Is America a racist nation?

[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/

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.

Well sure. But does a statue in NYC City Council accomplish any of that?

[old salt]

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.

Sorry I'm late. Forgot about this thread.

I agree the decision to drop the bomb was a complex one which had to consider several factors.

Everything i've read maintains that the decision was taken to avoid the massive bloodletting on both sides from an invasion -- we were convinced it was the only way to get Japan to surrender, & even then, we had to assure that the Emperor & family would remain in place & Japanese future sovereignty guaranteed.

I suppose we could have waited a while longer to drop the second bomb. I defer to the contemporary intel on that issue.

Of course there was racial animus -- with the way that war was initiated & conducted, how could there not have been ?
How many of us would have not been here had the decision not been taken.

Yes, it was a deterrent to the Soviets but I don't buy that we bypassed a surrender, just to deter Stalin or to justify the cost of developing the bomb(s). Had Japan surrendered first, we could have retained them in our arsenal & enjoyed a ROI as a deterrent.

[old salt]

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

If we had one earlier we probably would have.

[old salt]

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

Sorry I'm late. Forgot about this thread.

I agree the decision to drop the bomb was a complex one which had to consider several factors.

Everything i've read maintains that the decision was taken to avoid the massive bloodletting on both sides from an invasion -- we were convinced it was the only way to get Japan to surrender, & even then, we had to assure that the Emperor & family would remain in place & Japanese future sovereignty guaranteed.

I suppose we could have waited a while longer to drop the second bomb. I defer to the contemporary intel on that issue.

Of course there was racial animus -- with the way that war was initiated & conducted, how could there not have been ?
How many of us would not be here had the decision not been taken.

Yes, it was a deterrent to the Soviets but I don't buy that we bypassed a surrender, just to deter Stalin or to justify the cost of developing the bomb(s). Had Japan surrendered first, we could have retained the bombs in our arsenal & enjoyed a ROI as a deterrent.

...& consider what the Japanese people endured before we dropped the bomb --

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... g-of-tokyo

Yet they would still not surrender & we still agreed that the Emperor could remain.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

If we had one earlier we probably would have.

Better late than never.

[ardilla secreta]

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

If we had one earlier we probably would have.

Only if German Americans would have been interred in camps in Arizona. That’s wasn’t going to happen.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

Sorry I'm late. Forgot about this thread.

I agree the decision to drop the bomb was a complex one which had to consider several factors.

Everything i've read maintains that the decision was taken to avoid the massive bloodletting on both sides from an invasion -- we were convinced it was the only way to get Japan to surrender, & even then, we had to assure that the Emperor & family would remain in place & Japanese future sovereignty guaranteed.

I suppose we could have waited a while longer to drop the second bomb. I defer to the contemporary intel on that issue.

Of course there was racial animus -- with the way that war was initiated & conducted, how could there not have been ?
How many of us would not be here had the decision not been taken.

Yes, it was a deterrent to the Soviets but I don't buy that we bypassed a surrender, just to deter Stalin or to justify the cost of developing the bomb(s). Had Japan surrendered first, we could have retained the bombs in our arsenal & enjoyed a ROI as a deterrent.

...& consider what the Japanese people endured before we dropped the bomb --

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... g-of-tokyo

Yet they would still not surrender & we still agreed that the Emperor could remain.

Yes, very devastating. Unimaginable, really.

I think the point was that had we agreed earlier that the Emperor could remain, the nuclear option would not have been required. But instead we kept demanding "unconditional" surrender. And they kept saying 'no'. In the end, we didn't really need "unconditional".

But certainly a full scale assault was not the way to go...so, indeed, complex.

I can't fathom why the second bomb was necessary...they certainly needed time to process what had happened, and we were in no greater risk had we simply waited for that to occur.

Of course, to be fair, I'm not so sure we really understood, ourselves, the horror of what those bombs did.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

If we had one earlier we probably would have.

Only if German Americans would have been interred in camps in Arizona. That’s wasn’t going to happen.

If we had more time we would have rounded them up here. Just to be safe.

[old salt]

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

Sorry I'm late. Forgot about this thread.

I agree the decision to drop the bomb was a complex one which had to consider several factors.

Everything i've read maintains that the decision was taken to avoid the massive bloodletting on both sides from an invasion -- we were convinced it was the only way to get Japan to surrender, & even then, we had to assure that the Emperor & family would remain in place & Japanese future sovereignty guaranteed.

I suppose we could have waited a while longer to drop the second bomb. I defer to the contemporary intel on that issue.

Of course there was racial animus -- with the way that war was initiated & conducted, how could there not have been ?
How many of us would not be here had the decision not been taken.

Yes, it was a deterrent to the Soviets but I don't buy that we bypassed a surrender, just to deter Stalin or to justify the cost of developing the bomb(s). Had Japan surrendered first, we could have retained the bombs in our arsenal & enjoyed a ROI as a deterrent.

...& consider what the Japanese people endured before we dropped the bomb --

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... g-of-tokyo

Yet they would still not surrender & we still agreed that the Emperor could remain.

When in doubt, ask VDH :

https://townhall.com/columnists/victord ... sletterad=

The Soviets knew the end was near & grabbed what they had been promised at Yalta as soon as Germany surrendered -- what they could occupy in Manchuria, N Korea & some disputed islands. They were going to take their spoils regardless. The timing of the 2nd bombing did not deter them. Stalin got what he wanted at Yalta. Stalin played the Japanese, feigning considering an extension of the non-aggression pact, assuring them he was negotiating an armistice on their behalf with the Allies. As soon as Germany surrendered, they invaded Manchuria.

It was good that they were not part of the occupation of Japan or it could have ended up divided like Korea or E Europe.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

Sorry I'm late. Forgot about this thread.

I agree the decision to drop the bomb was a complex one which had to consider several factors.

Everything i've read maintains that the decision was taken to avoid the massive bloodletting on both sides from an invasion -- we were convinced it was the only way to get Japan to surrender, & even then, we had to assure that the Emperor & family would remain in place & Japanese future sovereignty guaranteed.

I suppose we could have waited a while longer to drop the second bomb. I defer to the contemporary intel on that issue.

Of course there was racial animus -- with the way that war was initiated & conducted, how could there not have been ?
How many of us would not be here had the decision not been taken.

Yes, it was a deterrent to the Soviets but I don't buy that we bypassed a surrender, just to deter Stalin or to justify the cost of developing the bomb(s). Had Japan surrendered first, we could have retained the bombs in our arsenal & enjoyed a ROI as a deterrent.

...& consider what the Japanese people endured before we dropped the bomb --

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... g-of-tokyo

Yet they would still not surrender & we still agreed that the Emperor could remain.

When in doubt, ask VDH :

https://townhall.com/columnists/victord ... sletterad=

The Soviets knew the end was near & grabbed what they could in Manchuria, N Korea & some disputed islands. They were going to take their spoils regardless. The timing of the 2nd bombing did not deter them. It was good that they were not part of the occupation of Japan or it could have ended up divided like Korea or E Europe.

Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb — Argument 3: Use of the Atomic Bombs Was Racially Motivated

Opponents of President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb argue that racism played an important role in the decision; that had the bomb been ready in time it never would have been used against Germany. All of America’s enemies were stereotyped and caricatured in home front propaganda, but there was a clear difference in the nature of that propaganda. Although there were crude references to Germans as “krauts,” and Italians as “Tonies” or “spaghettis,” the vast majority of ridicule was directed at their political leadership. Hitler, Nazis, and Italy’s Mussolini were routinely caricatured, but the German and Italian people weren’t.

By contrast, anti-Japanese racism in American society targeted the Japanese as a race of people, and demonstrated a level of hatred comparable with Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. The Japanese were universally caricatured as having huge buck teeth, massive fangs dripping with saliva, and monstrous thick glasses through which they leered with squinty eyes. They were further dehumanized as being snakes, cockroaches, and rats, and their entire culture was mocked, including language, customs, and religious beliefs. Anti-Japanese imagery was everywhere—in Bugs Bunny cartoons, popular music, post cards, children’s toys, magazine advertisements, and in a wide array of novelty items ranging from ash trays to “Jap Hunting License” buttons. Even Tarzan, in one of the last novels written by his creator Edgar Rice Burroughs, spent time in the Pacific hunting and killing Japs. Numerous songs advocated killing all Japanese. The popular novelty hit, “Remember Pearl Harbor” by Carson Robison, for example, urges Americans to “wipe the Jap from the map.” It continues:

Remember how we used to call them our “little brown brothers?”
What a laugh that turned out to be
Well, we can all thank God that we’re not related
To that yellow scum of the sea
They talked of peace, and of friendship
We found out just what all that talk was worth
All right, they’ve asked for it, and now they’re going to get it
We’ll blow every one of them right off of the face of the Earth

Americans didn’t like Mussolini, Hitler, and Nazis, but many hated the Japanese race. The official magazine of the US Marine Corps, The Leatherneck, in May 1945 called the Japanese a “pestilence,” and called for “a giant task of extermination.” The American historian Steven Ambrose, a child during the war, has said that because of the propaganda, he grew up thinking that the only good Jap was a dead Jap. That hatred began with Pearl Harbor and increased when news broke of the Bataan Death March, and with each act of defiance against America’s “island hopping” campaign. Killing became too easy, and the dehumanizing of the enemy commonplace. Some American soldiers in the Pacific sent home to their girlfriends the skulls of Japanese soldiers, to be displayed on their desks at work. American soldiers did not send home Nazi skulls as trophies or sweetheart gifts. In 1944 a US Congressman presented President Roosevelt with a letter-opener purportedly made from the arm bone of a Japanese soldier.
American racism led to a failure to distinguish between the Japanese government, dominated by hard-line militarists, and the Japanese civilian who was caught up in their government’s war. Racists viewed allJapanese as threats not because of their political education, but because of their genetics. As further evidence, bomb opponents point to US policy toward the Japanese-Americans living in California at the time. They were rounded up, denied their basic liberties under the Constitution (even though many of them were American citizens), and sent to isolated camps in the deserts, surrounded by barbed wire, until the war’s end.

Nothing on this scale was done to the Germans during WWII, or even during the First World War, when there were millions of German and Austrian immigrants and their children living in the United States. In May 1944 Life magazine reported on the hardships of George Yamamoto, a Japanese-American who had immigrated to the US in 1920 at the age of 17 to work on his family’s farm. In 1942 Mr. Yamamoto worked at a fish market, ran a sporting goods store, and was a solid member of his community, along with his wife and children.

They were interned, but Mr. Yamamoto applied for a relocation program, was cleared by the US government as loyal and trustworthy, and was packed off to Delaware to find work. He was run out of town before he could even start, and was relocated to New Jersey, where he was to work on a farm owned by Eddie Kowalick. But the citizens of New Jersey were no more accommodating. They feared an influx of Jap workers and didn’t want their kids sitting next to “yellow” children in school. A petition to evict Yamamoto was circulated, there were multiple threats of violence against him, and one of Mr. Kowalick’s barns was burned to the ground. After threats were made against the life of Mr. Kowalick’s baby, he felt he had no choice but to ask Mr. Yamamoto to move on. Three weeks after Life printed this story, they printed letters written in response. Most of those selected by the editorial staff for publication were supportive of Mr. Yamamoto and expressed embarrassment at the ignorance of some Americans. But the magazine also published this letter, written by William M. Hinds of Birmingham, Alabama:
Sirs, there are many of us who believe that the deceit, treachery and bestiality inherent in the Japanese we are fighting in the Pacific are traits not automatically removed from members of the race merely by accident of birth in the US. There are many of us who believe, quite sincerely and simply, that Japanese immigrants to the US and their American-born children will deliberately live an impeccable American life while awaiting an opportunity to perpetrate a Pearl Harbor of their own dimensions. Cheers for the public-spirited citizens of New Jersey who ran Mr. Yamamoto away.

While it’s easy to see that extreme racism toward the Japanese existed, it’s much more difficult to assess the role racism may have played in President Truman’s decision. However, there are a few instances in the historical record where the President does refer to the Japanese in questionable terms. In his July 25, 1945 diary entry, as Truman is writing about the bomb, he refers to the “Japs” as “savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic.” On August 11, after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been devastated, an American clergyman named Samuel McCrea Cavert wrote the President urging him to give the Japanese time to surrender before using any more atomic bombs. Truman replied, “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.” Whether these comments are racist about the Japanese people, or only express the President’s opinion about the Japanese military is a matter of interpretation.

[old salt]

^^^ how 'bout a link to your source ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

^^^ how 'bout a link to your source ?

Truth

[old salt]

^^^ how 'bout a link to your source ?

Truth

Are you afraid to reveal what young minds are being influenced ?

Different propaganda, geared against different enemies, only one of which did a sneak attack on the US.

There was a much larger number of German & Italian descendants in the US population.

Wartime propaganda is not PC or Woke. It's about existential survival.

[Typical Lax Dad]

^^^ how 'bout a link to your source ?

Truth

Are you afraid to reveal what young minds are being influenced ?

Different propaganda, geared against different enemies, only one of which did a sneak attack on the US.

There was a much larger number of German & Italian descendants in the US population.

Wartime propaganda is not PC or Woke. It's about existential survival.

Probably that 1619 lady….
In July, when President Truman traveled to Germany to meet his Allied leaders for the first time, pinning down Stalin on the exact date was at the top of his agenda. When Truman and Stalin met on the 17th, the Soviet leader confirmed they would declare war on Japan on August 15. Later that night, Truman wrote in the diary, “Most of the big points are settled. He’ll be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about” (meaning, they’ll be finished). Some bomb supporters point out that according to post-war interviews of Japanese leaders, none of the high-ranking officials were of a mind that a Soviet attack alone would have convinced them to surrender. However, this is irrelevant if Truman believed it would, and if intelligence information at the time suggested it would.
To summarize, by July 17 the American military, the President, and at least some Japanese all were of a mind that a Soviet intervention in the war would prove decisive. And, a date for this intervention had been set. Bomb opponents thus question why the United States used atomic bombs on August 6 and 9, when they knew the Russians were coming a week later, and when Operation Torch wasn’t scheduled for months.

You care about “woke” and “PC” more than I do…. I am gettin’ “mines”.

[old salt]

Hate America First.

Far fewer Japanese died from the 2 bombs than had the B-29 fire bombing continued.

[DocBarrister]

Hate America First.

Far fewer Japanese died from the 2 bombs than had the B-29 fire bombing continued.

Look, we have seen anti-Asian racism from multiple people on our own forum here in the 21st century.

Are you suggesting that anti-Asian racism played no role in how we conducted the war against Japan or how the United States treated its own Japanese American citizens?

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

Hate America First.

Far fewer Japanese died from the 2 bombs than had the B-29 fire bombing continued.

Un huh.

As discussed above, bomb opponents question why the United States used atomic bombs on August 6 and 9, when they knew the Russians were going to declare war on Japan a week later, and when Operation Torch wasn’t scheduled for months. Why not wait? Bomb opponents believe that the American government did not wait for the Russians because they were already thinking about the post-war world and how they could best limit Soviet gains when they redrew the map of Europe. They believed the shock-and-awe effect of using the atomic bomb against Japan would make the Soviet Union more manageable in post-war negotiations. (This argument had been made most consistently by historian Gar Alperovitz). There was certainly reason to be concerned about the Soviet Union. When Germany collapsed, the Russians had made huge advances. Russian troops moved into Hungary and Rumania and showed no inclination to leave there or the Balkans. But was it an acceptable trade-off to annihilate several hundred thousand civilians just so the Russians wouldn’t be able to get in on the kill of Japan, and so the U.S. might have the upper-hand in the post-war world? Bomb opponents are abhorred by the moral implications.

Japanese Guinea Pigs. Sub human.

[old salt]

Hate America First.

Far fewer Japanese died from the 2 bombs than had the B-29 fire bombing continued.

Look, we have seen anti-Asian racism from multiple people on our own forum here in the 21st century.

Are you suggesting that anti-Asian racism played no role in how we conducted the war against Japan or how the United States treated its own Japanese American citizens?

DocBarrister

Where did I say that ? I do not think it factored into the decision to drop the primitive low yield A-bomb(s) on Japan.

I think we would have dropped it on Berlin if it would have ended the war before D-day or the Battle of the Bulge.

We were in a race to develop it before the Nazis did. It was seen as the next Nazi terror weapon.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Hate America First.

Far fewer Japanese died from the 2 bombs than had the B-29 fire bombing continued.

Look, we have seen anti-Asian racism from multiple people on our own forum here in the 21st century.

Are you suggesting that anti-Asian racism played no role in how we conducted the war against Japan or how the United States treated its own Japanese American citizens?

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

Originally, the second target was not scheduled to be attacked until six days after Hiroshima. But with bad weather in the forecast, and with the Russians suddenly declaring war on Japan after the Hiroshima bomb, General Groves moved up the date to make sure that the plutonium bomb was “field tested” before the war could end (Hiroshima had been hit with a Uranium bomb). Some critics have pointedout that three days was simply not enough time for the Japanese to even confirm what had happened in Hiroshima, which appeared to them to have simply blinked off the map. Although the Japanese leadership suspected the bombing was atomic in nature, they sent scientists to Hiroshima to confirm these suspicions and they had not even returned with their findings when Nagasaki was hit. There are some critics who support dropping the first bomb, but feel the second was completely unnecessary. Either way, critics of the dropping of “Fat Man” on Nagasaki blame Truman for a lack of leadership.