Is America a racist nation?

[old salt]

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

Nikole Hannah-Jones Mangles World War II Atomic History

By ARTHUR HERMAN
November 15, 2021

The New York Times columnist is very wrong, yet again.
We’ve now been greeted with yet another rendition of fake history. This time, it is purveyed by two of the most prominent and persistent fakers: Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project and Howard Zinn, author of the most popular (and misleading) history textbook, A People’s History of the United States.

The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsifications of history contained in the 1619 Project have been carefully exposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, Ms. Hannah-Jones recently decided to extend her streak from the history of slavery to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. She posted this tweet, which has since been deleted:

They [the federal government] dropped the bomb when they knew surrender was coming because they’d spent all this money developing it and to prove it was worth it. Propaganda is not history, my friend.

It’s not hard to identify where she got this counterfactual account of Hiroshima; indeed, it comes from Howard Zinn, who wrote in his People’s History that “the Japanese had begun talking of surrender a year before this” but the Americans insisted on unconditional surrender, which made peace impossible. “Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it?,” Zinn pondered.

So much for propaganda versus history. It’s now generally accepted by everyone who knows anything about the subject — including Japanese historians — that the key reason for using the atomic bomb was not racist bloodlust (as the Smithsonian’s abortive Enola Gay exhibit tried to insinuate a few years ago), or (as in another leftist tract, Gar Alperovitz’s Atomic Diplomacy) a cynical desire to impress Stalin and the Soviet Union with our newfound nuclear prowess, but rather an overwhelming concern about the staggering cost in casualties a U.S. invasion of Japan would incur — not to mention Japanese deaths. At a White House meeting on June 18, 1945, a very worried President Truman learned that the man who was to head the invasion of the island of Kyushu, General Douglas MacArthur, estimated that U.S. casualties would approach 120,000 in the first 90 days. The navy’s overall estimate ran to a quarter-million casualties overall — with the battle for Honshu and Tokyo, the capital, still to come.

It was in order to forestall an apocalyptic fight to the death between American soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians that would drag on for months or even years that Truman on July 28 authorized the dropping of one of the two available atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima, and then, if Japan still refused to surrender, dropping the second on Nagasaki.

These facts are well-known — well-known, it seems, to everyone except Hannah-Jones, Zinn, and their fans. What isn’t so well known is that American decrypts of Japanese military ciphers on the eve of Hiroshima had established that, far from being close to surrender, or even discouraged by one major defeat after another — from Iwo Jima and the Philippines to Okinawa — Japan’s military leadership was determined to fight on to the finish.

Historian Junichiro Shoji has recently revealed how intransigent the Japanese military had become in defending the decision to prosecute the war irrespective of any human cost. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military remained unwavering. The generals even called for the “honorable death of 100 million” in a “battle for the Japanese Home Islands.” At a meeting with the Emperor on August 14, almost a week after the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, both Army Marshal Sugiyama and Admiral Nagano insisted that “the military still has strength remaining and its morale is strong. Based on these [factors], it should be able to resist and resolutely repel the invading U.S. forces.”

The use of atomic weapons, however, did tip the hand of the one person who had the power to overrule Japan’s military elite — namely, Hirohito himself. The shocking devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only confirmed his private belief that Japan had nothing to gain by fighting on. On August 12, he told the imperial family the circumstances, “Do not lead me to believe that the military would be victorious in the Battle for the Home Islands.” The only option was to accept the conditions laid out the declaration made by the Big Three at their meeting at Potsdam, Germany, on July 26, that called for the surrender of Japan but left the issue of preserving Japan’s national polity, including the status of the Emperor, open.

The Japanese government had already rejected the Potsdam offer on July 28. But on August 10, two days after Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, issued an emergency telegram stating that it would accept the Potsdam declaration with the understanding that this did not compromise the Emperor’s future status. Secretary of State James Byrnes then issued a reply stating that the Emperor’s status and that of the Japanese government would be “subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers,” who would be Douglas MacArthur.

That assurance gave Hirohito the courage to overrule his military leaders and to tell the Japanese people in a nationwide broadcast on August 15 that they would have “to endure the unendurable” and accept surrender. Any remaining anxiety about the Emperor’s status was dispelled when a Japanese delegation arrived in Manila on August 19 to negotiate the final terms of surrender, and MacArthur made it clear that he had no intention of overturning Emperor Hirohito’s authority. “Through him it will be possible to maintain a completely orderly government” for rebuilding post-war Japan, the general explained.

In the end, Japan’s final surrender in World War II was due to three people: Secretary of State James Byrnes, General Douglas MacArthur, and Emperor Hirohito. If atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, Hirohito and his civilian leadership might never have had the courage to override a Japanese military that had largely taken over the government and was determined to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, and child. (A hardcore group of officers even tried unsuccessfully to kidnap the Emperor before his broadcast to the Japanese people.)

Indeed, the atomic bombs’ real contribution to peace was the implicit threat that the United States had more bombs ready to drop, which it did not. Intentional or not, the bluff worked, and prevented an invasion that would have led to American and Japanese deaths running into the millions. Australian historian Tom Lewis has recently estimated that worldwide it may have saved more than 32 million lives.

None of this, of course, makes any difference to Ms. Hannah-Jones or her intellectual guide Howard Zinn. The only remaining mystery is why she bothered to delete her tweet. Thus far the public and popular media have allowed her to get away with one counterfactual historical claim after another with impunity. Surely one more wouldn’t mar their record.

[youthathletics]

She's just on a revenge tour from the UNC tenured incident.

[MDlaxfan76]

Here's Howard Zinn directly on this topic. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/

Everything I've read validates Zinn's argument that there was a path other than massive loss of life. The NR author ignores this response, pretending instead that Zinn has been effectively disproven.

Even before reading Zinn, my own question was, ok, so maybe Hiroshima, but why not give Japan more than 9 days before dropping the second?

And having had lots of conversations on this topic with people who were young at the time of the war, I'm convinced that there was a very real difference in racial antipathy towards Japanese relative to Germans, both here in the US and in the actual fighting, that it's difficult to imagine that not having been a factor in the consideration of the use of these weapons. Was there more than 1 factor to the decision? Of course. But to deny the contribution of the racial antipathy, the desire for revenge for Pearl Harbor, and solely focus on the loss of life calculus seems to me to be typical of the historical apologist.

I'm not a fan of Hannah-Jones' however.
Way too quick on the draw, way too intemperate in her absolutist characterization on historical realities that have more nuance than some of her simplifications.

That said, I'm less disturbed by the very important work to bring to the fore the realities of American history that have long been white washed, conveniently ignored, or worse, purposely avoided, or even worse, purposefully been misrepresented (lies).

The problem is when perspectives are asserted in absolutist language, rather than in nuanced context. Undoubtedly this has been to draw attention in the face of a long legacy of inattention, but it's important that when we translate this important work to informed education that the nuances are captured, rather than the absolutist by either side of the perspective divide.

[Peter Brown]

She's just on a revenge tour from the UNC tenured incident.

Hanna Nikole Jones is an intellectual fraud but marketing genius; she’s responding to the market. There is sadly a huge market of liberals who demand to be force fed that racism is lurking behind every corner.

Generally I don’t blame the race consumers (they’re no different than Branch Covidians for their gullibility factor, as they are the same market tbf) because frankly they aren’t bright enough to rise above the media narrative. They possess zero skepticism of their media, even after being lied to so often.

I do blame somewhat the PT Barnum race hucksters like Hannah, but the real blame is with our vaunted media, the institution that continually proves how thoroughly corrupt they are every waking second. Unfortunately, you see even educated consumers such as on Fanlax who revere total hacks like Heather Cox Richardson, a throughly unimpressive dum-dum, so you know it’s gonna be a long trek to bankrupting these media vessels. But bankruptcy is surely their end, which you can see now with the obliteration of viewers for CNN and MSNBC,

If you want to see how the media shapes narratives, read this Tablet (hardly John Birch Central) article which spells out just how rapid the liberal drumbeat of ‘racism’ has been the last two years. When the lib media goes all in on a marketing tactic, it doesn’t take too long for the internet chattering class to start believing things even though their eyes tell them differently.

“How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening

Years before Trump’s election the media dramatically increased coverage of racism and embraced new theories of racial consciousness that set the stage for the latest unrest”

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... -awakening

[Kismet]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

As with most consequential human events in history, the situations are never simple and straightforward.

Both perspectives here from multiple authors
https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... d-nuclear/

[a fan]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

[Peter Brown]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

Leftist Totalitarians constantly rewrite history as a means of demoralization and control. There is nothing more dispiriting than being forced to relinquish your history and recite a false new one.

Totalitarians mock the past but there's actually something quite liberating and individualistic about knowing your history, respecting your traditions, honoring your ancestors. If there were giants before, there can be giants again.

If history is a rock, then great things can be built upon it. That's why leftist totalitarians insist on grinding that rock down into sand. They believe ideology can triumph over everything: physics, economics, biology, human nature - and history.

[Kismet]

Earth calling Pete - It is not still GROUNDHOG DAY. Wake up and smell the roses about what we're talking about here which you clearly don't get. If you can't grasp that then it's best you just GET LOST and go rant mindlessly in any number of other threads.

“Knowledge is cheap, curiosity is priceless.” – Thibaut

Your content is gibberish. Somebody needs to go have it translated but it's is so devoid of any meaning that any translation is likely to also be gibberish, too.

Old Salt, please weigh in on the discussion about the end of WWII, will you? This could be a fruitful dialog with your participation.

[PizzaSnake]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... ndates?amp

Making ‘Murica Great…

[PizzaSnake]

More “greatness”.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/a ... arson.html

And the hits keep coming…

[PizzaSnake]

“Sacrifice zones”. That has a nice ring to it, now doesn’t it?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ve-in-them

[RedFromMI]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

Lies My Teacher Told Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Author James W. Loewen

Subject American history, Historiography, Native American history, African American history

Publisher The New Press
Publication date
1995

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong was written by James W. Loewen in 1995 and critically examines twelve popular American high school history textbooks. In the book, Loewen concludes that the textbook authors propagate false, Eurocentric, and mythologized views of American history. In addition to his critique of the dominant historical themes presented in high school textbooks, Loewen presents themes from history that he believes should be presented in high school textbooks.

In Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen criticizes modern American high school history textbooks for containing incorrect information about people and events such as Christopher Columbus, the lies and inaccuracies in the history books regarding the dealings between the Europeans and the Native Americans, and their often deceptive and inaccurate teachings told about America's commerce in slavery. He further criticizes the texts for a tendency to avoid controversy and for their "bland" and simplistic style. He proposes that when American history textbooks elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they unintentionally give students the impression that these figures are super-humans who live in the irretrievable past. Rather than highlighting both the positives and negatives of historical figures, Loewen claims textbooks cause students to perceive these figures through a single lens.[2] Loewen asserts that the muting of past clashes and tragedies makes history boring to students, especially groups excluded from the positive histories.[3]

a fan is not the only one who knows about the warping of true American history in K-12...

[a fan]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

Lies My Teacher Told Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Author James W. Loewen

Subject American history, Historiography, Native American history, African American history

Publisher The New Press
Publication date
1995

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong was written by James W. Loewen in 1995 and critically examines twelve popular American high school history textbooks. In the book, Loewen concludes that the textbook authors propagate false, Eurocentric, and mythologized views of American history. In addition to his critique of the dominant historical themes presented in high school textbooks, Loewen presents themes from history that he believes should be presented in high school textbooks.

In Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen criticizes modern American high school history textbooks for containing incorrect information about people and events such as Christopher Columbus, the lies and inaccuracies in the history books regarding the dealings between the Europeans and the Native Americans, and their often deceptive and inaccurate teachings told about America's commerce in slavery. He further criticizes the texts for a tendency to avoid controversy and for their "bland" and simplistic style. He proposes that when American history textbooks elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they unintentionally give students the impression that these figures are super-humans who live in the irretrievable past. Rather than highlighting both the positives and negatives of historical figures, Loewen claims textbooks cause students to perceive these figures through a single lens.[2] Loewen asserts that the muting of past clashes and tragedies makes history boring to students, especially groups excluded from the positive histories.[3]

a fan is not the only one who knows about the warping of true American history in K-12...

Oh, don't tell Pete. He thinks the education he received from the government was flawless...with no bias, no half truths, and no errors of omission.

[Kismet]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

Lies My Teacher Told Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Author James W. Loewen

Subject American history, Historiography, Native American history, African American history

Publisher The New Press
Publication date
1995

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong was written by James W. Loewen in 1995 and critically examines twelve popular American high school history textbooks. In the book, Loewen concludes that the textbook authors propagate false, Eurocentric, and mythologized views of American history. In addition to his critique of the dominant historical themes presented in high school textbooks, Loewen presents themes from history that he believes should be presented in high school textbooks.

In Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen criticizes modern American high school history textbooks for containing incorrect information about people and events such as Christopher Columbus, the lies and inaccuracies in the history books regarding the dealings between the Europeans and the Native Americans, and their often deceptive and inaccurate teachings told about America's commerce in slavery. He further criticizes the texts for a tendency to avoid controversy and for their "bland" and simplistic style. He proposes that when American history textbooks elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they unintentionally give students the impression that these figures are super-humans who live in the irretrievable past. Rather than highlighting both the positives and negatives of historical figures, Loewen claims textbooks cause students to perceive these figures through a single lens.[2] Loewen asserts that the muting of past clashes and tragedies makes history boring to students, especially groups excluded from the positive histories.[3]

a fan is not the only one who knows about the warping of true American history in K-12...

There HAS to be a middle position.
Last week, the NY City Council dispatched a statue of Thomas Jefferson that has been in the Council Chamber at City Hall since 1830 to a museum. To be able to have a reasoned discussion about the conundrum of Jefferson's life without erasing him totally from any conversation is as reprehensible as anything he did in his lifetime. Schools and institutions should be able to teach/inform the whole picture without removing all references/symbols in the public square using the statues as a part of the educational process.

[MDlaxfan76]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

Lies My Teacher Told Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Author James W. Loewen

Subject American history, Historiography, Native American history, African American history

Publisher The New Press
Publication date
1995

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong was written by James W. Loewen in 1995 and critically examines twelve popular American high school history textbooks. In the book, Loewen concludes that the textbook authors propagate false, Eurocentric, and mythologized views of American history. In addition to his critique of the dominant historical themes presented in high school textbooks, Loewen presents themes from history that he believes should be presented in high school textbooks.

In Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen criticizes modern American high school history textbooks for containing incorrect information about people and events such as Christopher Columbus, the lies and inaccuracies in the history books regarding the dealings between the Europeans and the Native Americans, and their often deceptive and inaccurate teachings told about America's commerce in slavery. He further criticizes the texts for a tendency to avoid controversy and for their "bland" and simplistic style. He proposes that when American history textbooks elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they unintentionally give students the impression that these figures are super-humans who live in the irretrievable past. Rather than highlighting both the positives and negatives of historical figures, Loewen claims textbooks cause students to perceive these figures through a single lens.[2] Loewen asserts that the muting of past clashes and tragedies makes history boring to students, especially groups excluded from the positive histories.[3]

a fan is not the only one who knows about the warping of true American history in K-12...

There HAS to be a middle position.
Last week, the NY City Council dispatched a statue of Thomas Jefferson that has been in the Council Chamber at City Hall since 1830 to a museum. To be able to have a reasoned discussion about the conundrum of Jefferson's life without erasing him totally from any conversation is as reprehensible as anything he did in his lifetime. Schools and institutions should be able to teach/inform the whole picture without removing all references/symbols in the public square using the statues as a part of the educational process.

While I'd have likely voted the other way on this one had I been a Council member, the location of statues has always been a reflection of the political zeitgeist of the times, as it's very much a political choice as to who to honor and who not. No such choice is guaranteed perpetuity. Apparently it's been moved multiple times in its tenure, though always somewhere within City Hall.

The resilience of Jefferson is a testament to the importance of his role in the establishment of the country as a democratic republic, but also to the lack of awareness of the complexities man as his story was told over the generations. And those complexities have finally gained sufficient contextual relevance and resonance to call into question when and where a statue honoring him is appropriate, and where such space might be alternatively used to honor someone or something else.

For instance, a statue in Washington (eg the Jefferson Memorial) seems highly appropriate as to "where' such makes sense, likewise I'd argue such at UVA and the continuation of Monticello with its evolving displays and contextual updating.

Harder to make the same sorts of arguments for the NYC Council Chamber. I 'get' why members of the New York community have been pushing for a couple of decades to move it out. Apparently it's going to New York Historical Society and will be on display as part of an educational exhibit.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/19/10472584 ... il-chamber
https://abc7ny.com/thomas-jefferson-sta ... /11238038/

[a fan]

There HAS to be a middle position.

That's what I want. That's what OS says he wants, too.

I'm simply reacting Pete's idiotic idea that American K-12 textbooks weren't a sh*tshow for decades, and were flawless representations of American History.

[Kismet]

The idea that a decision to use a weapon like the atomic bomb was a simple binary decision is ludicrous on its face.

Exactly. The ENTIRE point is that history is in the hands of the teller...and allllll those unseen editorial choices that need to be made to stuff it into a High School History class.

Certainly Truman had to decide not only the potential human cost to the country to invade the Japanese home islands but simultaneously sending a message to Stalin also warranted consideration.

Without question. And those like Pete who complain about getting different voices in our telling of history DESPERATELY want to forget that we weren't fed the boilerplate truth about our history in the US school system. And do I need to point out that some States (*cough the South*) were flat out lying in their telling of what went down in America?

So sure, please act like weren't weren't stuffed with lies as kids in K-12....only to have the much more complicated picture being painted for those of us lucky enough to attend a good college.

Lies My Teacher Told Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Author James W. Loewen

Subject American history, Historiography, Native American history, African American history

Publisher The New Press
Publication date
1995

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong was written by James W. Loewen in 1995 and critically examines twelve popular American high school history textbooks. In the book, Loewen concludes that the textbook authors propagate false, Eurocentric, and mythologized views of American history. In addition to his critique of the dominant historical themes presented in high school textbooks, Loewen presents themes from history that he believes should be presented in high school textbooks.

In Lies My Teacher Told Me, Loewen criticizes modern American high school history textbooks for containing incorrect information about people and events such as Christopher Columbus, the lies and inaccuracies in the history books regarding the dealings between the Europeans and the Native Americans, and their often deceptive and inaccurate teachings told about America's commerce in slavery. He further criticizes the texts for a tendency to avoid controversy and for their "bland" and simplistic style. He proposes that when American history textbooks elevate American historical figures to the status of heroes, they unintentionally give students the impression that these figures are super-humans who live in the irretrievable past. Rather than highlighting both the positives and negatives of historical figures, Loewen claims textbooks cause students to perceive these figures through a single lens.[2] Loewen asserts that the muting of past clashes and tragedies makes history boring to students, especially groups excluded from the positive histories.[3]

a fan is not the only one who knows about the warping of true American history in K-12...

There HAS to be a middle position.
Last week, the NY City Council dispatched a statue of Thomas Jefferson that has been in the Council Chamber at City Hall since 1830 to a museum. To be able to have a reasoned discussion about the conundrum of Jefferson's life without erasing him totally from any conversation is as reprehensible as anything he did in his lifetime. Schools and institutions should be able to teach/inform the whole picture without removing all references/symbols in the public square using the statues as a part of the educational process.

While I'd have likely voted the other way on this one had I been a Council member, the location of statues has always been a reflection of the political zeitgeist of the times, as it's very much a political choice as to who to honor and who not. No such choice is guaranteed perpetuity. Apparently it's been moved multiple times in its tenure, though always somewhere within City Hall.

The resilience of Jefferson is a testament to the importance of his role in the establishment of the country as a democratic republic, but also to the lack of awareness of the complexities man as his story was told over the generations. And those complexities have finally gained sufficient contextual relevance and resonance to call into question when and where a statue honoring him is appropriate, and where such space might be alternatively used to honor someone or something else.

For instance, a statue in Washington (eg the Jefferson Memorial) seems highly appropriate as to "where' such makes sense, likewise I'd argue such at UVA and the continuation of Monticello with its evolving displays and contextual updating.

Harder to make the same sorts of arguments for the NYC Council Chamber. I 'get' why members of the New York community have been pushing for a couple of decades to move it out. Apparently it's going to New York Historical Society and will be on display as part of an educational exhibit.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/19/10472584 ... il-chamber
https://abc7ny.com/thomas-jefferson-sta ... /11238038/

IMHO this is educationally sub-optimal.
We can celebrate Jefferson for the significant contribution he made to this country and to history/scientific advances while simultaneously providing insight to his failures as a slaveholder and as a farmer who could not turn a profit even with 100% free labor.

[Kismet]

There HAS to be a middle position.

That's what I want. That's what OS says he wants, too.

I'm simply reacting Pete's idiotic idea that American K-12 textbooks weren't a sh*tshow for decades, and were flawless representations of American History.

Agreed. My AP American History class in HS (taught by the varsity lacrosse coach BTW) is where I learned that Robert E. Lee was not a hero but a actually traitor to the republic. I also learned why he chose the path he chose as well. This only one of many, many other parts of US History that I was eager to learn about. I got to ask questions, challenge some of the ideas/concepts from the curriculum and looked forward to the class every day even if the homework was more than voluminous.

An excellent piece on the subject
https://www.historynet.com/a-question-o ... deracy.htm

[Typical Lax Dad]

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

Nikole Hannah-Jones Mangles World War II Atomic History

By ARTHUR HERMAN
November 15, 2021

The New York Times columnist is very wrong, yet again.
We’ve now been greeted with yet another rendition of fake history. This time, it is purveyed by two of the most prominent and persistent fakers: Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project and Howard Zinn, author of the most popular (and misleading) history textbook, A People’s History of the United States.

The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsifications of history contained in the 1619 Project have been carefully exposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, Ms. Hannah-Jones recently decided to extend her streak from the history of slavery to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. She posted this tweet, which has since been deleted:

They [the federal government] dropped the bomb when they knew surrender was coming because they’d spent all this money developing it and to prove it was worth it. Propaganda is not history, my friend.

It’s not hard to identify where she got this counterfactual account of Hiroshima; indeed, it comes from Howard Zinn, who wrote in his People’s History that “the Japanese had begun talking of surrender a year before this” but the Americans insisted on unconditional surrender, which made peace impossible. “Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it?,” Zinn pondered.

So much for propaganda versus history. It’s now generally accepted by everyone who knows anything about the subject — including Japanese historians — that the key reason for using the atomic bomb was not racist bloodlust (as the Smithsonian’s abortive Enola Gay exhibit tried to insinuate a few years ago), or (as in another leftist tract, Gar Alperovitz’s Atomic Diplomacy) a cynical desire to impress Stalin and the Soviet Union with our newfound nuclear prowess, but rather an overwhelming concern about the staggering cost in casualties a U.S. invasion of Japan would incur — not to mention Japanese deaths. At a White House meeting on June 18, 1945, a very worried President Truman learned that the man who was to head the invasion of the island of Kyushu, General Douglas MacArthur, estimated that U.S. casualties would approach 120,000 in the first 90 days. The navy’s overall estimate ran to a quarter-million casualties overall — with the battle for Honshu and Tokyo, the capital, still to come.

It was in order to forestall an apocalyptic fight to the death between American soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians that would drag on for months or even years that Truman on July 28 authorized the dropping of one of the two available atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima, and then, if Japan still refused to surrender, dropping the second on Nagasaki.

These facts are well-known — well-known, it seems, to everyone except Hannah-Jones, Zinn, and their fans. What isn’t so well known is that American decrypts of Japanese military ciphers on the eve of Hiroshima had established that, far from being close to surrender, or even discouraged by one major defeat after another — from Iwo Jima and the Philippines to Okinawa — Japan’s military leadership was determined to fight on to the finish.

Historian Junichiro Shoji has recently revealed how intransigent the Japanese military had become in defending the decision to prosecute the war irrespective of any human cost. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military remained unwavering. The generals even called for the “honorable death of 100 million” in a “battle for the Japanese Home Islands.” At a meeting with the Emperor on August 14, almost a week after the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, both Army Marshal Sugiyama and Admiral Nagano insisted that “the military still has strength remaining and its morale is strong. Based on these [factors], it should be able to resist and resolutely repel the invading U.S. forces.”

The use of atomic weapons, however, did tip the hand of the one person who had the power to overrule Japan’s military elite — namely, Hirohito himself. The shocking devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only confirmed his private belief that Japan had nothing to gain by fighting on. On August 12, he told the imperial family the circumstances, “Do not lead me to believe that the military would be victorious in the Battle for the Home Islands.” The only option was to accept the conditions laid out the declaration made by the Big Three at their meeting at Potsdam, Germany, on July 26, that called for the surrender of Japan but left the issue of preserving Japan’s national polity, including the status of the Emperor, open.

The Japanese government had already rejected the Potsdam offer on July 28. But on August 10, two days after Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, issued an emergency telegram stating that it would accept the Potsdam declaration with the understanding that this did not compromise the Emperor’s future status. Secretary of State James Byrnes then issued a reply stating that the Emperor’s status and that of the Japanese government would be “subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers,” who would be Douglas MacArthur.

That assurance gave Hirohito the courage to overrule his military leaders and to tell the Japanese people in a nationwide broadcast on August 15 that they would have “to endure the unendurable” and accept surrender. Any remaining anxiety about the Emperor’s status was dispelled when a Japanese delegation arrived in Manila on August 19 to negotiate the final terms of surrender, and MacArthur made it clear that he had no intention of overturning Emperor Hirohito’s authority. “Through him it will be possible to maintain a completely orderly government” for rebuilding post-war Japan, the general explained.

In the end, Japan’s final surrender in World War II was due to three people: Secretary of State James Byrnes, General Douglas MacArthur, and Emperor Hirohito. If atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, Hirohito and his civilian leadership might never have had the courage to override a Japanese military that had largely taken over the government and was determined to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, and child. (A hardcore group of officers even tried unsuccessfully to kidnap the Emperor before his broadcast to the Japanese people.)

Indeed, the atomic bombs’ real contribution to peace was the implicit threat that the United States had more bombs ready to drop, which it did not. Intentional or not, the bluff worked, and prevented an invasion that would have led to American and Japanese deaths running into the millions. Australian historian Tom Lewis has recently estimated that worldwide it may have saved more than 32 million lives.

None of this, of course, makes any difference to Ms. Hannah-Jones or her intellectual guide Howard Zinn. The only remaining mystery is why she bothered to delete her tweet. Thus far the public and popular media have allowed her to get away with one counterfactual historical claim after another with impunity. Surely one more wouldn’t mar their record.

We should have dropped a bomb on Germany. Case would have been closed.

[a fan]

Agreed. My AP American History class in HS (taught by the varsity lacrosse coach BTW) is where I learned that Robert E. Lee was not a hero but a actually traitor to the republic. I also learned why he chose the path he chose as well.

Didn't get that until college. AP History was a mess in Colorado in the 80's.