311–320 of 358 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communists of various stripes murdered somewhere around 100 million people in the last century. What, exactly, counts as "overly zealous" in that context?
And how many have capitalists of various stripes killed in last century?
Capitalists want live customers, not corpses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Major General Smedley Butler, in 1935: "At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval…
Sure, maybe those maneuvers were provocative, but they do not rise to the same level of responsibility as launching the first actual attack. Japan bears responsibility for taking the bait.
>US Ambassador Grew in Japan kept Roosevelt fully advised of her precarious economic situation and urgent need for imports. Chief of Naval Operations (NCO) Stark had warned the president of the danger of imposing an oil embargo on Japan. Stark had "made it known to the State Department in no uncertain terms that in my opinion if Japan's oil were shut off, she would go to war." He did not mean "necessarily with us, but … if her economic life had been choked and throttled by inability to get oil, she would go somewhere and take it … and if I were a Jap, I would" do the same.[1]
You can google many papers about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying "FDR's ... Camps" is like saying "Harry Truman's Victory over Hitler" or "Ronald Reagan's Space Shuttle." Again, it is an extreme simplification and an attempt to manipulate the reader into associating the act with the individual. I'm amazed that many (presumably young) people want to wallow in this crap, apparently feeling superior to people who have been dead for decades. You have no reason to feel superior…
That's interesting because we learn to associate positive policies and refer to them as FDR's New Deal (bills passed by Congress/signed by FDR), JFK's Peace Corp, Nixon's EPA, etc. It's true that these policies are not made by one individual. But when we're crediting the presidents who merely signed bills passed by the Congress, should we not at least be give the same weight when they sign an executive order? And I'm…
"we learn to associate..." is a bit of a sad phrase. What we have done is experience a great deal of sloppy or propagandized reporting.
FDR's New Deal is a bit of an exception because, in addition to a set of programs, I believe it was purposely coined as a campaign slogan -- as was LBJ's New Society. When the verbiage was specifically created by someone in association with their own efforts it seems reasonable to include the name if it suits the writer's purpose.
Here's a challenge for your Google skills: Can you find a reference to the title "FDR’s Japanese Concentration Camps" anywhere in a historical record? I see plenty of references to the linked article, but nothing older, much less anything from the war or post-war eras.
By the way, I am less bothered by the use here of "Concentration Camps", although I believe that's also propagandistic revisionism. Historically, they were called "Internment Camps." But they were evil and I'm not going defend the camps because they absolutely don't deserve to be defended.
It's ironic to note that photographer Dorothea Lange did much of her work as part of New Deal programs. It would be interesting to hear her opinion on her work being associated with a smearing of FDR.
in/re your amazement -- There's no question that we're talking about what "young people" think. The old people are mostly dead and mostly not commenting on HN. I'm not (or don't intend to be) generalizing about young people as a whole -- I'm generalizing about these Internet discussions, which are frequent and essentially identical.
The near-endless criticism of the way people behaved during those desperate times is graceless and smug. I believe that it IS a matter of trying to feel superior. I think it's impossible for someone born after the War to put all of this into a realistic perspective. We should try to learn, be humble and grateful for the incredible sacrifices of those who went before us.
Having said that, it's certainly legitimate to examine the historical period - to consider the mistakes. What could the US have done to allay fear and preserve security, and also respect the rights of ALL US citizens and residents? That's a big question - that should be approached with respect and seriousness. To start out by blaming FDR for the situation is unproductive and silly.
The Japanese pre-Cold War were treated unfairly but this pales in comparison to the many hell the Asian region have suffered under Japanese Imperialism. At least they didn't get gassed like the Jews did. At least they didn't get bayonetted like the Chinese in Nanjing en masse in graves or a military unit performing live surgery on them or forcing hundreds of thousands of young Korean women to sexual slavery. It didn'…
Japanese-American citizens are, as the name suggests, American citizens, and aren't answerable to the crimes of the Empire of Japan, and so the actions of the Axis powers aren't germane to the discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to minimize or say what the US did was less wrong but I'm arguing against people that use this as a crutch to support their what aboutism that attempts to paint the US in the same light as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Clearly is night and day difference.
In fact, the exact opposite is the case: attempting to compare one of our national disgraces to the actions of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is itself an appeal to whataboutism --- the article we're commenting on is about the internment of Japanese-Americans, not about the Nazis.
Very different things. Neither are good but it's pretty clear which countries were the worse at offenses.
The Japanese pre-Cold War were treated unfairly but this pales in comparison to the many hell the Asian region have suffered under Japanese Imperialism. At least they didn't get gassed like the Jews did. At least they didn't get bayonetted like the Chinese in Nanjing en masse in graves or a military unit performing live surgery on them or forcing hundreds of thousands of young Korean women to sexual slavery. It didn'…
this pales in comparison What would be the point of such comparison? If it is not to somehow justify the acts committed, then it is, no doubt, to try and make them look insignificant, unnoticeable, that is, to hide them. And what did the Japanese Americans have to do with Japanese Imperialism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
replying to myself... I want to make the point clear that I am not defending the Japanese internment. It was certainly an evil act. One of many evil acts committed by nations around the world. That's what war is -- a sequence of evil acts. On some level, we should be ashamed of all of them. What I object to is the cowardly labeling of the internment camps as "FDR's" This is a propaganda technique. We've seen it recen…
What I object to is the cowardly labeling of the internment camps as "FDR's" This is a propaganda technique. Read the article. That's who the orders came from.
You are referring to Executive Order 9066 which, incidentally, could not be enforced without subsequent passage of Public Law 503 by Congress. (note: The law was passed unanimously by both the Senate and the House)
We're not talking about something that originated in the FDR White House. It was the result of a long (but fast) government process triggered by the attack at Pearl Harbor. It was a government-wide effort (and certainly a very questionable one.) To label the program as "FDR’s Japanese Concentration Camps" is grotesquely partisan.
Thank-you though, because I did go back and re-read the article. I just now realized that "FDR’s Japanese Concentration Camps" is a phrase written by the article author, as click bait. Sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, the exact opposite is the case: attempting to compare one of our national disgraces to the actions of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan is itself an appeal to whataboutism --- the article we're commenting on is about the internment of Japanese-Americans, not about the Nazis.
yes I'm aware of the article's topic my point was a response comparing Nazi Germany's holocaust to internment of Japanese Americans. That isn't whataboutism, it's a fact. Japanese Americans weren't gassed or killed en masse by USG and that changes the equation. You are attempting to hijack the conversation into a circular argument by simply negating what I'm saying without considering the stark difference between gen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see it as a non-sequitur. If you find that quote offensive in some way, you presumably approve of the Talibans treatment of women.
There's more than one sentence in that quote. Keep reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Japanese-American citizens are, as the name suggests, American citizens, and aren't answerable to the crimes of the Empire of Japan, and so the actions of the Axis powers aren't germane to the discussions.
Yes and that's the biggest tragedy of this whole situation. However, Chinese and Korean Americans certainly didn't think so along with the rest of the American society. You can't fault them for the connect they saw as you see how much Muslim Americans are vilified along with Sikh Americans who are incorrectly associated with Islam.