Since this is supposedly the right place to say it

[Marc Chevalier]

Right on all points. And it's true that German-Americans and Italian-Americans suffered too. I've heard some sad stories about that. It's understandable, yes -- but not acceptable.

 

[jamespowers]

I've heard some sad stories about that. It's understandable, yes -- but not acceptable.

Acceptable is sort of a moot point now over sixty years later. All we can do is be vigilant for the future. As a bonus question: What was used to gather the information need to figure out who to inter?

Regards to all,

J

 

[Solomon Kane]

Acceptable is sort of a moot point now over sixty years later. All we can do is be vigilant for the future. As a bonus question: What was used to gather the information need to figure out who to inter?

Regards to all,

J

Mayhaps what is acceptable presently, will be deemed barbaric and not acceptable fifty years from now.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Mayhaps what is acceptable presently, will be deemed barbaric and not acceptable fifty years from now.

Maybe like, ummm, "witch" burning?

sorry
bk

 

[jamespowers]

Mayhaps what is acceptable presently, will be deemed barbaric and not acceptable fifty years from now.

Good point and something to be remembered. All history has to be looked at from that era not our own. You need a historical context to fully understand.
With burning and witch trials are something that we have moved past. I am sure that now and into the future there will be none of that. Int he historical context you have to see if for what it was. It was a way to take revenge on the successful, reclusive and just plain surly. The trials were used as a tool by those girls and a complicit or completely stupid constable. It was finally stopped when the process became known to outside authorities. Did they really think they were witches? I am really not sure.
Nobody wants to take a swing at the tool used to round up and inter people of the correct nationalities during WWII? I'll give you a hint. It is constitutionally required and is still done today.

Regards to all,

J

 

[shamus]

I feel like I boarded a bus and my ticket say's it's going to Cleveland, but some how, I look out the window and I'm looking at Palm trees and the surf of the Florida coast.

I think the driver needs to turn this bus around and head to where it was suppose to.

 

[jamespowers]

This driver says the new destination looks better and Cleveland has lousy weather this time of year anyway. Enjoy the ride. You didn't pay for the ticket anyway.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Twitch]

Yeah jamespowers- As a writer of historical subjects, WW2 in particular, I have found that the fallacy lies in people today, knowing what they know attempting to project today's morality and sociological values to the past. Arguements prevail about subjects whether Germany could have beaten Britain in certain circumstances or whether we should have invaded Japan insteading of nuking it. We hear this, "they shoulda, woulda, coulda...." Great only at the times of these events in history no one knew the future outcome as we do now. It's a bankrupt philosophy to second guess what our ancesters shoulda, woulda, coulda done.

 

[jamespowers]

Yeah jamespowers- As a writer of historical subjects, WW2 in particular, I have found that the fallacy lies in people today, knowing what they know attempting to project today's morality and sociological values to the past. Arguements prevail about subjects whether Germany could have beaten Britain in certain circumstances or whether we should have invaded Japan insteading of nuking it. We hear this, "they shoulda, woulda, coulda...." Great only at the times of these events in history no one knew the future outcome as we do now. It's a bankrupt philosophy to second guess what our ancesters shoulda, woulda, coulda done.

Even more bankrupt in philosophy is the fact that second guessing the past with the ability to change it would surely change the present and it could change it for the worst case.
Remember Star Trek episode The City on the Edge of Tomorrow? One person changed the course of history. By delaying the entry of the US into WWII, the Germans were allowed to complete their heavy water tests early and without being bombed out. Result: the German's won because of complacency. A Sci-Fi instance but a change that resulted in a very bad conclusion.
History is like a puzzle and it fits together as it is not as we might like it to fit together. We just accept what happened and move on with the ability to prevent further wrongs. George Santayana was quite right: "Those Who Forget the Lessons of History Are Doomed To Repeat It."

Regards to all,

J

 

[Solomon Kane]

Maybe like, ummm, "witch" burning?

sorry
bk

Witch killing was once a sanctioned event in times past.

Exd 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Good points all around. But, i'm afraid i must step back a moment. It is absolutely correct to scrutinise and criticise what was done in the past. Without this type of scrutiny we wouldn't know what was wrong and how to stop it happening again. The kind of philosophy that says well that happened in the past so we might as well not think about it any more is so incredibly short sighted that it beggars belief. It was that kind of philosophy that ultimately led to WWII in europe (the Japanese (Jap? ) situation was a bit different). The British government of the time didn't learn from their mistakes in WWI largely because they said: 'well it happened in the past so there's no point in thinking about it. We can't change the past'.

A digressionary example: The allies firebombed Dresden towards the end of WWII. We are correct to look back and admit that it hastened the end of the European war by breaking the back of the German public support for the war. "If they firebombed Dresden, couldn't they do it here in Berlin", kind of thing. But we are also correct to look back and say that firebombing a civilian city like Dresden (by most rational accounts it had no offensive military installations) is absolutely wrong and Churchill and the other allied leaders are rightly censured for it. Churchill, in fact, censured himself for it - though reasoning that anything that would stop the carnage was justified. I happen to disagree, but it's at least a rational argument.

How can it be bankrupt to question/analyse what our ancestors did. Isn't that what historians do?

bk

p.s. shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments make discussions so much more interesting that i vote to keep them. Britain shoulda stomped on Hitler in 1934 when he was weak and blustering, they coulda stomped on Hitler in 1934 when he was weak and blustering, and if Mr. Churchill had his way they woulda stomped on Hitler in 1934 when he was weak and blustering - but Churchill wasn't in charge. He was a lone voice (almost) amidst a pacifist Parliament. There we have a potted book review for the first volume of Churchill's second world war memoirs. Good history relies on coulda, shoulda & woulda

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Witch killing was once a sanctioned event in times past.

Exd 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent. I couldn't find the right quotes when i posted earlier. I was actually only making a joke about Salem (Like a Brit has any place to comment on burnings ).

We must remember that witch burnings were once officially sanctioned/instigated by an irrational clergy who noone dared call irrational for fear of being called a witch. Some would have it that not much has changed (thou shalt not suffer your children to learn about evolution etc.).

bk

welcome to the lounge, by the way. We have some pretty good discussions over here in the observation bar. Usually contentious and somewhat irrational

 

[jamespowers]

Good points all around. But, i'm afraid i must step back a moment. It is absolutely correct to scrutinise and criticise what was done in the past. Without this type of scrutiny we wouldn't know what was wrong and how to stop it happening again. The kind of philosophy that says well that happened in the past so we might as well not think about it any more is so incredibly short sighted that it beggars belief. It was that kind of philosophy that ultimately led to WWII in europe (the Japanese (Jap? ) situation was a bit different). The British government of the time didn't learn from their mistakes in WWI largely because they said: 'well it happened in the past so there's no point in thinking about it. We can't change the past'.

A digressionary example: The allies firebombed Dresden towards the end of WWII. We are correct to look back and admit that it hastened the end of the European war by breaking the back of the German public support for the war. "If they firebombed Dresden, couldn't they do it here in Berlin", kind of thing. But we are also correct to look back and say that firebombing a civilian city like Dresden (by most rational accounts it had no offensive military installations) is absolutely wrong and Churchill and the other allied leaders are rightly censured for it. Churchill, in fact, censured himself for it - though reasoning that anything that would stop the carnage was justified. I happen to disagree, but it's at least a rational argument.

How can it be bankrupt to question/analyse what our ancestors did. Isn't that what historians do?

bk

p.s. shoulda, coulda, woulda arguments make discussions so much more interesting that i vote to keep them. Britain shoulda stomped on Hitler in 1934 when he was weak and blustering, they coulda stomped on Hitler in 1934 when he was weak and blustering, and if Mr. Churchill had his way they woulda stomped on Hitler in 1934 when he was weak and blustering - but Churchill wasn't in charge. He was a lone voice (almost) amidst a pacifist Parliament. There we have a potted book review for the first volume of Churchill's second world war memoirs. Good history relies on coulda, shoulda & woulda

I thought that is what I said with one sentence:
George Santayana was quite right: "Those Who Forget the Lessons of History Are Doomed To Repeat It."
I suppose the difference is that some do not accept history for what it is in its historical context and glean lessons from it. Others cogitate over it too much and forget to learn something. The lessons being how does this apply today and what can we learn from it so that we can better address it and prepare for it? The historical context can put a situation in a better light and give us direction today. The past is like a rock that has fallen a millenium ago. We know where it is and likely where it came from but do we really want to put it back so it can fall again?

Regards to all,

J

 

[Twitch]

People criticizing the decisions made by those before who acted with the best intent based on the information input available at the time can't be faulted for acting incorrectly. We cannot immerse ourselves in the current of time so as to experience the mood and thinking of the past. Interviewing a couple WW 2 vets will put you back 60+ years in time like nothing else can. They begin to really revert back to verbiage and sensabilities of the time quickly like a time machine.

I enjoy the "what if" aspects of history to no end but will not damn one from the past for using his era's morals and values to decide on a course of action. It is too easy to write revisionist history that is all too flawed.

I've said what if The 8th AF had actualy ceased daylight bombing over the Reich after the heavy losses over Schweinfurt? Or what if the Me 262 had debuted a 18 months earlier? In neither case do I believe the Germans would have won the war but the alternatives are interesting to ponder.:cool2:

 

[Marc Chevalier]

It's almost too easy, but I can't resist throwing it in:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Good intentions simply aren't enough. You are venturing into deeply relativistic territory here, but you're using the phrase "best intent" (my italics) as if it were absolute. Is it? Then what exactly was "best" about the internment decision, as opposed to other options that existed at the time? Or do you hold "best intent" above the U.S. Constitution? (After all, it's hard to imagine you subscribing to the "instrumentalist" school of Constitutional interpretation.)

We cannot immerse ourselves in the current of time so as to experience the mood and thinking of the past.[/IMG]

We absolutely can -- and that is exactly what historians spend their whole working lives doing.

I ... will not damn one from the past for using his era's morals and values to decide on a course of action. It is too easy to write revisionist history that is all too flawed.

Whose morals? What about those folks who protested at the time against internment of Japanese-Americans. They seem to have had different morals from those of the men who "decid[ed] on a course of action". Could it be possible that this little group had the better morals? In my book, the protesters were as right back then as they are now.

By the way: nice hat there! Is it from the early 1960s? It suits you well.

 

[Solomon Kane]

Puts me in mind a memorable quote from the movie "Cool Hand Luke", to wit;

Boss: Sorry, Luke. I'm just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that.
Luke: Nah - calling it your job don't make it right, Boss.

 

[jamespowers]

We absolutely can -- and that is exactly what historians spend their whole working lives doing.

Uh I doubt you can unless you happen to have a working time machine. Otherwise you are still looking at the past without actually living there. You have no historical context. You cannot truly understand what a Roman lived through because you were not there and cannot make the same decisions he did based on the information available at the time. You look at it from 2005 not 256 AD. Your thinking and ideals are different.
The same is true of 1941 and 2005. You did not live then. You really only know flat facts not living life. I think that is what Twitch was trying to convey. He will correct me if I am wrong---you will correct me no matter.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

He will correct me if I am wrong---you will correct me no matter.

James, you wit, you: I hope you'll always be around in the Lounge. Really! :cheers1:


I do think that the study of archaeology, history, language and literature can bring us into an era. Obviously, recent times are much easier to dive into. Nonetheless, the wealth of information about, say, Roman life can lead researchers into the social mind of a person living in that world. I say "social" because it is all but impossible to know the personal thoughts and feeling of past people; after all, sentimental literature hardly even existed before the Romantic era.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

So can we criticize the nazis for the holocaust, or the Japanese for the medical experiments on the chinese population? Or the use of the word "Japs" when we were at war with the japanese? The best information available for the japanese at the time was that chinese were less than human and therefore dispensible. Same for the nazis with the jews. This has to work both ways if it is to work at all. We must critically evaluate all ... or none. We either say we weren't there and therefore have no opinion, or we must have opinions on all upon which we are educated.

Revisionism is a necessary part of historical research. It is no more flawed than "real" history. Folks on both sides of the argument have their particular agandae. The trick is to take everything you ever read or are told with a big pinch of salt. There is no Truth (note capital T). Everything is questionable and we must question it. Thus spake the scientist.

bk