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

[skinfan133]

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?

we recenty had a reading project about the holocaust. we got to choose a book from a list he handed out and we signed. I chose "Night" by Elie Wiesel. others included "the Sunflower" and a few more books. also he had one kid read about the Armenian Genocide of WWI, which I aplauded because absolutly no one knows about it.

we have another reading project coming up. I think he has "Surviving the Sword" on the list (an excellent book), and I'm going to request that I choose a book from the public library on the cultural revolution in china. He's a very lax teacher when in comes to assignments. unfortunatly that spills over in how he teaches; he ommits stuff he doesn't agree with and is lazy about specific facts.

what I know about the Holocaust comes from my own independent reading, certaintly not this class. its a joke. when I told him the germans had made products out of Jewish remains (like lampshades and soap among others) he didn't believe me.

edit: sorry about the tone from my first response to you. I get easily frustrated about this kind of stuff. I love intellectually stimulating discussions.

[Predicto]

Gotta tell you, skinfan13, you sound a lot more objective, thoughtful and reasonable in your later posts than you did in the original post in this thread.

I admit that I jumped to incorrect conclusions about your thinking processes from that original post. I think I have been conditioned to do so by some of the more knee-jerk members of the Tailgate

Anyhow carry on.

[Winslowalrob]

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

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.

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

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"

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.

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.

Its a "holier than though" philosophy because I find this knee-jerk ****ing by people who have no background in history to be annoying. Its one thing to complain about your teacher, but its quite another to do so through the lens of some kind objective historical approach when I seriously doubt you have ever made any serious attempt at historical shcolarship. It is not that you are not allowed to criticize historical interpretations, but your approach is what I find most offensive. Essentialy, its like you complaining to the forum that you learned the world is not flat in your science class. There are people on this board that know wayyy more than me (techboy, kingbrice, djtj, etc), and there I will not accuse them of being holier than thou when the school me in in their fields. I could not give less of a damn about your age, I care about people's intellectual maturity. If you think history is anything BUT revision, then you are in for a rude awakening. When my main man Petrarch worked his ass off to find what Cicero really said, you think that did not turn some heads? Or what about Beard or Freddy Jax Turner and their reinterpretations of American History? Didn't Braudel shake stuff up with The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II? Why do people write history books? To restate what they already know? Hell no, you do original scholarship and see what the sources tell you. Sometimes they find out that the previous sages were wrong.

If you want to get into the objectivity debate, and if you believe there is such a thing as objectivity in history, then by all means open up a new thread and we will have at it. But looking at stuff from both sides does not necessarily make you objective anymore than it makes you "fair and balanced". I would argue openness to new ideas and fallability make one objective, and whether you exhibit these traits more than I do is also up for debate. Furthermore, I will continue to question your commitment to history until you have shown that you have grappled with what history really is and the underlying philosophies behind history.

[Winslowalrob]

we recenty had a reading project about the holocaust. we got to choose a book from a list he handed out and we signed. I chose "Night" by Elie Wiesel. others included "the Sunflower" and a few more books. also he had one kid read about the Armenian Genocide of WWI, which I aplauded because absolutly no one knows about it.

we have another reading project coming up. I think he has "Surviving the Sword" on the list (an excellent book), and I'm going to request that I choose a book from the public library on the cultural revolution in china. He's a very lax teacher when in comes to assignments. unfortunatly that spills over in how he teaches; he ommits stuff he doesn't agree with and is lazy about specific facts.

what I know about the Holocaust comes from my own independent reading, certaintly not this class. its a joke. when I told him the germans had made products out of Jewish remains (like lampshades and soap among others) he didn't believe me.

edit: sorry about the tone from my first response to you. I get easily frustrated about this kind of stuff. I love intellectually stimulating discussions.

I know a few Cultural Revolution books if your interested, and I am also sorry about my tone, but your first post infuriated me.

[skinfan133]

Its a "holier than though" philosophy because I find this knee-jerk ****ing by people who have no background in history to be annoying. Its one thing to complain about your teacher, but its quite another to do so through the lens of some kind objective historical approach when I seriously doubt you have ever made any serious attempt at historical shcolarship. It is not that you are not allowed to criticize historical interpretations, but your approach is what I find most offensive. Essentialy, its like you complaining to the forum that you learned the world is not flat in your science class. There are people on this board that know wayyy more than me (techboy, kingbrice, djtj, etc), and there I will not accuse them of being holier than thou when the school me in in their fields. I could not give less of a damn about your age, I care about people's intellectual maturity. If you think history is anything BUT revision, then you are in for a rude awakening. When my main man Petrarch worked his ass off to find what Cicero really said, you think that did not turn some heads? Or what about Beard or Freddy Jax Turner and their reinterpretations of American History? Didn't Braudel shake stuff up with The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II? Why do people write history books? To restate what they already know? Hell no, you do original scholarship and see what the sources tell you. Sometimes they find out that the previous sages were wrong.

If you want to get into the objectivity debate, and if you believe there is such a thing as objectivity in history, then by all means open up a new thread and we will have at it. But looking at stuff from both sides does not necessarily make you objective anymore than it makes you "fair and balanced". I would argue openness to new ideas and fallability make one objective, and whether you exhibit these traits more than I do is also up for debate. Furthermore, I will continue to question your commitment to history until you have shown that you have grappled with what history really is and the underlying philosophies behind history.

fair enough.

what he taught is not new material for me, by far. what dismayed me was not the subject matter at hand (well most of it), but the very biased way it was presented, and how the selection of topics to be discussed was biased as well. I would have liked to have been taught a healthy balance of topics, for how can one not understand the US's response toward the japanese if we don't understand the reasons behind that reponse? like pearl harbor, and japanese atrocites in southeast asia leading up to pearl harbor. the big picture is much more important than making a political satement. again, I was dismayed at his laziness too, because he never mentioned the internment of japanese americans. I think it should be a topic mentioned every time; its something that should not be repeated. no one has found a single instance where internment saved american lives. most of them were as average as can be: apple pie eating, baseball loving, patriotic americans who in the face of injstice at the hand of their countrymen were STILL patriotic and for the most part not publicly resentful. now THAT is a true testimate to the fortitude of the American people.:2cents:

as for openess, lets just say that in middle school I used to be a neo-con talking head. i opened up my eyes to the world and rejected that world view about 4 years ago. after much reading I've adopted a more Jeffersonian aproach to conservatism. I'm very open to new ideas.

i guess the thing that most iritates me is that while I know alot about WWII, the others in my class don't, and they are being presented a very one-sided look at history without the outside knowledge to call on his BS.

[skinfan133]

I know a few Cultural Revolution books if your interested, and I am also sorry about my tone, but your first post infuriated me.

likewise I'd love to know if you could recomend any good captivating ones (I have only two weeks to read it, so I need to be able to breezethrough it rather than take a more in depth read like I like to do. I took nearly a month and a half to read the biography of John Paul Jones I have, simply because I'd rather go slow and absorb it rather than finish it quickly)

[skinfan133]

unfortunatly I have to finish my physics homework and get some sleep so I can get up at 6:30 tomorrow. cheers everyone, I'll checkback for responses tomorrow night

[rincewind]

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.

Actually he's right to a point. We did drop the bomb because of the Russkies - but not to show them our new toy; it was because we didn't want them joining the war in the Pacific. We needed a way to end the war quickly and the bomb was the way to go. If we waited another few days, Russia joins the war and gets claim to all of the land in East Asia they had lost over the years plus some more.

[One Shot]

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.

yea don't worry about that ****, the teens on this site are, for the most part, smarter (or at least more mature) than a lot of middle aged "men" who roam these forums. Unless they're in the Tailgate.....lot of smart people in the Tailgate.

[rlt2622]

Iam not gonna read all that. But i agree with you.

I poop a lot

[Sarge]

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.)

Russia did declare war on Japan in the end

[Larry]

Russia did declare war on Japan in the end

Yeah.

After Japan surrendered, Russia said "Ooh, now that somebody else has won that war, we want to show up at the "let's get loot from Japan" table and get us some goodies, too."

This does not in any way imply that if Russia had declared war a month before Hiroshima, the Japanese would have surrendered without a fight.

[Sarge]

Yeah.

After Japan surrendered, Russia said "Ooh, now that somebody else has won that war, we want to show up at the "let's get loot from Japan" table and get us some goodies, too."

This does not in any way imply that if Russia had declared war a month before Hiroshima, the Japanese would have surrendered without a fight.

Actually, it was a week or two before in an attempt to grab as much land as possible from an enemy that was already defeated

They might have declared earlier, but they probably still had scars on their commie asses from the Russo-Japan War

[rincewind]

Yeah.

After Japan surrendered, Russia said "Ooh, now that somebody else has won that war, we want to show up at the "let's get loot from Japan" table and get us some goodies, too."

This does not in any way imply that if Russia had declared war a month before Hiroshima, the Japanese would have surrendered without a fight.

Actually, we told Russia the if they joined the war they could have some of the loot, thinking they would never make. The reason they didn't join earlier is because they were kind of busy having 27 million people get killed on their western border.

[Burgold]

Just curious. How old is this teacher? And are they approachable?

I also remember my first year teaching sometimes just barely treading water, trying to keep up with the curriculum, grading, paperwork, and associative activities. If young, the teacher actually may welcome the input and actually be very encouraged by your interest and passion...

So long as you don't begin the conversation with, "Look you commie Know Nothing Dip****... All you gave us the other day was useless propaganda. I just want to know if you're an ignorameus or a propagandist... because if you're just an ignoramus I can actually help.

[elkabong82]

This thread got me thinking about a great book I read called "Lies My Teacher Told Me." The book discusses other views to historical events and people that aren't usually touched on in high schools. I recommend checking it out to gain perspectives on US events that some may not know.

Also, I agree with the OP, the Japanese did some pretty horrible things, and though we did as well, IMO, it wasn't as bad as the human atrcities the Japanese commited. Pathetic your teacher never mentioned Pearl Harbor, nor did he obviously mention Japan was part of the Axis powers.

And on the subject of Hiroshima, though I know it is not the central topic, my grandfather served in World War II entirely in the Pacific theater. It irked me too when I was in high school that we learned the same wars every year in history class, yet hardly ever touched on the Pacific theater. Anyways, my grandfather was one of the many designated for the land invasion if the decision was made to not drop the bomb. He told me a decade ago what the OP has said about Japan's forces readying for invasion, and said they touted a "million man army" and readied their citizens as well. Casualties would have been insane if we had gone forward with a land invasion, and my grandfather had no problem admitting that had they gone in, myself and applicable family members would not be here today, and in fact, many American and Japanese families would not be here today.

[Larry]

Actually, I've always wished I had a Time Machine, because I've got this theory about how things would have worked out if We Hadn't Used The Bomb.

My theoretical alternate history say that in that case, the way things happen is, we have to invade and conquer Japan.

And there's no way we can do that, unless we stage from Korea or China.

And my theory says that is things had worked out that way, with the US invading Japan from Korea or China, then everybody in Japan would be speaking Chinese today.

In short, I'd tell the Japanese who complain about Hiroshima that it's at least possible that Japan is better off, today, than they'd be if there were no bomb.

[Sarge]

Yeah.

After Japan surrendered, Russia said "Ooh, now that somebody else has won that war, we want to show up at the "let's get loot from Japan" table and get us some goodies, too."

This does not in any way imply that if Russia had declared war a month before Hiroshima, the Japanese would have surrendered without a fight.

You're going to lose your Commie Card from the ACLU if you can't recite the dates of the Great Workers War against the Japanese

[skinfan133]

Actually, it was a week or two before in an attempt to grab as much land as possible from an enemy that was already defeated

They might have declared earlier, but they probably still had scars on their commie asses from the Russo-Japan War

ahh, I get to flex my musscles of knowldge here. the Soviets declared war a few days before the official surrender of Japan, August 9th (surrender on the 15th). they atacked Manchuria, which used to be a country in between mongolia, china, and russia. so your first statment is pretty acurate.

now for the non-factor argument of the soviet army. in 1938-39 The Japanese where fighting for control of outer manchuria, and had a few famous undeclared battles between the red and imperial armies. the soviets kicked the japanese's asses, and the Japanese were secretly very fearful of them, thats why they didn't attack them outright in the first place even though the majority of the red army was in western russia.

[skinfan133]

Just curious. How old is this teacher? And are they approachable?

I also remember my first year teaching sometimes just barely treading water, trying to keep up with the curriculum, grading, paperwork, and associative activities. If young, the teacher actually may welcome the input and actually be very encouraged by your interest and passion...

So long as you don't begin the conversation with, "Look you commie Know Nothing Dip****... All you gave us the other day was useless propaganda. I just want to know if you're an ignorameus or a propagandist... because if you're just an ignoramus I can actually help.

:laugh: He's in his late 50's early 60's I'd guess. he's the head of the history department and he has a serious "I know everything" complex. hes been teaching since before I was born.

[Sticksboi05]

QFT.:applause: Going to private high school is quite possibly the best investment a parent can make for their children, even if it isn't one of the more prestigious ones. By far the best decision I've ever made.

Not really. My best friends go to private school and they despise it.

I love how one story of bad teaching = all public schools suck...that's what I call a hasty generalization.

[Sarge]

ahh, I get to flex my musscles of knowldge here. the Soviets declared war a few days before the official surrender of Japan, August 9th (surrender on the 15th). they atacked Manchuria, which used to be a country in between mongolia, china, and russia. so your first statment is pretty acurate.

now for the non-factor argument of the soviet army. in 1938-39 The Japanese where fighting for control of outer manchuria, and had a few famous undeclared battles between the red and imperial armies. the soviets kicked the japanese's asses, and the Japanese were secretly very fearful of them, thats why they didn't attack them outright in the first place even though the majority of the red army was in western russia.

AS a whole, I don't think the Japanese were to worried about the Soviets. Read up a bit on the Russo-Japan War, the first time an Asian power kicked the ass of a European power

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/romeo/russojapanese1904.htm

[Brad89]

SF13, have you ever read "Thank God for the Atom Bomb"? I had to read it in English class. It's really interesting. You can find it here: http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/i/ibinning/Fussell.pdf

I actually wrote a paper on it. It's definately a good read.

[Prosperity]

AS a whole, I don't think the Japanese were to worried about the Soviets. Read up a bit on the Russo-Japan War, the first time an Asian power kicked the ass of a European power

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/romeo/russojapanese1904.htm

umm yeah but by that time the Soviets had already kicked the ass of Germany, Europe's strongest, most industrialized nation

[skinfan133]

SF13, have you ever read "Thank God for the Atom Bomb"? I had to read it in English class. It's really interesting. You can find it here: http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/i/ibinning/Fussell.pdf

I actually wrote a paper on it. It's definately a good read.

never read it. I like the title, I'll check it out. thanks