I was so disgusted in class yesterday (the lesson) I nearly puked (REALLY)

[Larry]

Of course it is. It's an AMERICAN history class, taught in AMERICA. If you want an anti-American history class you go to Russia or the local chapter of the ACLU

Got it. Mark Sarge down as voting for mandatory government indoctrination of all citizens. (After all, it didn't hurt him none.)

[Winslowalrob]

:applause:

Okay, overall good post. And I agree with your overall message... but you should get off your soapbox a little - there are a lot of people here who know an awful lot about history (check out the Revolutionary War thread I started). Also, you should mention that, if true, the OP's teacher is giving a seriously skewed viewed... and one that is not really intellectually honest. How in the hell do you discuss the Pacific Theater without mentioning Pearl Harbor???

But, overall, spot on - people want historians and history teachers to be drones who stated facts and give no color - and when they do they complain about the teacher being boring. BOOO!!!

Skinsfan should put the syllabus online. Once I see a reading list and some themes, we will see whats actually going on. Perhaps the title of the class is "Alternative Perspectives to WWII", or perhaps the professor got an MA or PhD in this particular field (American perceptions of race during WWII) so he actually knows a TON about this stuff. And feels compelled to teach it.

And there is a difference between reading a lot of history and knowing how to DO history and actually doing it. Sometimes that distinction is blurred, and I am not a historian myself (yet) but I find it hilarious when armchair buffs of whatever period feel qualified to answer about the discipline of history.

[One Shot]

The teacher could've been a bit less biased and a bit more objective, but one fact remains: most history courses try as hard as they can to subtly leave out dark spots on the record of our nation. Japanese internment camps would be a huge example.

next we covered the manhatan project. in a nutshell, our teacher's conclusion sis that droping the bomb was 100% wrong and absoltly not needed to end the war. at this point I was so furious (internally, I'm not one to show my emotions in class anymore, that got me suspended for arguing with a teacher) I failed to point out some very obvious facts. my teacher claimed that the japanese would have unconditionally surendered if the USSR had declared war on them sooner. here are some facts regarding this.

• The War department estimated that Operation Downfall (the invasion of the japanese homeland) would result in millions of allied casualties and tens of millions of japanese military and civilian casualties.
  
• There were standing orders to massacre every single POW the japanese had if one invading soldier set foot on japan's sacred soil.
  
• every able-bodied japanese civilian was issued a pike and taught basic skills in how to kill for when japan was invaded (including women). civilians were instructed to kill at least 3 americans before killing themsleves in combat or by suicide.
  

I needn't get into the details and this should NOT become a debate about the bombs, but I'd say the descision was justified in order to save American AND Japanese lives.:2cents:

Eh, not sure I'd use those assumed facts to justify the decimation of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I know this isn't supposed to be a debate about dropping the bomb, but by throwing the comment I'm sure you know some posters would've addressed it. I don't doubt that the administration wanted to end the war quickly and spare many more American lives that would've been lost through an invasion, but I think a huge part was them being way too eager to test out their new favorite toy, and also show those "Commie ****s" what was coming their way if they didn't watch it.

[Winslowalrob]

The teacher could've been a bit less biased and a bit more objective, but one fact remains: most history courses try as hard as they can to subtly leave out dark spots on the record of our nation. Japanese internment camps would be a huge example.

Eh, not sure I'd use those assumed facts to justify the decimation of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I know this isn't supposed to be a debate about dropping the bomb, but by throwing the comment I'm sure you know some posters would've addressed it. I don't doubt that the administration wanted to end the war quickly and spare many more American lives that would've been lost through an invasion, but I think a huge part was them being way too eager to test out their new favorite toy, and also show those "Commie ****s" what was coming their way if they didn't watch it.

Don't forget that a third of the people we killed with the bomb were slaves taken by the Japanese, and a there was a sizable number of American POWs that we killed outright with our nuclear weapons. That is not to say that dropping the bomb is the WRONG course of action, but rather that there should be a much more nuanced look at it. History oftentimes does not have definite right or wrong actions, just big ass shades of gray.

[Winslowalrob]

Of course it is. It's an AMERICAN history class, taught in AMERICA. If you want an anti-American history class you go to Russia or the local chapter of the ACLU

Sarge, you are actually right, American history taught in the state-mandated educational system IS a tool of the state to teach nationalism and patriotism. However, I prefer not to have a legion of unthinking drones who can simply recall dates or the glories of their country, because usually such kids are terrible writers who make grading a nightmare when I explain to them that you prefer them to show ORIGINAL thinking rather than quoting from big books. I think its great that the United States DOES have histories being taught that cut against the grain. Its called freedom.

[Winslowalrob]

Then do all that in a philosophy class. The class described is an AMERICAN history class. Or at least it's supposed to be.......

Touche, but this class DOES give a view of the past, so I would consider it a history. And is there not value in having a history worth debating?

[Sarge]

Sarge, you are actually right, American history taught in the state-mandated educational system IS a tool of the state to teach nationalism and patriotism. However, I prefer not to have a legion of unthinking drones who can simply recall dates or the glories of their country, because usually such kids are terrible writers who make grading a nightmare when I explain to them that you prefer them to show ORIGINAL thinking rather than quoting from big books. I think its great that the United States DOES have histories being taught that cut against the grain. Its called freedom.

Then I'd suggest sending them back to their government English class. Most of them can't write a cogent essay to begin with, much less one on American history

[Winslowalrob]

Then I'd suggest sending them back to their government English class. Most of them can't write a cogent essay to begin with, much less one on American history

But that would drive their parents nuts, the thought that anything is their fault rather than the fault of the evil liberal public educational system. If your kid cannot write, its usually because you did not teach them to value good writing. English does not teach you how to be a better writer, it teaches you how to read texts critically. Writing again and again and again and again and allowing that writing to be criticized sure helps.

[Predicto]

I know this isn't supposed to be a debate about dropping the bomb, but by throwing the comment I'm sure you know some posters would've addressed it. I don't doubt that the administration wanted to end the war quickly and spare many more American lives that would've been lost through an invasion, but I think a huge part was them being way too eager to test out their new favorite toy, and also show those "Commie ****s" what was coming their way if they didn't watch it.

I've read about a dozen books on the subject, from all political perspectives. I've found no reasonable evidence that this is the case. Only empty speculation from some revisionist historians with an anti-American bent.

[Winslowalrob]

I've read about a dozen books on the subject, from all political perspectives. I've found no reasonable evidence that this is the case. Only empty speculation from some revisionist historians with an anti-American bent.

Haha, now THATS an argument. Read X books, from Y perspectives, then give no evidence to back it up. Are you sure you are not in a think tank?

[Larry]

Sarge, you are actually right, American history taught in the state-mandated educational system IS a tool of the state to teach nationalism and patriotism. However, I prefer not to have a legion of unthinking drones who can simply recall dates or the glories of their country, because usually such kids are terrible writers who make grading a nightmare when I explain to them that you prefer them to show ORIGINAL thinking rather than quoting from big books. I think its great that the United States DOES have histories being taught that cut against the grain. Its called freedom.

Sarge doesn't like freedom.

[Larry]

Eh, not sure I'd use those assumed facts to justify the decimation of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I know this isn't supposed to be a debate about dropping the bomb, but by throwing the comment I'm sure you know some posters would've addressed it. I don't doubt that the administration wanted to end the war quickly and spare many more American lives that would've been lost through an invasion, but I think a huge part was them being way too eager to test out their new favorite toy, and also show those "Commie ****s" what was coming their way if they didn't watch it.

Valid point that the casualty estimates for an invasion are projections. (Although I'd point out that a) those projections are what the President was looking at when he made the decision, and those projections that the Japanese would fight to the last man were based on years of combat experience.)

I have heard an argument (that I thought made sense), pointing out that supposedly, the Japanese had said that they were willing to surrender, if they were allowed to keep their Emperor (and we refused), but that after we dropped the bomb, we allowed them to surrender and keep their Emperor.

I have trouble believing any claim that the Japanese were scared of Russia, though. Russia didn't have anything to threaten them with at the time, and the Japanese knew it.

And I really have trouble believing a claim that the US was just itching to use their new weapon. I wouldn't believe that without a lot of support.

[One Shot]

I've read about a dozen books on the subject, from all political perspectives. I've found no reasonable evidence that this is the case. Only empty speculation from some revisionist historians with an anti-American bent.

What evidence did those books present?

[Predicto]

Haha, now THATS an argument. Read X books, from Y perspectives, then give no evidence to back it up. Are you sure you are not in a think tank?

Well, this is not really a thread about the dropping of the Atom Bomb, and I was too lazy to go into a detailed discussion of a complicated issue like that right now. So I just expressed my opinion so as not to derail the thread.

Good enough?

[One Shot]

I have trouble believing any claim that the Japanese were scared of Russia, though. Russia didn't have anything to threaten them with at the time, and the Japanese knew it.

I was actually talking about the US scaring the USSR by dropping the atomic bomb, because I believe the nuclear arms race had started (correct?) and the US may have wished to demonstrate its potential...it's all speculation, though.

[Reic]

my experience with history in highschool = everything is sugar coated.

[Larry]

I was actually talking about the US scaring the USSR by dropping the atomic bomb, because I believe the nuclear arms race had started (correct?) and the US may have wished to demonstrate its potential...it's all speculation, though.

I was responding to the claim of "Japan would have surrendered if Russia had declared war on them".

I don't buy it.

(Later, I responded to the claim that the US wanted to use their new toy because they liked new toys. I really don't buy it.)

[Larry]

my experience with history in highschool = everything is sugar coated.

Oh, and I think that, at the lower grade levels, that's the correct way to do things. For the same reason that it's good for every kid to think his Dad is Superman.

For example, while I don't think the government schools should cover up the fact that George Washington owned slaves, I really don't think it should be the first thing students learn about him.

[skinfan133]

:doh: :doh: :doh:

No offense - but if that's the way you feel and if you bought into that crap, I fear them giving you a machine gun and going over seas. If you seriously can't see the problem with 'we're not talking about our Japs' while they were actually throwing them into internment camps I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not saying Japan was right (they weren't) or that we were wrong - just pointing out that we used racist, brainwashing propoganda just like the enemy.

not debating you on that point at all. I'm just saying that if you're using that film to claim how racist we are, thats not the best example

edit: curse my spelling

[skinfan133]

the whole "holier than thou" intelect of a liberal.

As the one of the few people on this forum with any background in history, let me weigh in with my unsolicited 2 cents:

Everyone seems to want some kind of VERDICT OF HISTORY, where a sage historian, after years of painstaking reseach, not only tells you what happened but that this person was right, or that event was wrong. A historian as judge, jury, and possibly executioner. People also believe that there is such a thing as an objective history, and that any deviation is some kind of revisionist propoganda.

I don't want a verdict, I don't want an opinion, I want the events and the facts sourounding them, the end. yes, deviation from what actually happened or puting a spin on something is revisionist propoganda. for example, I had an ultra-right wing World History teacher freshman year of high school. his spin on history INFURIATED me because not only was it blatantly wrong, but it was slanted toward glorifying only certaint portions of history and omiting others. another example: when we studdied WWI I was appaled that we didnt even mention the Armenian Genocide, why because its ****ING HISTORY. the blatant omision of events in the pacific is frieghtening as well. and the fact that people asume all 9 million victims of the holocaust were Jews. 3 million others were killed for being in acedamia, being a gypsie, being slavic, or for being homosexual. that is either revisionism or careless omission.

If you believe in either, I am sorry to say but you are a moron. What you are looking for is not history, its heritage; a narrative the past that makes you feel better about yourself.

great liberal trick here, thinly veil an insult to someone else disguised as an intelectual, objective statement

Skinsfan13, amongst others on this board, does not give a rats ass about history but rather an explanation of past events that matches their worldview.

and if you arent infuriated by a complete biased ommission of events and facts, then by your own logic you yourself are a "moron". I gaurentee you if my teacher had only taught us about the "evil Japs" and left out the inetrnment (which paradoxically he did, and which I'm also upset about) among other thigns I'd have still been pretty pissed. and I gaurentee you that iof you had replied to such a thread titled "history teacher omits japanese internment and other facts in class" you'd have responded with something along the lines of "good for you for not taking that and being objective" or something. you see, you're doing exactly what you are condeming. the fact that the japanese were ruthless barbarians doesn't agree with your worldview, thus anyone who thinks they were is either "closed-minded" or "non-objective"

Furthermore, there is great value in having a history taught that challenges your notions and biases: it forces you to bone up on the literature and defend your position, rather than come crying to a forum and citing from the internet. Not only will you read the text but you will be forced to read the counter-texts, giving you a feel for both sides' arguments. Furthermore, this excercise SHOULD turn you into a critical thinker, but I highly doubt that a mere undergrad ranting on a forum about the injustices of his (or her?) class will learn about the mental tools needed to become a historian. Pity. It sounds like a valuable education, if only people were not so stubborn as to not see it.

I should mention that I get my facts from BOOKS not some website like others. that's right, I'm an 18 year old high school student who reads up on history on his own. you know why? because I love history. I just finished up reading "Dominion of Memories", a book that redefined my view of southern culture in Virginia. I'm a very objective thinker as well thank you, it takes alot to be a libertarian conservative these days instead of being an erector set "conservative" or "liberal" I am not a "mere undergrad" I am a High School senior, we are talking about public schools here. I am not crying to a forum, I'm just showing how YOUR field of study is decaying into a farsical "lets make it how we want" arena of complete dumb-assicty because someone doesn't like the facts.

I see what you mean perfectly. I am objective and I do look at things from both points of view. hell, I limped through Mein Kampf for Christ's sake. (very porely written and hard to follow, but I came away with a better understanding of Hitler: he was completely nuts). two years ago when I conceled my age on this board you treated me as a somewhat intelectual equal. now I'm just that "stupid undergrad student who doesn't know didly-****" just because I'm 18 doesn't mean I'm immature or uninteligent.

Skinsfan13, amongst others on this board, does not give a rats ass about history ...

I just wanted to reiterate this point: how ****ing DARE you say I don't give a rats ass about history. My only passion in acedemia is history. I'd say just from your post alone I am much more objective than you are. you have no idea who I am, how I think, or what I believe, so don't think I'll let someone say **** like this about me and let it go unreplied.

[skinfan133]

Skinsfan should put the syllabus online. Once I see a reading list and some themes, we will see whats actually going on. Perhaps the title of the class is "Alternative Perspectives to WWII", or perhaps the professor got an MA or PhD in this particular field (American perceptions of race during WWII) so he actually knows a TON about this stuff. And feels compelled to teach it.

And there is a difference between reading a lot of history and knowing how to DO history and actually doing it. Sometimes that distinction is blurred, and I am not a historian myself (yet) but I find it hilarious when armchair buffs of whatever period feel qualified to answer about the discipline of history.

its a high school symester course entitled "Post World War II American History". there is no online sylabus, but basic topics are: WWII and the Holocaust, Post WWII rise of communism, the countercuture, cold war, civil rights, and lastly the 80's.

My teacher has a Masters in some discipline of history (not related t this course if I remember corectly) and was a sargeant in the Army for many years.

[skinfan133]

The teacher could've been a bit less biased and a bit more objective, but one fact remains: most history courses try as hard as they can to subtly leave out dark spots on the record of our nation. Japanese internment camps would be a huge example.

to the contrary, All I've learned in high school is how terrible America is. the dark spots are pretty much all we hit on in all of the courses I've taken. Internment camps were definatly mentioned in detail during American History my Junior year. the other favorite concentration of my teacher (junior year) was at every step of the way to show us how bad the white man is and how oppressed minorites were. I'm fine with learning about that, its part of our history. my problem was that we learned nothing but that (mostly). in fact, the most time we spent of WWI was about how the Army was segregated. again, yes, its important to mention and discuss this injustice, but not to the point where we don't learn about the war itself

Eh, not sure I'd use those assumed facts to justify the decimation of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. I know this isn't supposed to be a debate about dropping the bomb, but by throwing the comment I'm sure you know some posters would've addressed it. I don't doubt that the administration wanted to end the war quickly and spare many more American lives that would've been lost through an invasion, but I think a huge part was them being way too eager to test out their new favorite toy, and also show those "Commie ****s" what was coming their way if they didn't watch it.

I would, I'm more of a utilitarian. taking 150000+ lives to save 15 million is a no brainer. still, I'm of the opinion that the second bomb was excessive.

absoltuly the bombing was about testing it out and showing it off to the soviets, it was a large factor in the descision.

[Winslowalrob]

Well, this is not really a thread about the dropping of the Atom Bomb, and I was too lazy to go into a detailed discussion of a complicated issue like that right now. So I just expressed my opinion so as not to derail the thread.

Good enough?

I was messing with and implying that a lot of people make really lame arguments along those lines. Shoulda used emoticons!

[skinfan133]

But that would drive their parents nuts, the thought that anything is their fault rather than the fault of the evil liberal public educational system. If your kid cannot write, its usually because you did not teach them to value good writing. English does not teach you how to be a better writer, it teaches you how to read texts critically. Writing again and again and again and again and allowing that writing to be criticized sure helps.

it really does, I can attest to this. though it may not show here on this site, I have good writing skills. I aquired them through practice and critiscism. (I can't spell worth **** though:silly: ). all of my teachers (except my junior year teacher in history because he found out my great-great-great-great-grandaddy had owned a slave) have always commented that they love to read my papers because they're a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the cookie-cutter drivel they get from my classmates.

[Winslowalrob]

its a high school symester course entitled "Post World War II American History". there is no online sylabus, but basic topics are: WWII and the Holocaust, Post WWII rise of communism, the countercuture, cold war, civil rights, and lastly the 80's.

My teacher has a Masters in some discipline of history (not related t this course if I remember corectly) and was a sargeant in the Army for many years.

Ask him about where he got it and on what. Also, can you put up a reading list? What sources do you guys look at?