[Drjones]

So I'm in an Ethnic Studies class. Again. Don't ask.:fire:

Yesterday we had a lengthy discussion/lecture covering many topics.

Rather than start umpteen different threads, I'll post everything I want addressed here.

These are in order as I remember them:

-He said that "war has never solved anything." I said the Holocaust was stopped by war. He said something to the effect of "do you know WHY we got involved in that in the first place?" or something... Didn't we get dragged into WWII because the world was sick of us keeping to ourselves?

Why did the Japanese bomb us anyway?

-America creates its own problems. Example: We put Saddam in power (right?) Now we have to go to war against him. Apparently we do this a lot. (Including in Central America?) Why? (I'm asking why, not him)

-This is a topic that was raised in a reading, not by my prof, but I'll post it anyway: The Founding Fathers, who gave us the BOR and Constitution, with such lofty ideals in mind (all men are created equal) yet they owned slaves. What's up with that?

-We have dropped more bombs than any other nation.

-We dropped the bombs on Japan AFTER they surrendered. (True?)

-My prof stresses that we are very ethnocentric. I don't really see his point. So are the French. The English clearly think their stuff doesn't stink. I think what he was getting at was that we should be even MORE accepting of other cultures than we are now. Of course, to the detriment of the white male and European cultures. :rolleyes:

-Illegal Immigrants. He said, "How can a human being be illegal?" :rolleyes: I guess he would just like us to open up our borders and let anyone and everyone in. Though we're such an evil, oppressive, ethnocentric country, I don't see why anyone would want to come in... :rolleyes:

More than anything, I'm interested in our history. We do have a rather imperialistic history. We can basically get whatever we want without having to worry about it.

I guess the best explanation I can think of is that, unlike most all other countries, we do not use our power to opress others.

Though that's not entirely true, as we have killed lots of civilians during our wars and stuff.

I dunno....am I even making sense? Anyone have any links to stuff or suggestions for books that would be relevant?


Thank you

[Destructo6]

No, we didn't drop THE bombs (A-bombs) on Japan after they surrendered. Maybe he said something like, "dropped them after we'd won", implying that the war was won when we dropped the bombs. Otherwise, we'd "won" in 1943 according to this definition. It ignores the fact that war isn't done until the loser acknowledges that he's lost. While he's "lost" on paper and even in reality, he can still inflict a great deal of damage.

The Japanese bombed us because we opposed their actions in Manchuria (starting in 1931) and had the means to do something about it: ie a Navy.

As for some of the Founding Fathers owning slaves, they were products of their time and inherited the institution. Sounds kinda lame, but I don't see a much better explanation. You might liken it to an ardent grennie driving a big vehicle: it goes against his ideology, but he can't see hauling his protest signs around in a GM EV1.

[Hkmp5sd]

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Robert A. Heinlein
Starship Troopers

Bombing Japan after the Surrender.

The last atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9. On August 14, Hirohito informed his military that they WOULD surrender. On August 15, Hirohito went on the radio an announced to his country they would surrender. On September 2, the Japanese formally surrendered.

Of note, even after Hirohito decided to surrender, some in his military decided to take over the government and continue the fight until total destruction. Ultimately they did not do this and the leader of the plot committed suicide.

In the late 30's, Japan wanted to expand their territory. They had already fought a war with Russia and that didn't turn out too well, so they decided to move southward. They invaded China. The US did the tried and useless method of sanctions by cutting off various supplies we were sending to Japan, including Iron and Oil.

Japan calculated they had enough Oil for a short war with the US. Their aim was to destroy the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, then occupy many of the south Pacific islands and finally to make peace with the US before the US had the ability to fight an actual war.

In this they made several mistakes. The suprise attack on Pearl Habor set the entire US population against them and there was no chance of avoiding retribution.

By attacking the battleships in port, they did not destroy the trained crews of those ships and many of the ships they did damage were repaired and returned to service. They did not destroy the US oil reserves at Pearl Harbor nor the submarine base. And the biggest mistake of all, they failed to destroy the US aircraft carriers.

Iraq-
No, we did not put Saddam in power. After the fall of the Shah of Iran, Iraq became the most stable (ie lesser of all other evils) in the area, so the US started giving them aid, including military aid. Prior to this, Iran was our friend in the area and we provided them with military support. We also turned a blind eye to some of Iraq's human rights violations. Ultimately, Iraq received most of their military equipment from the USSR and other communist countries and used that to invade Kuwait.

Slaves-

At the time of the constitution, slavery was a legal and accepted practice in much of the world. A slave was not considered a person. As such, the "all men are created equal" was not referring to them.

[joeoim]

Drjones:

It is no wonder the young people have a hard time with life, with professors ( he is certainally not an educator) like that.

He needs a history lesson. By the time I was 6 or 7 years old I knew if we had not fought and won WW II both England, France, and the USA ( along with the rest of Europe) would have been under Hitlers rule. ANY 5 OR 6 YEAR OLD CHILD IN THE 50s & 60s KNEW THAT!

Ask him if he's ever heard of Pearl Harbor

And I'd leave it at that. You can't argue with an idiot.

Joe

BTW War determines who runs the show

[jmbg29]

-He said that "war has never solved anything." I said the Holocaust was stopped by war. He said something to the effect of "do you know WHY we got involved in that in the first place?" or something...Tell him that answering your question with a question is an age-old dodge, and is therefore not an answer. You might also add that it is beneath the dignity of his office as a professor to stoop to such a thing. Didn't we get dragged into WWII because the world was sick of us keeping to ourselves?No. We got dragged into WWII by virtue of having been attacked by the Japanese on December 7th, 1941. Add to that the declaration of war by Hitler and Mousollini on December 11th, 1941, and the gang's all here.Why did the Japanese bomb us anyway?The short answer is because the Imperial Japanese attacked everyone they could reach in those days. They had already attacked all of their neighbors. Hence, we were the only major power in the Pacific that they hadn't attacked. When we managed to embargo their oil supply, they snapped. The rest is history.-America creates its own problems. Example: We put Saddam in power (right?) Now we have to go to war against him. We did not put Saddam into power. He came to power in the 1970s via a military coup in which he immediately seized the oil fields from their rightful developers/leaseholders and nationalized them. He then attacked his immediate neighbor Iran.Apparently we do this a lot. (Including in Central America?) Why? (I'm asking why, not him)As the world's #1 power, we do what is in our interests. Sometimes the things we do are a result of trying to chose the lesser of two evils. Either choice still leaves us with evil. Your professor wishes that we would just curl up and die, or go limp and be subsumed by whatever sort of socialism/nazism/facism/communism/collectivism/barbarism that suits his fancy. Heh, in his soft little punk dreams.:rolleyes: -This is a topic that was raised in a reading, not by my prof, but I'll post it anyway: The Founding Fathers, who gave us the BOR and Constitution, with such lofty ideals in mind (all men are created equal) yet they owned slaves. What's up with that?They were human beings.-We have dropped more bombs than any other nation.Yep! And if everybody else would cut out their BS and adopt FREEDOM, we could expend all of that energy elsewhere. Unfortunately we are plagued by people like your professor who support the right of filthy barbarians to run around slaughtering people. They do this by indoctrinating young people with their own brand of moral relativism and PC doublespeak. Their ulterior motivation for this is to weaken our country to make it ripe for the picking by their dream "Benevolent Dictator". Quite often the person these rubes have in mind is themselves. -We dropped the bombs on Japan AFTER they surrendered.We dropped the bombs after the Japanese ostensibly agreed to surrender on their terms. No dice. Sadly, we had to anihilate two whole cities before the Japanese surrendered September 12th, 1945. More than a month after the last bomb was dropped.-My prof stresses that we are very ethnocentric. I don't really see his point. So are the French. The English clearly think their stuff doesn't stink. I think what he was getting at was that we should be even MORE accepting of other cultures than we are now. Of course, to the detriment of the white male and European cultures.Ask the professor to name the other country that has every sort of house of worship, ethnicity, cuisine, art, poetry, literature, etc. as can be found on all of the Earth. Tell him that out of a sense of fairness, he may limit his answer to just one country. More than anything, I'm interested in our history. We do have a rather imperialistic history.No. We do not. Had we been Imperial about things, we would still be holding all of the territory that we have conquered.[/QUOTE]We can basically get whatever we want without having to worry about it.I know a hell of a lot of vets that disagree.I guess the best explanation I can think of is that, unlike most all other countries, we do not use our power to opress others.We "opress" the kind of people that your professor admires. But if he thinks that we are going to allow his collectivist utopia to come to fruition, then he needs to be disabused of that idea. Individual liberty is the only standard that Americans will ever live by. Each human being is unique. States that foster collectivism/dictatorship deny that reality and in doing so, deny people their humanity. It will not stand. Though that's not entirely true, as we have killed lots of civilians during our wars and stuff.Death of the innocent precedes the very concept of war. I can't tell you all of the things that your professors will tell you, but I can tell you what they will be certain not to tell you. That is this: No country on planet Earth has EVER spent as much time and effort and money to limit collateral damage in warfare! None.

Edited to add a ' :D

[Art Eatman]

Well, to hit some highlights:

"Didn't we get dragged into WWII because the world was sick of us keeping to ourselves?"

Er, no. Remember our familial ties to Europe? Where folks had come from, or their parents or grandparents? Strong emotional ties. At the very least, our leadership didn't want German to become the official language of England.

The argument still rages as to whether our Asian policies led to the Japanese attack. This includes our oil embargo. However, the Japanese didn't have to try a full-bore military occupation of everything from Manchuria to Australia.

I'd say it wasn't that we wanted to be GloboRoboCop; we were the manufacturer of last resort. Our manpower was important, but war materiel was probably moreso.

"America creates its own problems."

This ties to what's called our Imperialism. Basically, we're a bunch of merchants. All we want is stability--peace and quiet--in order to "do bidness". Doesn't matter if it's oil or bananas or handcrafted pottery.

We wind up in bed with some sort of leadership who can maintain order and thus Exxon or United Fruit or whomever can do its thing. Some of these leaders are sleazy creatures who keep order with the power of the gun. Sooner or later, we're identified with the local Bad Guys. The revolutionaries, with whom we often should be allied, are often put down with U.S. assistance to the ruling junta. Trujillo, Somoza, Batista...Saddam Hussein, and the Saudi "royal" family. The list is nearly endless.

But we got awl and sugar and 'nanners.

"The Founding Fathers...owned slaves."

Sure, we all agree that slavery is wrong. But if you grow up in a slave-owning society or family, you take slavery for granted. The Greeks gave us the concept of Democracy and voting--yet they owned slaves. Many of our legal concepts date back to the Roman Empire (Empire!!!), which was a slave-owning society.

Judge people in the context of their times. Judge the difference between their good ideas and their bad ideas. For instance, Benito Mussolini was a Bad Guy. But, he made Italian trains run on time. Should we shun the idea that trains should run on time? :)

SFAIK, there were no air raids on Japan after the Nagasaki A-bomb. The surrender came within a few days, and there were no further attacks on the mainland. It is possible that some action may have occurred around some of the by-passed islands way south in the Pacific, but I just don't know.

"My prof stresses that we are very ethnocentric."

We are not even in the ballpark of that game as compared to the Chinese or Japanese. It varies with culture, but all homo saps are genetically ethnocentric until trained differently. Experiment: Take the Boss Hen out of the chicken yard. Dye her feathers pink. Throw her back in. Watch the rest of those formerly-subservient hens peck her near to death--she's now "different".

'He said, "How can a human being be illegal?"'

He's a Prof? Not a Sophomore? Gads, how trivial! There is no difference between somebody entering any country without following the proper process and one trying to enter a commercial event without buying a ticket. Tell him you are appreciative of his implicit permission for you to take your Boy Scout troop to a campout in his back yard. :)

"...unlike most all other countries, we do not use our power to opress others."

We do not seek to become the ruling governmental power. We do not seek to own the territory. We do not put our military on location to enforce peace and quiet as more than a temporary condition.

Our treatment of Japan and Germany after WW II is the best example of the general intent of our foreign policy.

Personal comment: People get too focussed on our screwups and mistakes, usually with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and much ignorance of fact. Sure, we mess up. Sure, we show bad judgement in some foreign policy. Overall and worldwide, people are better off for our efforts than are in worse shape. Ask the folks in South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Hungary...Or those with a number tatooed on their forearms.

Ethnic studies, huh? Ask him to compare the thoughts of Thomas Sowell vs. those of Al Sharpton.

:D, Art

[Jim March]

>> Why did the Japanese bomb us anyway? <<

Combination of things. Even during the period when they were kicking the crap outta China, we were selling them rubber, oil, steel and other key resources. The Japanese islands proper have piss-poor resource availability, which is why they tried to run rampant all over Asia. We finally got disgusted with their antics about three years before Pearl Harbor and did an embargo. Pissed 'em off something fierce.

2nd, while we didn't jump to China's aid in any official military capacity, we sold China some fighters cheap and urged American pilots to sign up with the Chinese as private mercs. The "Flying Tigers" had been going head to toe with zeros some years before Pearl, and Japan took notice of how round their eyes were. (Once the war started the Flying Tigers were integrated into the US military and there's still US fighter squadrons that trace their unit histories to the Tigers and bear remnants of the old insignia in the squad logos and patches.)

3rd, the shift of America's main naval forces to Pearl Harbor and smaller bases in Guam and the Phillipines was a calculated series of threats to Japan to "cool it". Pearl Harbor was close to brand new as a major naval facility when Japan came along and "redecorated it" with HE.

Then they tried again at Midway but whoopsie, we had cracked their codes wide open and had taken to reading their mail. We nailed what, 4 out of 5 of their carriers? :neener:

As to bombing 'em "after they surrendered", certainly not the nukes. The idjits weren't 100% certain what happened the first time so we nailed 'em again.

It's quite possible it took as much as a day to get the word out to all US forces that it was over, and a LOT longer to inform all the Japanese! Sporadic fighting was seen all over the south pacific for months, and for *years* they'd run into some scraggly leftover troops hiding out on some island trying to bayonette anybody white :rolleyes:.

Were the nukes needed?

HELL YES.

We took the island of Okinawa at incredible cost. Every single Japanese-origin resident of that island fought with everything they had. Mothers threw their children off of cliffs and then jumped after 'em ahead of advancing US troops - they had been convinced we were literally cannibals. This gave us a taste of what taking the home islands would have been like.

We would have lost a million US troops.

As an alternative, we could have blockaded them at great expense and "starved 'em into submission" as the islands couldn't feed their massive population without either trade or plunder. Does anybody here think a decade or two of THAT was preferrable to what, about 200,000 dead from the nukes?

Of course not.

Look, the US public attitude by 1945 was "END this crap - NOW". We were just sick'n'tired, royally pissed by all these rampaging lunatic nations. With very good reason.

The nukes were the correct option for the situation.

[cordex]

"war has never solved anything."
I'll let Mr. Dubois field this one. (Mp5Sd beat me to this, but I'll put up the whole quote)
I thought about it during the last session of our class in History and Moral Philosophy. H. & M. P. was different from other courses in that everybody had to take it but nobody had to pass it -- and Mr. Dubois never seemed to care whether he got through to us or not. He would just point at you with the stump of his left arm (he never bothered with names) and snap a question. Then the argument would start. But on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything."
"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"
They had tangled before -- since you couldn't flunk the course, it
wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that `violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
He sighed. "Another year, another class -- and, for me, another
failure. One can lead a child to knowledge but one cannot make him think."
Next.
We have dropped more bombs than any other nation.
We have also given more food, more medicine and rebuilt more countries than any other nation. We have stopped more tyrants and liberated more peoples.
Sure, we have had our problems. We've made our share of mistakes. We've committed some serious attrocities in our time and this should not be forgotten, but to blindly say "well, the US dropped more bombs, so that means we must be the most violent and evil" is ignorant at best.
Illegal Immigrants. He said, "How can a human being be illegal?"
That is the most asinine comment I have heard today.
"Illegal Immigrant" does not refer to the human as illegal, but to the fact that the action that the human took (immigrating) was done under illegal circumstances. Would be the same as labeling a smuggler an illegal importer.

[Greg L]

We have dropped more bombs than any other nation.

We also value the lives of our soldiers more than any other nation. In the first Gulf War we could have sent in the troops on the first day of the war, however many of them would have died. By bombing the enemy you are damaging them at the risk of a small number (by comparison anyway) of pilots and other air crew. Only after they have chewed up the enemy do we send in the ground troops.

A little oversimplified, but bombing the enemy saves our troops lives.

Greg

[Shalako]

Dr.Jones, I've got nothing to add other than a question. Why are college history professors such America haters? They end up programming many folks, unlike yourself, that never even question their drivel, but think he is so brilliant. Good for you for seeking the truth and not just accepting that guy's canned hatred of our country.

-Shalako

[Battler]

First off, your professor IS vermin - and in general people like him teach eager young minds that will fill the world in the future :(

About the Japan thing - another factor in their surrender, that isn't as well discussed, is that it really wasn't about the a-bombs.

What?

Fire-bombing killed more people in a couple of days than the atomics did, although the thought of the atomics (one bomb) WAS scary.

But the Japanese didn't care about casualties. They'd already absorbed so many, and expected to absorb a ton more when the Americans invaded anyway.

What isn't discussed much was that the Soviets were a few days away from invading. They went NUTS that the Japanese surrendered to the US. They wanted to cut themselves a piece of Japan like with Germany.

The Japanese looked at the two potential occupiers and saw the Americans as clearly the better of the two. In a way, IMHO, the inherent decency of Americans was responsible for their surrender as much as anything else.

Of course, this exacerbates the anger of some Soviet-leaning folk, like your professor, who thinks that the world would be a better place if run by Soviets and those like them.



Battler.

[Guy B. Meredith]

Art covers the answers pretty well, but I think jmbg29 nails it on the ethnocentric comment.

To build on jmbg29's comment you might like to point out that most of the world's problems have come from ethnocentricity displayed as nationalsim. If we are ethnocentric we not only do not have a corner on it, but we are amateurs. An extreme version we see rampant even today--tribalism--is behind many or most current problems: European/Balkan actions were due to tribalism, rifts between Middle Eastern countries are based on families/tribes/religious sect, African civil wars are tribal.

Regarding the comment about the US having dropped the most bombs; "And your point is..."

The line about illegal immigrants circumvents critical thinking. It has nothing to do with their status as human beings, it has to do with their status as immigrants. Major dumb statement.

I'd love to get into one of these classes right now when I don't have to give a darn about ticking off the prof for fear of failing. In fact I did fail an English class for just this reason about 40 years ago before I became mouthy.

[CZ-75]

So I'm in an Ethnic Studies class.

Don't you really mean a PC indoctrination class?

They've gotten to you already.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I don't see how this guy is anti-American. In my understanding of America, you can have any political beliefs or affiliations that you want, and it is perfectly American and Constitutionally protected.

[Shalako]

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

[cordex]

I don't see how this guy is anti-American. In my understanding of America, you can have any political beliefs or affiliations that you want, and it is perfectly American and Constitutionally protected.
I look at it this way:
It is American not to drag him out in the streets and shoot him outright. In other words, it is American to allow him to say what he likes, no matter how ignorant and wrong it is. (though it would also be American to drop the class and complain to the Dean about him, perhaps very vocally look into other schools)

It came across to me that he was at least espousing anti-American sentiment to the point of lying outright, and while this is Constitutionally protected, these lies need not go unchallenged. An American can be anti-American ... no paradox there.

[jmbg29]

I don't see how this guy is anti-American. In my understanding of America, you can have any political beliefs or affiliations that you want, and it is perfectly American and Constitutionally protected.The professor wasn't called un-American, he was called anti-American.

Provided that one doesn't stray into acts of treason/sedition and/or criminal conspiracy, one may hold forth with beliefs of every kind, including those that are patently "anti"-American. That doesn't automatically grant one immunity from being seen for what one is, nor does it automatically grant one the status of being seen as loyal to one's country.

The same rights that give this rat his freedom to hold forth with his propaganda entitle the rest of us to mock (if one so wishes) and in my case at least, hate him for it.

There is a bumper sticker that is popular with the intellectually enfeebled in my neck of the woods. It says "Dissent Is Not Disloyal" What trash. It boggles the mind to think of how goofy a person must be to think that a declarative statement such as that one is always true.

God must love the goofy judging by the number of them he has blessed us with.:rolleyes:

[pax]

-This is a topic that was raised in a reading, not by my prof, but I'll post it anyway: The Founding Fathers, who gave us the BOR and Constitution, with such lofty ideals in mind (all men are created equal) yet they owned slaves. What's up with that?
"They were human" pretty well sums it up.

As others have said, the Founders were products of their times. Slavery a normal, and mostly unquestioned, part of their society. But the Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery, which until that time had been unhesitatingly accepting of the institution. After the Revolution, slavery became more and more a focus of debate, and was more widely regarded as an evil than as a socially-neutral custom.

What caused this change?

The Founders did. It was their words and their ideals which caused the commonly-accepted institution of slavery to be first questioned, and then discarded. These men planted the seeds of freedom for everyone, even though their deeds lagged far behind their words.

Though it wasn't their primary battle, in many cases the Founders did question the institution of slavery. Even those who never freed their own slaves often spoke out strongly against slavery as an institution. Ben Franklin said that separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. Jefferson said much the same thing.

But not all the Founders spoke out against slavery; some of them supported it. And even of those who spoke out against it, some of them never freed their own slaves. Like I said, they were human.

Because some of the Founders supported (and were supported by) slavery, the entire hot-button issue was tabled. As Franklin said in another context, "Gentlemen, we must hang together or we shall assuredly all hang separately." They put aside the issue of slavery about which they disagreed vehemently, in order to work together upon the issue of freedom from Brittain, about which they agreed with equal vehemence. So there was a bit of political expedience in their pre-Revolutionary agreement to table the issue.

So why didn't they all simply free their slaves after the Revolution was successful?

Many reasons. (Did I mention they were human?) But also ...

After the Revolution, there were draconian laws which made freedmen quite vulnerable in a lot of ways but which protected slaves; many people thought it was better and more moral to simply be a kind master than to free one's slaves and thus subject them to the very real risks associated with being a freedman, or (worse still) being a former-freedman who had fallen back into slavery under an evil master.

There was also an element of "White Man's Burden"-type thinking (look it up -- Rudyard Kipling's great poem). The slaves couldn't read, couldn't do arithmetic, and had no experience in providing for themselves and making their own choices. How "cruel" to expect these "primitive children" to suddenly provide for themselves, when a kind, benevolent master could feed them and provide everything they needed for life. Yes, it sounds :rolleyes: to us, but it was a valid way of thinking at the time.

In some cases, there were particular circumstances which help to explain the choices these men made.

For instance, Jefferson's slaves were heavily mortgaged. He could have legally sold his slaves, but he could not have simply freed them. Jefferson's slaves were also mostly his own relatives, and if he had freed them, they would (for the most part) have had to move out of his household and away from his protection.

But it would be wrong to judge all the Founders by Jefferson. John Adams, for instance, bragged that he never did own a slave. Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society in 1774; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other prominent Founders who we know joined anti-slavery societies were James Madison, James Monroe, and John Marshall -- and there were lots of others.

pax

Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practised at spare moments; it is a whole-time job. -- W. Somerset Maugham

[Stephen Ewing]

"Violence never settled anything."

Forget Carthage, and let's talk about the Roman Empire in general. Remember that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian? "...Okay, aside from sewage, education, roads, irrigation, currency, police, etc. what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Speaking of the police and violence, it's fair to ask somebody with that odd viewpoint why the Police carry all those weapons?

Steve

[Harold Mayo]

Violence, or the threat of violence, solves every problem.


:what:

Yes, it's true. Why does the professor feel so secure in spouting his mindless crap? Because he knows that YOU know that, if you kicked his butt in front of the class, that someone with superior violence-dealing capabilities (AKA the police) to you would come and get you. If you resisted, then they would beat you. If you somehow beat them, the next wave would be more capable of beating you.

:D

Why has the world NOT had another world war? Because of Mutually Assured Destruction...or M.A.D., for short (don't confuse this with Mothers Against Drunk Driving). If you and another guy both have guns aimed at one another's head, then you aren't completely sure what is going to happen. You can't be completely sure that, if you shoot him (or shoot AT him), that you won't be killed, too. Also known as a Mexican stand-off.

:eek:

Why do I pay my taxes, even though I don't believe in some of what they go for and I hold that federal income tax is unConstitutional? Because, if I don't, I'll eventually be caught and told to pay them. If I refuse enough of the polite(?) requests that become impolite threats then, before too long, some guys with guns will come to take my stuff. I am ONE guy with a gun...they are MANY guys with guns. I will lose. Therefore, I will pay my taxes. When done in the private sector, this is called extortion. When the government does it, it is called taxation.

:uhoh:

So your professor is, as we all know, quite wrong. This is not at all uncommon as many of those who teach our young really have no depth of understanding about what they teach. This is unfortunate.

:banghead: :mad:

Just for fun, you should ask the professor what EXACTLY keeps you from kicking his ***.

[Zander]

Why are college history professors such America haters? Not all are. But there is a simple answer to your question:

Many know that they can get away with propagandizing and indoctrinating their students. They are aided and abetted by administrators who not only have no desire to provide a balanced education for their customers but who put the indoctrination agents in place and protect them under the guise of "free speech".

There is a simple solution:

They must be held accountable for their lies, half-truths and disinformation. Unfortunately for students who spend their own or their parents' money for tuition to these indoctrination centers, countering the problem requires a certain will [and courage!]...notably and noticeably lacking where some institutions of "higher" learning are concerned.

Frankly, most students [and/or their tuition-paying parents] who question such blatant indoctrination policies are intimidated by the race- and class-baiting accusations which inevitably arise from those in charge.

If there is any forum in the private sector which is more intolerant of opposing ideas than "liberal" colleges and universities [where "tolerance" and "diversity" are the ever-present mantra], I've no idea what it might be.

Ergo, there is no more important reason for preparing students before they go off to college. As you might expect, preparation in the primary and secondary indoctrination centers is nothing short of abysmal. I heartily recommend alternatives; home-schooling and true voucher systems offer real hope.

All is not gloom and doom, however. Even the most stringent indoctrination can be [and usually is] overcome as students become contributors in our capitalist system. It's remarkable the effect that a first paycheck with deductions from gross earnings has on newly-minted earners. It certainly opened my eyes decades ago...

[westex]

I think you've recieved some excellent answers to your questions so anything I would add would just be redundant but I do have one sugesstion to make.

If you have paid to recieve instruction from this professor you should immediately contact the Federal Trade Commission as money has been taken from you illegally.

[jmbg29]

If you have paid to recieve instruction from this professor you should immediately contact the Federal Trade Commission as money has been taken from you illegally.Yep! :D

[Skunkabilly]

If we never nuked the Japanese, I'd BE Japanese :eek:

[CZ-75]

-This is a topic that was raised in a reading, not by my prof, but I'll post it anyway: The Founding Fathers, who gave us the BOR and Constitution, with such lofty ideals in mind (all men are created equal) yet they owned slaves. What's up with that?

This is an ad hominem. Perhaps, a non-sequitur. Attacking the person(s), even if their point is valid.

If Hitler said "2+2 = 4," would it be wrong, or even in doubt?


Why did the Japanese bomb us anyway?

Because we "oppressed" them with our "moral imperialism." :D

We denied them American petroleum because we wanted to impose our cultural values on them, with regard to their actions in China and Indochina (their bombing the Panay in '37 didn't help either).

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[nualle]

-Illegal Immigrants. He said, "How can a human being be illegal?" I guess he would just like us to open up our borders and let anyone and everyone in. Though we're such an evil, oppressive, ethnocentric country, I don't see why anyone would want to come in...
Putting aside the prof's question (and my knee-jerk reaction to it), I ask instead:

Are you for free trade, or not? Trade is only free if all of its elements have equal potential for mobility. In our current situation, producers can move anywhere... distributors can, too (though they don't much need to because they're subsidized by public funding of transport networks). Consumers can potentially move anywhere, so long as they are not also laborers. Laborers are, largely, stuck where they're born. If they want to move where labor is paid better, they are turned back at the border. The producers, however, are free to move to them, and pay them much less for the same work, just by dint of being on the other side of a border.

It's not a matter of immigrants taking Americans' jobs. Even with our unemployment rates rising, Americans are still refusing to take the jobs that the illegal immigrants fill.

[Blackcloud6]

Ask him why he allows his personal opinions to cloud his academic judgement?

I bet this clown has no real life experience and has been sheltered by the ivory tower institution since he left high school.

[jmbg29]

It's not a matter of immigrants taking Americans' jobs.You are correct. It's not a matter of them taking our jobs. It is a matter of them invading our country.

Come into our country the right way, or be shot at the border like any other invader. Any questions?

[Baba Louie]

Dr. Jones

Been mulling this one over for a day or two.

Ethnic Studies (Ethnos…nation…1.of nations or groups, neither Christian nor Jewish; heathen. 2.designating or of any of the basic divisions or groups of mankind, as distinguished by customs, characteristics, language, etc.) just a basic definition to start with a level playing ground…

“He said that "war has never solved anything." I said the Holocaust was stopped by war. He said something to the effect of "do you know WHY we got involved in that in the first place?" or something... Didn't we get dragged into WWII because the world was sick of us keeping to ourselves?”

War never solved anything as there IS NO FINAL SOLUTION. Death may be a solution, but during a man’s lifetime there is survival and continuation of the species. War is politics to the nth degree. Power used in a bloody manner, sometimes good, sometimes bad, depending on whose side you’re on. Remember this always, the Victor writes the history books. As to the “WHY we got involved”, simply stated, economics, survival and continuation of the species… in this particular case (and typically for the US to get into a War situation its almost a given), capitalism or free trade. Rarely, will someone enter into bloody conflict simply for altruism’s sake… it does happen, but usually the economics of the situation dictate. WW I may have been triggered by an assassination in the Balkans, but the economies of Europe were headed that way since the mid 1800’s. WW II may be viewed as a later continuation of the same conflict, fuelled by Imperialism/Lebensraum, but settled down into the need for Oil/Natural resources not found in Germany & Japan. Also a factor was racism or ethnocentricity of the Nippon/Deustch and the need to dominate those considered lessor who needed domination.

”Why did the Japanese bomb us anyway?”

We needed them to. I assume you are referring to Dec 7, ’41 as opposed to the Panay ’37. FDR (and I suppose our nation) needed to get out of the depression and also stop the roll of communism as it tends to get in the way of Free Trade/Capitalism. He’d promised the Mom’s of America that our boys would not get involved in that war and he meant to keep that promise. Lend-Lease didn’t cause Hitler to declare war on the US, England needed help, China was bent over a barrel by the Japanese being raped literally… As a former undersecretary of the Navy, FDR knew that Japan tended to begin a war with a surprise Naval attack (1904 Russo/Japanese war), so we embargoed Steel and Oil (natural resource thing again), placed both halves of the Pacific Fleet in Pearl (half was traditionally stationed at San Diego) and began reading their mail. Note that the aircraft carrier groups were off doing other things that week.

”America creates its own problems. Example: We put Saddam in power (right?) Now we have to go to war against him. Apparently we do this a lot. (Including in Central America?) Why? (I'm asking why, not him)”

Pretty much, everyone creates their own problems, don’t you think? Even the Isolation we had tried to live caused problems as the rest of the world goes sailing by. Nothing is static too long. And that may be a good thing. As Robert Frost said so aptly, “Life Goes On.”

”This is a topic that was raised in a reading, not by my prof, but I'll post it anyway: The Founding Fathers, who gave us the BOR and Constitution, with such lofty ideals in mind (all men are created equal) yet they owned slaves. What's up with that?”

The Northern boys were against it, the Southern boys were for it, we needed a Constitution and Franklin/Madison forced a compromise as they really didn’t want the Southern boys to go back to trading with merry olde England as 6 or 7 colonies, they wanted a United State. So they adopted a drop-dead date of 1806 (I think it was) to end all importation of African born, the Southern boys agreed, knowing that they could keep the system intact for awhile and we ended up with a constitution. The 3/5 thing was a voting count issue and women were alos not allowed to vote. I remember reading that only land-owners were allowed to vote at first, but that too changed.

”We have dropped more bombs than any other nation.“

Your point is what? We have a lot of munitions plants and they build bombs. We have an Air Force and a Navy second to none. Who said, “If you want peace, prepare for war” (some roman guy said it in a funny language years ago).

”We dropped the bombs on Japan AFTER they surrendered. (True?)”

Japan sued for peace, on their terms. Sorry, Unconditional surrender was the order of the day.

”My prof stresses that we are very ethnocentric. I don't really see his point. So are the French. The English clearly think their stuff doesn't stink. I think what he was getting at was that we should be even MORE accepting of other cultures than we are now. Of course, to the detriment of the white male and European cultures. ”

I think that everybody is ethnocentric. I gravitate towards women with blond hair and blue eyes. I happen to have blond hair and blue eyes. I gravitate towards people who practice Christian beliefs. I happen to have been brought up in a Christian household. It’s always interesting to study others. I don’t mind looking at brown eyed brunettes, heck I’d even be willing to interact with one if I could find one who was willing to do the same with a blue eyed, ex blond (more grey now) older type of guy. I’ll take the …“we should be even MORE accepting”… with a grain of salt. If we can interact peacefully and maybe trade now and then, and no-one FORCES their opinion and belief system on me and mine, all the better.

”Illegal Immigrants. He said, "How can a human being be illegal?" I guess he would just like us to open up our borders and let anyone and everyone in. Though we're such an evil, oppressive, ethnocentric country, I don't see why anyone would want to come in... ”

Look at the history of this nation, this continent, this government. Indigenous people come over here hunting, killing others who encroach on their hunting grounds, moving on when a stronger tribe moves in. A few wandering Norsemen make it over, some wandering Chinese, but they don’t TAKE. Disgruntled Europeans of weird religious beliefs, gold hungry Mediterranean types, debtors, criminals, you name it, either come here of their own free will, are delivered here by the Queen’s agents (before Australia was the convict delivery place of choice, look up the history of our great state of Georgia) or (unfortunately) are brought here in the cargo holds of slave ships and sold. Then we set up a government, set quota’s and the next thing you know, only so many of your tired, your meek, your huddled masses are allowed in this year. Have they had their shots? Do they speak the language? Do they have a skill? Blah blah blah.

”More than anything, I'm interested in our history. We do have a rather imperialistic history. We can basically get whatever we want without having to worry about it.“

Human nature and Survival of the Fittest, I’m afraid. Age old story. Power. Nature abhors a vacuum. Business is good. “The Business of America is Business”, I believe Pres. Coolidge once said. I might challenge the “without having to worry about it” part of your statement, as politicians do need to gather voters (they may not worry about it tho) and business’ SHOULD have some ethics in regards to making money (but the bigger ones apparently don’t). But this nation does have one hell of a history to date, as it comes from the blending of the various races, creeds and groups that seem to WANT TO LIVE HERE. The question worth asking is (as you know) Why? (do they want to come here.) Is it to make money and then go home? Is it to practice their own form of religion… making money being one of them. Are they really free? (based on from whence they came, they just might be...ask Oleg)

”I guess the best explanation I can think of is that, unlike most all other countries, we do not use our power to opress others.”

One mans oppression is another man’s chance of making a buck, collecting a tax, getting the group to pray the same way to the same God or getting a vote. Again, I think one could challenge your use of the words … “unlike most ALL other countries”… Perhaps …”unlike several other countries”… semantics.

”Though that's not entirely true, as we have killed lots of civilians during our wars and stuff.“

Truth is a perception. (I would tend to question any “entirely” truthful statement) People die every day. (This is a truth) Life is a suicide mission –or- no one gets out of here alive. (This also is a truth) Power corrupts as Lord Acton put it. Power flows through the barrel of a gun as Mao said. We are a very powerful nation at this point in our young life.

”I dunno....am I even making sense? Anyone have any links to stuff or suggestions for books that would be relevant?”

You are making great sense. Read, challenge, get shot down. Learn from others (remember the old saying, “You can’t learn while you’re talking. Only while you listen”) Grow older and enjoy your life experiences. Travel. Learn another language. Don’t believe everything you read… or hear… Know what you experience and see with your own two eyes, what you’ve felt with your hands. Trust in your heart. Continue to learn and to share it with others who seek the same.

Books? Authors? Where to begin? Ayn Rand (a personal favorite), R.A. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card’s Ender Quartet is great! T. Jefferson, T.R. Roosevelt, B. Franklin, Stephen Ambrose, Harry Harrison’s “DeathWorld Trilogy” (if you can find it…used bookstore would be best bet), Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, deTocqueville and even the Bible would be a few to begin with.

Adios

[Hkmp5sd]

As a former undersecretary of the Navy, FDR knew that Japan tended to begin a war with a surprise Naval attack. Note that the aircraft carrier groups were off doing other things that week.


There is no way anyone can factually state that FDR set up the conditions for Japan and then let them perform a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

FDR did not want to fight Japan, he wanted to help England and fight in Europe. Even the attack did not guarantee that. Had Germany NOT declared war on the US, FDR would have had no excuse to fight the Germans and America would have sent full support into the Pacific to defeat Japan. It is possible the US would have never entered the European Theater without Germany's declaration.

Besides, even if you did believe the conspiracy, there was no reason to LOSE that surprise attack. First off, prior to Pearl Harbor, the Navy considered the Battleship the primary war vessel and the Aircraft Carrier was a support vessel. Given that mentality, it is illogical to assume they would sacrifice their primary weapon at the beginning of a war.

Secondly, if they DID plan to allow Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, why not have the US Aircraft Carriers stationed to hit the Japanse Carriers while their aircraft were over Hawaii. They could have sank the entire Japanese fleet, or a good portion of it and they would not have to battle the aircraft in the air like they did at Coral Sea and Midway. The aircraft were returning without ammo or gasoline. They could either be easily picked off, or without a Carrier to land on, they would have crashed into the sea.

The US Government and Military made a bunch of mistakes that led to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but they did not have prior knowledge nor did they allow it to happen just as an excuse to get into the war.

References:

Roossevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage by Joseph E. Persico

The Pacific War 1941-1945: The First Comprehensive One-Volume Account of the Causes and Conduct of WWII in the Pacific by John Costello

The War in the Pacific: From Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay by Harry A. Gailey

A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg

Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan by Ronald H. Spector

[Khornet]

check out Dinesh D'Souza's excellent book 'What's So Great About America', which everyone should read. He addresses this question by noting that to insist on the end of slavery with the founding of the republic would have been to shatter the republic at its birth. Once the principle of freedom and human rights had been incarnated in a viable republic, THEN it was possible to outlaw slavery. If the FF had insisted on it from the start, there would never have been a U.S., and the slaves would still be slaves. The only hope for their freedom lay in not demanding it until after the nation was on a firm footing, firm enough, as it turned out, to survive a civil war over the question.

[Mike Irwin]

Here we go again... Roosevelt let Japan attack the US to draw us into a war.

There are so many problems with this theory that it's not even funny.

I wish people would just get used to the fact that the Japanese, whom most Americans at the time considered to be monkey-faced subhuman copy cats incapable of forward thinking, used American contempt, disjointed intelligence, and apathy as a weapon against us, and served it to us cold, on a platter.

No one who holds this theory has ever been able to explain one important detail to me...

Roosevelt wanted in on the European war, there's absolutely no doubt about that. He viewed Hitler as a serious threat, the kind of threat that the Japanese DID NOT pose.

If Roosevelt wanted in on the European war, why would he set up a US Naval base on the other side of the world?

Japan attacking the United States was absolutely NO guarantee of the US entering the European war.

The Japan-Italy-Germany pact, you say?

What about it?

Germany and the Soviet Union had been at war for nearly 6 months prior to Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese never said boo about it.

[jmbg29]

used American contempt, disjointed intelligence, and apathy as a weapon against us, and served it to us cold, on a platter.This strategy sounds familiar...can you say death-cult nuts? Sure you can!:banghead:

[Baba Louie]

Perhaps another thread is warranted. Didn't mean to upset anyones apple cart

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html

Probably just more of the tin-foil hat stuff going around on the net, ya know... guys like Kopel and Halbrook writing for them as well. Fluff journalism at its finest...

But it is interesting reading.

(edited to add...Dangit, now ya got me interested in this again...
more fluff I'm sure

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-04-2001/vo17no12_facts.htm

I think another thread if I keep finding conspiracy stuff is warranted, as if anyone cares 60+ years after the fact)

Adios

[roscoe]

You ask the Kosovar Albanians whether war ever solved anything. If you walk around Prishtina, you will find that our air war pretty much solved that little Serbian problem. Our air war is the only reason that genocide was halted in the Balkans. It certainly wasn't European diplomacy. That's why Kosovar Albanians LOVE Americans, American bombs, and American troops, and think that the Europeans are a bunch of neutered capons.

[Matthew Courtney]

1. We did not put Saddam in power.

2. The Japanese did not surrender before we nuked them.

3. Ben Franklin at whose insistence the "all men are created equal" line was added to the declaration was President of the Pennsylvania abolition society.

4. Illegal immigrants are not themselves illegal, their behavior is illegal.

5.Most of the land we have conquered, we have given to the people of the conquered nations. That is not imperialistic.

[Waitone]

There is no way anyone can factually state that FDR set up the conditions for Japan and then let them perform a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

Take a good close read of "Day of Deceit" by Robert B. Stinnett (the Free Press, 2000).

Pay particular attention to the McCollum memorandum (p. 262ff) specifically action points A thru H.

While you're at it read Roosevelt's vacant seas order (p.146ff) issued the day after the Japanese fleet departed Japan.

While it may well be true Roosevelt did nothing to incite the Japanese attack the last few years has seen the declassification of a lot of original documentation that has to be integrated into the current understanding.

[Guy B. Meredith]

Zander brought up an interesting point: academics are rampantly bigoted.

A prime example was the "Free Speech" movement in the the 60s. The so called free speech ended when someone stood up to disagree at which time the "Free Speech" advocates would shout down the dissenter, allowing no debate. Liberals still use this as one of their primary tools in "talking heads" events on CNN or whatever.

Your professor may be baiting you to see if anyone in the class iswilling to think or he may be expressing his own bigotry. Anyone who looks for evil in something has an axe to grind and that is bigotry.

I wonder whether your professor ever realized that he is functioning on the same level as Hitler's prewar Germany, the local KKK or lord Faraquat or whatever the Black bigot's name is. (Can't keep track of all these individual bigots.)

[CZ-75]

Louis Farakahn.

Former calypso singer and current homegrown "muslim" extremist.

[Don Gwinn]

Why we got into the war is irrelevant to your question. You asked whether our victory stopped the Holocaust. It did. Why we entered has nothing to do with that. That's not just a dodge, it's a lousy one.

[CaesarI]

Re: Why do we drop more bombs than others?

The remark about our valuing the lives of our soldiers more is right on the money, the point left out, however is the economic one.

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. We won WWII because we could make more bombs, bullets, guns, tanks, jeeps, trucks, and ship them faster than any other country in the world. If Germany could have dropped more bombs on England, they would have. If Japan could have dropped more bombs on the US they would have. Instead Japan had to resort to a really poor balloon bombing campaign, which was vastly less effective than our bombing of Japan.

Short answer: why'd we drop more bombs than any other country? cause we could make more bombs.

-Morgan

[Drjones]

Guys, reading all your replies, well....just leaves me so happy to be a part of this forum!!!

You guys are so wonderful!!!

Oh, and Khornet: I bought "What's So Great About America" and "Illiberal Education" both by D'Souza.

Thanks for the recommendations!!!


Thank you all so very much for the replies, and keep going!!!

:D

[twoblink]

First, get one thing clear;

Wars solve almost everything!! To the victor goes the spoils!! Why do you think we try diplomacy first? Because War is usually the Ace in the hole.

Second, "Alien" means not from here. They are "illegal aliens" because they are not from here, and they are here illegally. "Illegal human" is what he's referring to.

Tell him to read a little military history (dumb---)

Just because a country "surrenders" or declares a loss, doesn't mean their troops have stopped fighting.

Have him go to war. Give him a gun (oh wait, he's probably anti, so let's send him to the frontlines unarmed) and have him tell the Iraqi army what they are suppose to do, what is right, and what is wrong..

The guy has more gas then Hank Hill!