to how that holiday is in contemporary times. No, one, and I mean no one, is celebrating because the Massachussetts Bay Colony won the Pequot War. Arguing as such to dismiss the holiday is arguing a strawman.
I think you misunderstand if you think I was saying that we currently celebrate that particular event. We currently just celebrate the white washed, watered down, commercialized, glutton-fest called 'Thanksgiving" with variations depending on the family. The one thing they pretty much all have in common is that it ignores the systemic attempts at genocide and destruction of languages, cultures, land, and artifacts that came after the 1621 dinner everyone knows some of.the stories of.
No, I'm not an active member of the tribe, but how is that germane to my heritage?
Well, a fair amount to do with heritage as I understand it.
Cherokee has a particularly notable history with all of this, so I think it's just easier to ask how/why you identify as Cherokee beyond 50% dna (tested, stories, tribal/citizen family?)?
|
|
|
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying.
|
On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying.
It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground.
|
I thought this provided an interesting perspective on Russian interference in the American elections, by the New York Times:
MOSCOW — For months, President Vladimir V. Putin has predictably denied accusations of Russian interference in last year’s American election, denouncing them as fake news fueled by Russophobic hysteria.
More surprising, some of Mr. Putin’s biggest foes in Russia, notably pro-Western liberals who look to the United States as an exemplar of democratic values and journalistic excellence, are now joining a chorus of protest over America’s fixation with Moscow’s meddling in its political affairs.
“Enough already!” Leonid M. Volkov, chief of staff for the anti-corruption campaigner and opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny, wrote in a recent anguished post on Facebook. “What is happening with ‘the investigation into Russian interference,’ is not just a disgrace but a collective eclipse of the mind.”
What most disturbs Mr. Putin’s critics about what they see as America’s Russia fever is that it reinforces a narrative put forth tirelessly by the state-controlled Russian news media. On television, in newspapers and on websites, Mr. Putin is portrayed as an ever-victorious master strategist who has led Russia — an economic, military and demographic weakling compared with the United States — from triumph to triumph on the world stage.
“The Kremlin is of course very proud of this whole Russian interference story. It shows they are not just a group of old K.G.B. guys with no understanding of digital but an almighty force from a James Bond saga,” Mr. Volkov said in a telephone interview. “This image is very bad for us. Putin is not a master geopolitical genius.”
For Ivan I. Kurilla, a professor of history and an America specialist at the European University at St. Petersburg, a bastion of liberal thinking, Russia’s prominent and almost entirely negative role on America’s political stage since the November election reprises a phenomenon first seen in the late 1800s.
“Americans use Russia each time they feel their own identity in crisis,” said Mr. Kurilla, the author of a new book on the history of Russian-American relations, “Frenemies.”
Unlike China and India, which are far more distant culturally and geographically from the United States, he added, Russia is a country on to which alarm over America’s own internal problems can be easily projected.
“American liberals are so upset about Trump that they cannot believe he is a real product of American life,” Mr. Kurilla said. “They try to portray him as something created by Russia. This whole thing is about America, not Russia.”
The first time this happened, he said, was in the decades after the American Civil War, when amid deep trauma over the conflict and a series of corruption scandals, Russia suddenly became the focus of feverish discussion as a model of menacing tyranny. This was largely because of the writings and influential public lectures of George Kennan, an American explorer who returned from Siberia in the 1880s with horrific stories, mostly true, of Russian despotism.
Both Mr. Volkov and Mr. Kurilla worry that American intelligence agencies have made it too easy for the Kremlin to deny its interference in the American elections — and, at the same time, also take credit for it — by keeping concrete evidence secret, which has only allowed sometimes wild conspiracy theories to take flight.
Mr. Putin’s opponents despair that the United States seems to have been seized by what they view as a Russian-style spasm of paranoia and conspiratorial thinking that puts blame for internal problems on sinister outside forces.
Many Russian liberals, for example, were appalled when the state-controlled Russian news media hounded Michael A. McFaul, America’s ambassador in Moscow from 2012 to 2014, and portrayed him as an agent of subversion bent on undermining Mr. Putin.
By the same token, they were dismayed to see Russia’s own ambassador in Washington, Sergey I. Kislyak, treated in much the same way before he left his post in August, with the envoy being widely depicted as a Russian spy master at the center of a sprawling web of anti-American intrigue.
Source
I love it.
|
On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground.
I don't think there's any other nation in the world currently killing as many foreign civilians with their military as us? I don't know if that's something you can find broken down per capita, or what. But in the last decade or so we've killed a shit ton of civilians. A lot more if you count our allies acting with our weapons and/or on our tab.
I mean depending on how you count the numbers (these are always going to be pretty hazy). Regardless, I'm confident we're still pretty active in the killing civilians game, top 10 for sure.
|
I just posted sources showing the Japanese killed more civilians than any other country, especially during ww2 what? Yea all countries kill civilians it's inevitable when you're at war... if you think otherwise you're ignorant. I personally hate these stupid skirmishes we're currently in, but uh did everyone forget about this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War Where Russia killed civilians in air raids... I mean it's going to happen, stop acting like civilians will live fine during war.
|
On November 25 2017 22:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:I just posted sources showing the Japanese killed more civilians than any other country, especially during ww2 what? Yea all countries kill civilians it's inevitable when you're at war... if you think otherwise you're ignorant. I personally hate these stupid skirmishes we're currently in, but uh did everyone forget about this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War Where Russia killed civilians in air raids... I mean it's going to happen, stop acting like civilians will live fine during war.
Well I think Japan's civilian body count since WWII is significantly lower than ours, tbf I haven't checked lately.
As for the Russia/Georgia thing I'm pretty sure we killed almost that many in a single "botched" bombing pretty recently.
We're bombing at least 6 different countries right now, and were under Obama as well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pentagon-officials-say-u-s-airstrike-killed-over-100-civilians-n764541
|
|
|
On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground.
I just dislike the absolutist line from (mainly) Americans toward this subject. It comes across as arrogant because there is enough debate around whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped from an ethical standpoint that suggesting, for example, that because the Japanese killed a lot of civilians, or because it's war and civilians die in war, that it was therefore obviously justified and any arguments to the contrary are delusional or drinking the kool-aid is absurd.
|
On November 25 2017 22:16 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground. I just dislike the absolutist line from (mainly) Americans toward this subject. It comes across as arrogant because there is enough debate around whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped from an ethical standpoint that suggesting, for example, that because the Japanese killed a lot of civilians, or because it's war and civilians die in war, that it was therefore obviously justified and any arguments to the contrary are delusional or drinking the kool-aid is absurd.
the drinking kool-aid point someone made is only in response to flayers' ridiculousness, wherein he has been going very far to the other side. in some other contexts you might be right, but here, with the context of whta flayer has been saying, your point isn't really applicable.
|
I said this in a response to GreenHorizon saying some people are insulated from history. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement about the historical perspective of a large amount of uneducated people who only buy into the pro-bombing rhetoric.
On November 25 2017 07:48 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On November 23 2017 23:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 23 2017 23:17 farvacola wrote:This has been hashed out in this thread numerous times already, but a push towards electing third parties on the national stage without some kind of change to FPTP voting is a recipe for exactly the thing Velr describes. Also, Happy Thanksgiving y'all  Fuck Thanksgiving. Also, bull. The parties are trash and both should be abandoned. Blaming FPTP and a two party system for sticking with these idiots is just a crappy excuse to enjoy the status quo. Just when I thought GH's take would be unique in my observed experience this Thanksgiving. Are you really that insulated from history? I suppose it would explain a bit. @P6 I'd read it. I feel like you nailed Kwark like Jesus to the cross. He'd be skimming some off the top too though Its like those hordes of Americans who think that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was done in an effort to end the war. Potentially even the lie that it saved lives somehow or that the Japanese would not surrender otherwise.
Plansix responded with this. Which is very much the "insulated from history" perspective that I was referring to, and nothing else. You might even call it a post intended to bait me.
On November 25 2017 07:54 Plansix wrote:
Let’s not paint Imperial Japan as some victim of the mean Americans power. There are large sections of Asia that still hold a grudge against Japan, with good reason. And we totally dropped that bomb to end that war. And then they dropped the second one because the war didn’t end. Then Japan tried to end the war, but a bunch of generals in Japan totally thought they could still win and there was a fight to prevent the Emperor from delivering the message to the people about the surrender.
So, as a response to that, after some really obvious trolling for which I clearly should have received a warning if not an outright ban, and some people vaguely continuing the discussion in my absence asking for more information, I quoted the wikipedia page with the opposite side to that.
And then I am accused of being one-sided, etc?
Its funny how some (hordes of?) Americans always seem to think of me as unreasonable when I am critical of the US and their military actions. The same thing happened on reddit when I posted there while I was banned here. I get downvoted and tons of nasty comments at night (while the Americans are awake) and then during the day my post would get upvoted again (as the Europeans wake up and responded with "why are you being downvoted lol"). Probably some paid Russians upvoting me too, though =)
|
In regards to WW2 history, the firebombings were seen by those on the inside as a much worse crime than the atomic bomb. The imagery isn't quote as fierce, but the brutality of the firebombings was just awful.
The Japanese actions since the war have been to deny all their crimes, which is probably the reason why they are still hated for some of the terrible things they did.
|
On November 25 2017 22:16 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground. I just dislike the absolutist line from (mainly) Americans toward this subject. It comes across as arrogant because there is enough debate around whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped from an ethical standpoint that suggesting, for example, that because the Japanese killed a lot of civilians, or because it's war and civilians die in war, that it was therefore obviously justified and any arguments to the contrary are delusional or drinking the kool-aid is absurd.
Ethically there is no justification for bombing civilians. I would prefer a world where we never dropped the bomb on anyone. But was not born into that world. The bomb had been dropped decades before I existed. I also exist in a world where that bomb would have been used, either by the US or some other world power that developed it later on. There is a difference between desiring that atomic weapons not be used and understanding why they were used.
If we move beyond the ethical debate, WW2 represents a complete upending of the geopolitical powers. Prior to that war, England and France were seen as dominate military forces and world powers. We have no modern touchstone for this complete overturn of the the known power structure. The world had lurched from the a great depression to the larges war in human history. By the end Russia had rolled over Europe and was pushing into Asia, the US was suddenly a world power. The plan of a protracted siege of Japan was not without risk and did not assure unconditional surrender.
|
On November 25 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 22:16 kollin wrote:On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground. I just dislike the absolutist line from (mainly) Americans toward this subject. It comes across as arrogant because there is enough debate around whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped from an ethical standpoint that suggesting, for example, that because the Japanese killed a lot of civilians, or because it's war and civilians die in war, that it was therefore obviously justified and any arguments to the contrary are delusional or drinking the kool-aid is absurd. Ethically there is no justification for bombing civilians. I would prefer a world where we never dropped the bomb on anyone. But was not born into that world. The bomb had been dropped decades before I existed. I also exist in a world where that bomb would have been used, either by the US or some other world power that developed it later on. There is a difference between desiring that atomic weapons not be used and understanding why they were used. If we move beyond the ethical debate, WW2 represents a complete upending of the geopolitical powers. Prior to that war, England and France were seen as dominate military forces and world powers. We have no modern touchstone for this complete overturn of the the known power structure. The world had lurched from the a great depression to the larges war in human history. By the end Russia had rolled over Europe and was pushing into Asia, the US was suddenly a world power. The plan of a protracted siege of Japan was not without risk and did not assure unconditional surrender.
Ethically there CAN be justification for bombing civilians, that's where you're missing the nuance of this debate. You're going beyond understanding why the bomb was used by asserting that because it was used its use was right.
|
It is not clear why the bomb was used in that way.
A lperovitz thesis that the US didn't understand the Japanese culture, because they asked for unconditional surrender, meaning that the Tenno would then abdicate, something the Japanese would never ever do. Up to a point.
The bombs target where Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they had a lot of foreign buildings, meaning stone, because there's high command wanted to see what the bombs would do those.
The Russian invasion was a shock top Japan. In all the documents on their side it is clear that the invasion made much more impression than the bombs, which garnered at the beginning nearly zilch comments, because of the normality off which the cities where squashed.
Historians don't have a clear answer. I think they were just keen on using it. At all costs.
|
On November 25 2017 11:08 a_flayer wrote:Hordes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#OppositionShow nested quote +The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze, concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, they reported:
There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. Show nested quote +Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. Show nested quote +The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Show nested quote +The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945 Your own bloody damn admiral in the Pacific Fleet was saying it. Curtis seems to agrees with me it had nothing to do with ending the war. But yeah, I am a "thruther". You nutjobs justify this shit for the same reason you celebrate Thankgiving rather than mourning it like proper human beings.
Air raids on Japan killed 241,000-900,000 civilians.
Atomics killed 129,000–226,000+.
How many do you think would have died, only using conventional weapons?
That's the question you need to answer. Showing that there was disagreement before / after does not even remotely prove your case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
