Jack Chick Strikes Local Jail

[Loss Leader]

Reading Jack Chick cartoons that have been linked to from here, I always gave a condescending laugh. Wherever it is in America's heartland where this stuff flies, it certainly isn't here in a suburb 30 miles from New York City.

I was wrong. Jack Chick publications found their way into my local jail and are stirring up quite the controversy. It seems Muslim inmates in my county don't have their own chaplain and can't even get Halal food. They have to settle, ironically, for the kosher meals. Now, they're being told theirs is a false God and Muhammed is a "religious dictator."

See for yourself: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/NEWS03/704130409

[Darat]

....snip...they're being told theirs is a false God and Muhammed is a "religious dictator."

...snip...


Ironically that part is just the truth. :D

[Kopji]

Clapp, a full-time staffer at the jail, started out as a correction officer in 1989 and became the chaplain in February 1994.

Translation: The taxpayers here are no fools. We saw a real need for Jesus in the lives of these men and women headed down the wrong road in life. When they leave here we are happy to state that they go right to church and turn their lives around. This is the best investment we've ever made in prisoner treatment!

"She does a tremendous job here," Clark said. "Nothing like this has ever happened before."

Translation: All at once she just went crazy with the Chick tracts and started passing them out. We don't understand how she could go so insane after so many years of holy work preaching about Jesus to our inmates.

[Loss Leader]

Translation: The taxpayers here are no fools. We saw a real need for Jesus in the lives of these men and women headed down the wrong road in life. When they leave here we are happy to state that they go right to church and turn their lives around. This is the best investment we've ever made in prisoner treatment!

Translation: All at once she just went crazy with the Chick tracts and started passing them out. We don't understand how she could go so insane after so many years of holy work preaching about Jesus to our inmates.


Well, I'm not so sure about all that. First of all, chaplains are present in jail to minister to prisoners' religious and spiritual needs. The prisoners themselves decide whether to take part in religious services, study groups or whatever. I'm quite certain there is generally no official proselytizing. And I don't see much problem in providing prisoners with access to religion. In fact, I think anything else would be unconstitutional.

Rockland County also happens to have a huge Jewish population. Now, we Jews are generally a pretty law-abiding bunch but the law of averages makes for a significant Jewish minority in the population in the jail at any time. The chaplain in question was one of several. There is a Rabbi and, I think, a Catholic priest. Five or six of our seventeen county legislators are Jewish. So I can't really say that my county government has a strong desire to convert prisoners to christianity.

As for whether this chaplain just went crazy all at once, so far it looks that way. Everybody appears to have had a lot of respect for her until today.

[Kopji]

A label on the back of booklets in the jail contains the name and address of Upper Room House of Worship, a Spring Valley church where Clapp is believed to be minister.

I don't have any problem with ministers in the jails, I just don't understand why they are public employees.

Jack Chick's books are hate literature, and the public was paying to have them distributed.

The caliber of 'ministers' that hand out Chick tracts work for free.

[Beerina]

Ironically that part is just the truth. :D

Bastard beat me to it :mad:

[Glen.Nogami]

Jack Chick's books are hate literature,

That, my friend, is where you are wrong! (http://www.chick.com/newseries.asp)

ETA: There's also a tract (don't remember the name) in which one (black) character refers to another (black) character as "You stupid jive turkey!" Presumably, he thinks it's okay because they're both black.

Chick is a funny, funny person.

[l0rca]

Muslim inmates said they were deeply hurt and offended by the tracts, adding that other inmates' belief in the information has led to verbal altercations and to inmates labeling Muslim detainees devil worshippers.

That's so pathetic I laughed. Grown men fighting over cartoons. Hieroglyphics were more mature.

[Loss Leader]

That's so pathetic I laughed. Grown men fighting over cartoons. Hieroglyphics were more mature.


Presumably, if the men were mature enough not to fight over cartoons, they wouldn't be in jail.

[c4ts]

That, my friend, is where you are wrong! (http://www.chick.com/newseries.asp)

ETA: There's also a tract (don't remember the name) in which one (black) character refers to another (black) character as "You stupid jive turkey!" Presumably, he thinks it's okay because they're both black.

Chick is a funny, funny person.

It was Soul Story.

Come to think of it, do you ever see successful black people in the tracts that don't specifically target blacks?

[Lonewulf]

It was Soul Story.

Come to think of it, do you ever see successful black people in the tracts that don't specifically target blacks?

Okay, a few things.

1) Jack Chick is an ignorant fool that pretends to know more than he really does.

2) Jack Chick lets his fundamentalist faith get in way of his reason.

3) Jack Chick is sue-happy, threatening people that attempt to parody him with lawsuits.

4) Jack Chick makes unwise decisions, strawman arguments, and portrays people in the worst positive light whatsoever; apparently to him, homosexuals have little demons riding on their shoulders or something.

5) Jack Chick is anti-homosexual, to the point of, yes, claiming that they are inhabited by little demons. He also seems to believe that Sodom was entirely filled with homosexuals (not bisexuals), and that they were killed because, yes, they were gay. He doesn't even know his own scripture.

6) But I would not say that Jack Chick is a racist. I really wouldn't. There's plenty of reasons to dislike the man, I really don't think one should look for more where they don't exist (if indeed, the suggestion is that he's racist and not simply unwise).

[Kopji]

Teaching that people who believe like I do will be eternally rewarded while those who do not will be eternally punished is hateful. No matter how attractive the garbage can is packaged, it still contains only garbage.

Art has motivated people to action for centuries. 'Cartoons' especially, have the ability to convey a message that can be easily understood by both the wise and foolish, peaceful and violent.

[strathmeyer]

6) But I would not say that Jack Chick is a racist. I really wouldn't. There's plenty of reasons to dislike the man, I really don't think one should look for more where they don't exist (if indeed, the suggestion is that he's racist and not simply unwise).

You don't find the black-only comics to be racist? Seems odd...

[Lonewulf]

You don't find the black-only comics to be racist? Seems odd...

I don't see why I should assume that they're racist, no. He put them in to try to convert african-americans, as far as I know, not to ridicule or insult them. Stereotyping based off of ignorance is not automatically racism, at least, IMO.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm questioning the assertion that the public is paying for Chick tracts. Just because they are being distributed to prisoners is no evidence.

I suspect someone (or some organization) is donating them. Such has been the case with Bibles in prisons.

[Glen.Nogami]

There was apparently an appallingly racist chick tract towards orientals, taken from the web and everywhere subsequently. Called "Kings of the East" or some such. Anyone familiar with this?

Not to mention all the not-quite-racism-because-it's-about-Islam tracts. And Soul Story, and an amusing tract with a few Hispanic stereotypes. ("Tonight, we'll serve you a taco supreme, because tomorrow you die!")

Overall, the guy probably isn't a severe racist. It's certainly not his worst trait. Still vaguely offensive, but you're probably right.

I suspect someone (or some organization) is donating them. Such has been the case with Bibles in prisons.

And hotels. Bastard Gideons.

[Lonewulf]

There was apparently an appallingly racist chick tract towards orientals, taken from the web and everywhere subsequently. Called "Kings of the East" or some such. Anyone familiar with this?

No, but if it is as racist as you make it out to be, it may sway my opinion. :)

ETA: Did a google search. Didn't read the actual tract, but I found a review on this site (http://www.monsterwax.com/chickreviews.html#kings). Quoting the first paragraph of the review (that's fair use, right?):

A fun romp through Jack's red-under-every-bed world view. This is basically a rant on how the Chinese are out to take over the world. Released in 1975 and discontinued soon thereafter, it must have really seemed paranoid. Since that time however, the Chinese have made major territorial and political gains through their use of spies, intimidation and bribery [...]

Did another ETA:

If I have any reason to really hate Jack Chick, it's this (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp). The guy's only "better" than Fred Phelps in that he *tries* to convert people.

[Glen.Nogami]

Ah, maybe it was just against the bastard commies, then. Oh well.

[Lonewulf]

Ah, maybe it was just against the bastard commies, then. Oh well.

Yeap. Even Dr. Seuss (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/Seuss02.jpg) did "racist caricatures" when attacking Japan. Though I wouldn't call Seuss a racist, necessarily, as he was one for preaching tolerance.

[Abdul Alhazred]

There was apparently an appallingly racist chick tract towards orientals, taken from the web and everywhere subsequently. Called "Kings of the East" or some such. Anyone familiar with this?


I own a copy from the 1970s. I was a collector back then.

It's not in print and was never on the Chick website.

It's not particularly racist.

The basic premise was that the Bible predicts a Chinese Communist takeover before Christ's return.

At a certain point, some of the prophesies were so obviously falsified that it had to go away.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Okay, a few things.
5) Jack Chick is anti-homosexual, to the point of, yes, claiming that they are inhabited by little demons. He also seems to believe that Sodom was entirely filled with homosexuals (not bisexuals), and that they were killed because, yes, they were gay. He doesn't even know his own scripture.

Are you saying that Jack Chick believes gays are possessed by little demon homunculi?

I'm only asking because I don't get to use the word homunculus (plural homunculi) very often, and I like the sound of it ....

Charlie (a "woody" sounding word) Monoxide

[Glen.Nogami]

Yeap. Even Dr. Seuss (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/Seuss02.jpg) did "racist caricatures" when attacking Japan. Though I wouldn't call Seuss a racist, necessarily, as he was one for preaching tolerance.

This I would argue. First, though, with Abdul's information, I'll retract the implied accusation of racism. Chick isn't a racist any more than any generically offensive cartoonist is.

As for Seuss, though, I've perused a book full of those things, and there's no need for quotes around "racist caricatures." They are, quite simply, racist. Slanted, line-thin eyes, pug noses, buck teeth, the whole gamut. Dr. Seuss, if he wasn't a racist, certainly played one in the national media.

[Loss Leader]

As for Seuss, though, I've perused a book full of those things, and there's no need for quotes around "racist caricatures." They are, quite simply, racist. Slanted, line-thin eyes, pug noses, buck teeth, the whole gamut. Dr. Seuss, if he wasn't a racist, certainly played one in the national media.



Is morality really so black and white? Is there no gray area? Seuss' political cartoons, including his racist caricatures of the Japanese, were drawn exclusively during wartime. Japan had actually declared war on the US and we were, in a very real way, fighting to save the world. His cartoons during that period focused on creating unity among the American people and urging civilians to commit totally to the defense of the nation. (Even so, he took time out to lampoon the governor of Georgia for his anti-black racism.) And when the war ended, you never heard another word out of him or saw another cartoon that demeaned or belittled anyone based on their race.

Go here (http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/Frame.htm), view almost every cartoon Seuss drew during that period and draw your own conclusions.

[grayman]

Would the presentation of these tracts be in violation of the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution?:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
:)

[Lonewulf]

This I would argue. First, though, with Abdul's information, I'll retract the implied accusation of racism. Chick isn't a racist any more than any generically offensive cartoonist is.

Alrighty, then. :)

As for Seuss, though, I've perused a book full of those things, and there's no need for quotes around "racist caricatures." They are, quite simply, racist. Slanted, line-thin eyes, pug noses, buck teeth, the whole gamut.

Good point.

Dr. Seuss, if he wasn't a racist, certainly played one in the national media.

But he did preach tolerance, especially in his books for kids... maybe he changed his viewpoint as he moved along? Or was it just his caricatures that you're basing this on?

(Though I guess you could be "tolerant" *and* "Racist" at the same time...)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Dr. Seuss Went to War (http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/)

[Lonewulf]

Hm, a Jack Chick tract where a hero is an African American.

Kidnapped. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1020/1020_01.asp)

ETA: Just read it through. Apparently God talks to little kids with a beam of light holding the script. Weird.

If I saw that, I'd probably believe.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yup.

Chick's new project is to 'colorize' his most popular tracts.

Even Doctor No Face is of African descent. :p

[Lonewulf]

Y'know, Chick has potential as a comic artist. Too bad all of the plotlines are so predictable, though. Makes it unfun.

[Glen.Nogami]

But he did preach tolerance, especially in his books for kids... maybe he changed his viewpoint as he moved along? Or was it just his caricatures that you're basing this on?

(Though I guess you could be "tolerant" *and* "Racist" at the same time...)

I'm basing it on the caricatures, yeah, but to be fair, those did span over the length of the United States' involvement in World War Two, making them a significant body of work.

As for the second part, I absolutely agree, and this could very well be what it was. I know otherwise very liberal homophobes, for instance, and that's the sort of thing that Seuss' racism could be. Tolerance...except for you, Jap.

[Glen.Nogami]

That "Kidnapped" tract-Is he aware of the Bible's...mixed viewpoint on slavery?

[Loss Leader]

I know otherwise very liberal homophobes, for instance, and that's the sort of thing that Seuss' racism could be. Tolerance...except for you, Jap.


If you had any evidence whatsoever that Seuss' "racisim" extended even half an hour past the end of World War II, I might agree with you.

[Lonewulf]

I'm basing it on the caricatures, yeah, but to be fair, those did span over the length of the United States' involvement in World War Two, making them a significant body of work.

Which namely targeted only a few people, which are the "bad guys".

Racist caricatures of the "bad guys", especially in a time period where blackface was considered an everyday theater and drawing thing... I dunno.

[Glen.Nogami]

If you had any evidence whatsoever that Seuss' "racisim" extended even half an hour past the end of World War II, I might agree with you.

No, his racism did not extend at all past the end of World War Two. Neither did the Japanese American concentration camps.

[Loss Leader]

No, his racism did not extend at all past the end of World War Two. Neither did the Japanese American concentration camps.


Excellent. I'm glad to hear it.

[Glen.Nogami]

Excellent. I'm glad to hear it.

The fact that the racism under discussion started and ended with the war does not in the slightest justify it.

[Loss Leader]

The fact that the racism under discussion started and ended with the war does not in the slightest justify it.


Justify? I don't know. Excuse? Perhaps. Explain? Absolutely.

The world is not black and white. Morality is not all or nothing. One can be a very good person without being perfect. Anti-Japanese racism in the US during World War II was an important tool that helped unify and motivate the civilians in our country. It helped convince them to make sacrifices necessary for the war effort.

And compared with the general level of racism in the world at the time, anti-Japanese racism in the US was hilariously mild. I believe the Nazis used racism to divide and exterminate their own population. And anti-Western racism in Japan caused mothers and children to jump to their deaths to avoid surrender to the US.

Seuss helped America win the war. I forgive him completely.

[Glen.Nogami]

Justify? I don't know. Excuse? Perhaps. Explain? Absolutely.

The world is not black and white. Morality is not all or nothing. One can be a very good person without being perfect.

That was the point above, when I noted that one could preach tolerance while maintaining intolerance on certain issues.
Anti-Japanese racism in the US during World War II was an important tool that helped unify and motivate the civilians in our country. It helped convince them to make sacrifices necessary for the war effort.

And compared with the general level of racism in the world at the time, anti-Japanese racism in the US was hilariously mild.

So what, because only a few people died in the camps, it's funny compared to the holocaust? When does it cease to be "hilarious"? When ten people die because of racism? Twenty? A few thousand? How about the enormous property losses inflicted on the Japanese American population, that economically damaged them for years to come. Funny? I don't find it so, no.

I believe the Nazis used racism to divide and exterminate their own population. And anti-Western racism in Japan caused mothers and children to jump to their deaths to avoid surrender to the US.

Japan and Germany were far, far worse than the United States in terms of wartime racism. I do not disagree.

Seuss helped America win the war. I forgive him completely.

History is written by the victors, I suppose.

[Lonewulf]

No, his racism did not extend at all past the end of World War Two. Neither did the Japanese American concentration camps.

Caricatures are not, nor ever will be, the same as concentration camps.

[Glen.Nogami]

Caricatures are not, nor ever will be, the same as concentration camps.

They were both manifestations of racism against the Japanese American population during World War II, and the fact that they ended with the war does not excuse them.

[TheDoLittle]

I'm sure ya'll have seen this one already.

www.fecundity.com/darkdung/index.html

Seems Chick doesn't shut down all parodies!

--
David O. Little
-=The DoLittle 8-)=-

[Abdul Alhazred]

Thanks. :D

[Glen.Nogami]

Here's something, regarding Lonewulf's post that disagreed with a link between caricatures and concentration camps.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_119514627f0a9679c5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5244)

[Sceptic Realist]

Here's something, regarding Lonewulf's post that disagreed with a link between caricatures and concentration camps.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_119514627f0a9679c5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5244)

Yeah, a good number of the ones I'm looking at are crossing the line. There are other ways to galvanize civilians, and there is a difference between propaganda and outright slander.

[Loss Leader]

Here's something, regarding Lonewulf's post that disagreed with a link between caricatures and concentration camps.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_119514627f0a9679c5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5244)



If anything, this cartoon makes your case weaker and not stronger. Racism is a hatred of peole for who they are - the color and shape of their skin. This cartoon makes clear that the distrust of Japanese Americans was based on a fear of their nationalism, not a hatred of their race.

In any case, if you wish to draw bright line rules and live in a black and white world, that is your choice. I, however, tend to believe that people can mature and grow - that they can learn and become better. I don't feel guilty for stealing that piece of candy when I was eight because I was eight. And I don't feel like condemning anyone else who made a misstep during a formative time, either. Suess and the entire US were wrong in their thinking about the Japanese and Japanese Americans. We learned and we're better for it.



"There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities so they act as if they don't exist." - Wicked

[Lonewulf]

They were both manifestations of racism against the Japanese American population during World War II, and the fact that they ended with the war does not excuse them.

Okay, perhaps I should reiterate my point.

Ink on paper

Does not equal.

Imprisoning a population.

[Sceptic Realist]

In any case, if you wish to draw bright line rules and live in a black and white world, that is your choice. I, however, tend to believe that people can mature and grow - that they can learn and become better.

I agree. And usually the things that makes people grow are mistakes and wrongs. However it doesn't nessesarily mean that what was done was excusable.

I don't feel guilty for stealing that piece of candy when I was eight because I was eight.

Right, but I'm sure you felt like crap when you first did it, and I'm sure you will always remember how that felt. The principle is the same; the only reason why it's not a big deal now is because it was a learning experience for you as a child.

"There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities so they act as if they don't exist." - Wicked

Awsome quote.

[Glen.Nogami]

If anything, this cartoon makes your case weaker and not stronger. Racism is a hatred of peole for who they are - the color and shape of their skin. This cartoon makes clear that the distrust of Japanese Americans was based on a fear of their nationalism, not a hatred of their race.

The first reason that the cartoon is abhorrent is, as I mentioned, the link to the internment.
Racism comes in a significant, but relatively distant, second.

In any case, if you wish to draw bright line rules and live in a black and white world, that is your choice. I, however, tend to believe that people can mature and grow - that they can learn and become better. I don't feel guilty for stealing that piece of candy when I was eight because I was eight. And I don't feel like condemning anyone else who made a misstep during a formative time, either. Suess and the entire US were wrong in their thinking about the Japanese and Japanese Americans. We learned and we're better for it.

Ah, OK. Forgive and forget, right? We're better people because we imprisoned a population based on xenophobia and racism. Have to learn somehow, right? To continue your child analogy, wouldn't it be better to impress on a child that stealing is wrong than to let it steal, then punish it horribly?

Also, a formative time? The United States was about 40 years away from it's bicentennial at the time of the Japanese American concentration camps. More child analogy: I wouldn't condemn a child who stole candy at eight. I would condemn a man who murdered someone else at, say, twenty-five. I would not say "Well, now he knows that killing people is bad. He's a better person for the murder."


"There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities so they act as if they don't exist." - Wicked

Ah yes, Wicked, that masterpiece of subtle social commentary. I am brought to my argumentative knees by your invocation of a musical.

I suppose I should address your point, though, however absurdly made. I recognize the moral ambiguity of this point. There was, at the time, the possibility of Japanese Americans working against the state. I am simply not enough of a deontologist to say that that fact makes it all alright.

ETA:
Oh, hey, just caught something.

Suess and the entire US were wrong in their thinking about the Japanese and Japanese Americans.

Is that a tacit admission of Seuss' wartime racism?

[Glen.Nogami]

Okay, perhaps I should reiterate my point.

Ink on paper

Does not equal.

Imprisoning a population.

They are not identical activities. What I said was No, his racism did not extend at all past the end of World War Two. Neither did the Japanese American concentration camps.

I was comparing, not equating. It was, as I said above, a valid comparison.

[Loss Leader]

To continue your child analogy, wouldn't it be better to impress on a child that stealing is wrong than to let it steal, then punish it horribly?

I believe Dr. Suess, if not punished, more than atoned for his political cartoons with a lifetime of leasons about love, tolerance and acceptance that touched, literally, billions of children.

I would condemn a man who murdered someone else at, say, twenty-five. I would not say "Well, now he knows that killing people is bad. He's a better person for the murder."


Assume that this twenty-five year old spent the next fifty years working to help the families of victims, promoting anti-gang education and giving generously to all in need. Assume for the first twenty-five of those fifty years, he did all of this from jail. Would you condemn the seventy-five year-old man for the actions of a twenty-five year-old? If a person has shown himself to be rehabilitated, what is the purpose of punishment?

Ah yes, Wicked, that masterpiece of subtle social commentary. I am brought to my argumentative knees by your invocation of a musical.


The quote came at the end of my post and was meant to punctuate my point, not to stand on its own. But you knew that; you were just being petty.


Is that a tacit admission of Seuss' wartime racism?


It is an admission that the way people thought sixty-five years ago put more emphasis on race than is acceptable today.

[Lonewulf]

Jeez, Glen. Did Seuss kill your Grandfather's dog or something?

[Glen.Nogami]

Jeez, Glen. Did Seuss kill your Grandfather's dog or something?

Are you going to respond to the point?

Seuss bugs me. I suppose the United States' conduct in the war with Japan in general bugs me. Maybe this is unrealistic, maybe it makes me a poor American. I cannot, cannot, say "My country, right or wrong," when faced with the internment, with the firebombings, with the world's only use of nuclear weapons as weapons of war.

[Glen.Nogami]

I believe Dr. Suess, if not punished, more than atoned for his political cartoons with a lifetime of leasons about love, tolerance and acceptance that touched, literally, billions of children.

Atoned? Certainly. Does that erase the past? No.

Assume that this twenty-five year old spent the next fifty years working to help the families of victims, promoting anti-gang education and giving generously to all in need. Assume for the first twenty-five of those fifty years, he did all of this from jail. Would you condemn the seventy-five year-old man for the actions of a twenty-five year-old? If a person has shown himself to be rehabilitated, what is the purpose of punishment?

What's his name in California got executed for basically that scenario.

In all seriousness, though, I'm not advocating punishment of Seuss' descendants or something. I am advocating that we not whitewash Seuss' work due to his iconic status, or due to the fact of wartime necessities, or due to any other argument for racist apologism.

The quote came at the end of my post and was meant to punctuate my point, not to stand on its own. But you knew that; you were just being petty.

I knew that; I was just responding to the citation of one the most feel-good emetics I've ever sat through, all the more obnoxious for its would-be individualism and meant-to-be-clever bludgeoning message. Please, for all our sakes, don't cite musicals.

It is an admission that the way people thought sixty-five years ago put more emphasis on race than is acceptable today.

Yes. Seuss is among that group. Seuss put more emphasis on race than is acceptable today, resulting in intolerance of another race - one of the definitions, that I think no one would argue, of racism.

[Lonewulf]

Are you going to respond to the point?

I'm not sure what to respond to, nor how to respond.

I do not judge Seuss as badly as you do. I may not like the racist caricatures, but I hardly agree that they're the same as throwing people into internment camps; I hardly agree that Seuss didn't make up for his caricatures; and I hardly agree that I should dislike the man because of it.

Also, this is not an issue that can be solved with evidence or anything other than personal opinion.

You have an axe to grind with Seuss. I do not.

Seuss bugs me.

He does not bug me.

I suppose the United States' conduct in the war with Japan in general bugs me.

Some of it bugs me, too. Some of it doesn't.

Maybe this is unrealistic, maybe it makes me a poor American.

Unrealistic? Eh, maybe. Poor American? No. You want to make your country into an ideal. That's patriotic. Whether I agree with your ideal or not is another matter; the fact is that you wish to make your country into a better place. But I would be hesitant in judging it's past actions too harshly, especially if you cannot look at the times through the eyes of the people at the time.

I cannot, cannot, say "My country, right or wrong,"

I'm not commenting on your judging the actions of a nation altogether, I'm commenting on your judgment of Seuss himself.

when faced with the internment...

An action more to do with fear than rationality. A regrettable one.

with the firebombings...

Depends. Bombings are not automatically "bad", if they are a necessity for a conflict. The Japanese military were not nice people, and the Japanese were being trained (civilians, military, children, etc.) to "fight to the last man". The Japanese were not a simple enemy that we could bargain or negotiate with easily. You had the bushido to contend with, a sense of loyalty so strong that you had to deal with suicide pilots, and a near-religious zeal behind the Arohitogami, the God that walks like a Man (AKA, the emporer, who was really a puppet of the military).

...with the world's only use of nuclear weapons as weapons of war.

Which, at the time, was a direct necessity. You may not agree, but if you actually do the mathematics, the people that died as a result of the atomic bombs paled to estimated casualties if we went into a full-length conflict. Diplomacy was out of the question. Attacking them directly was out of the question (we'd have to wipe out nearly an entire population base; compare attacking an entire nation with lengthened bomb runs and soldiers, add up the casualties of our soldiers and their soldiers, and then compare to attacking two cities with nuclear weapons). Ignoring them was out of the question; they'd just attack us again.

The only thing you can really comment on (outside of internment) is getting into a fight with Japan in the first place, by blocking their oil shipments. That wasn't a direct necessity. However, Japan was allied with Germany, and we wanted to put our hand into the war. That was how we started; we pushed the other kid on the playground, the other kid swung back and gave us a bloody nose. The rest of the struggle wasn't very pretty.

ETA: Here's one thing to not like about that era, BTW.

The Nanking Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_massacre).

It does not justify our actions, and I don't pretend that it does. But I don't think that any nation was innocent in that era. But I also find it interesting that people don't bring up the Nanking Massacre very often. You hear about Hitler's genocide, you hear about Stalin, you even sometimes hear about some communist dictators (but not all of them), but yet I had to learn about the Nanking Massacre in college...

[Glen.Nogami]

I'm not sure what to respond to, nor how to respond.

I do not judge Seuss as badly as you do. I may not like the racist caricatures, but I hardly agree that they're the same as throwing people into internment camps

Again, I am not equating the caricatures with the camps. I am, rather, linking the two, as products of a similar phenomenon. The caricatures, as shown above, at least supported the internment idea.

I hardly agree that Seuss didn't make up for his caricatures
Seuss made up for his caricatures and then some.

I hardly agree that I should dislike the man because of it.

Overall? I probably am a Dr. Seuss fan. My personal enjoyment of the work, or my personal conception of the work's value, which I believe to be fairly large, does not excuse racism.

Also, this is not an issue that can be solved with evidence or anything other than personal opinion.

You have an axe to grind with Seuss. I do not.

Both true.

Unrealistic? Eh, maybe. Poor American? No. You want to make your country into an ideal. That's patriotic. Whether I agree with your ideal or not is another matter; the fact is that you wish to make your country into a better place. But I would be hesitant in judging it's past actions too harshly, especially if you cannot look at the times through the eyes of the people at the time.

True enough, but again, I'm not enough of a deontologist to justify everything that the US did in WWII (more later)

Depends. Bombings are not automatically "bad", if they are a necessity for a conflict. The Japanese military were not nice people, and the Japanese were being trained (civilians, military, children, etc.) to "fight to the last man". The Japanese were not a simple enemy that we could bargain or negotiate with easily. You had the bushido to contend with, a sense of loyalty so strong that you had to deal with suicide pilots, and a near-religious zeal behind the Arohitogami, the God that walks like a Man (AKA, the emporer, who was really a puppet of the military).

All statements above about the Japanese are, as far as I know, accurate. The same thing could have been said, to a lesser extent, about the British. I don't know how justified the blitz was-maybe it was indeed justified. I would argue, from a moral standpoint, that mass murder (of hundreds of thousands in the case of the Japanese bombings) is always "bad." Whether it is necessary is another question, one that you are probably correct on. I still find both of the bombings to be deplorable and shameful. Curtis LeMay himself said something along the lines of "If we lost, I'd probably be indicted as a war criminal."



Which, at the time, was a direct necessity. You may not agree, but if you actually do the mathematics, the people that died as a result of the atomic bombs paled to estimated casualties if we went into a full-length conflict. Diplomacy was out of the question. Attacking them directly was out of the question (we'd have to wipe out nearly an entire population base; compare attacking an entire nation with lengthened bomb runs and soldiers, add up the casualties of our soldiers and their soldiers, and then compare to attacking two cities with nuclear weapons). Ignoring them was out of the question; they'd just attack us again.

I refer to my earlier discussion. A military necessity? Probably. A deplorable act of mass murder, with the most destructive weapons we've got? Yes.

The only thing you can really comment on

Is that so?

is getting into a fight with Japan in the first place, by blocking their oil shipments. That wasn't a direct necessity. However, Japan was allied with Germany, and we wanted to put our hand into the war. That was how we started; we pushed the other kid on the playground, the other kid swung back and gave us a bloody nose. The rest of the struggle wasn't very pretty.

ETA: Here's one thing to not like about that era, BTW.

The Nanking Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_massacre).

It does not justify our actions, and I don't pretend that it does. But I don't think that any nation was innocent in that era. But I also find it interesting that people don't bring up the Nanking Massacre very often. You hear about Hitler's genocide, you hear about Stalin, you even sometimes hear about some communist dictators (but not all of them), but yet I had to learn about the Nanking Massacre in college...

I'm familiar with the rape of Nanking. Being Japanese American (as you both have probably discerned, and have had the civility to ignore), I am acutely aware of Japanese atrocities during the war, but similarly aware of American atrocities against the Japanese. The Bataan death march, the Tokyo firestorm, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima...It is a very difficult moral ground-much to Loss Leader's delight, I'm sure :p-and one that I myself am not entirely sure where I stand. I'll try and summarize my positions on Seuss and the war in a little while here, see if you all agree.

(A side note-I've learned pretty extensively about Nanking in high school. I do attend a private high school, so maybe there's a government conspiracy here.)

[Glen.Nogami]

Alright, here goes, for a bit of clarity in this totally OT argument :D

I believe that, during WWII, Dr. Seuss was a racist.
I believe that Dr. Seuss has been a net positive influence on our nation, far and away.
I believe that that fails to excuse bigotry.

Regarding the always-amusing nuking/firebombing question, I have no idea. Maybe it was just a crappy situation all around. The US committed atrocities. The Japanese committed worse ones. What the US did was wrong, and the fact that we've moved beyond and attempted to atone does not change that. What the Japanese did was, of course, even more wrong, if that's possible, and the Japanese people are still very, very aware of that (note the scandal when the prime minister visited a shrine to war criminals, note the constitution that prohibits a standing army that is still in effect seventy years later.) I suppose what I'm trying to argue for is a similar acknowledgment of the moral ambiguities at work here.

Wicked was a crappy piece of theater.

That should about cover it. Now maybe the debate (if there is one) will be a bit more clear for both sides, as to what's being argued.

ETA: Regarding Lonewulf's post, I'm vehement and perhaps more irate than I genuinely feel for a couple of reasons.
1) as mentioned above, I have a particular sensitivity to and interest in this issue.
2) I enjoy disagreeing with people, probably too much. Because of this, when I argue, I tend to argue passionately, whatever the topic.

I'm really not on an anti-Seuss crusade. Truly. I'm just argumentative.

[Lonewulf]

Again, I am not equating the caricatures with the camps. I am, rather, linking the two, as products of a similar phenomenon. The caricatures, as shown above, at least supported the internment idea.

Not directly. I don't know if Seuss was really for internment or not. If he was, then I would judge him.

Overall? I probably am a Dr. Seuss fan. My personal enjoyment of the work, or my personal conception of the work's value, which I believe to be fairly large, does not excuse racism.

Well, okay, I'll give you that. I'm just not convinced that Seuss was heavily a racist.

Both true.

Agreed then.

True enough, but again, I'm not enough of a deontologist to justify everything that the US did in WWII (more later)

Justification is based on personal beliefs and opinions. What is justified to one person is not justified to another.

All statements above about the Japanese are, as far as I know, accurate. The same thing could have been said, to a lesser extent, about the British.

That may be so. I'm not sure, I never actually studied Britain during the time of WWII.

I don't know how justified the blitz was-maybe it was indeed justified. I would argue, from a moral standpoint, that mass murder (of hundreds of thousands in the case of the Japanese bombings) is always "bad." Whether it is necessary is another question, one that you are probably correct on.

We agree here. Just because something is necessary, does not make it a "good" thing. It makes it a necessary thing.

I still find both of the bombings to be deplorable and shameful.

Eh, I agree up to a point. But if I took a time machine towards that time period, I'm not sure that I'd try to stop the bombings from occuring.

Curtis LeMay himself said something along the lines of "If we lost, I'd probably be indicted as a war criminal."

Perhaps, but I do not think that our actions were the worst of the war. We did not gas 11 million people, Japanese or not, for instance.

That may not justify them to your perspective, but it was a bad time for everyone.

I refer to my earlier discussion. A military necessity? Probably. A deplorable act of mass murder, with the most destructive weapons we've got? Yes.

But still a necessity, with even worse circumstances if we did not use it.

If your only choice is to kill 100 people or 1 person, then killing the 1 person becomes far more legitimate than if you had a choice between 0 and 1. Which is why we can sit here in our comfortable chairs talking online about how bad we were in the past; but when you get to the point of judging between that 100 or 1, you may find ambiguities in morality.

Is that so?

Maybe not.

I'm familiar with the rape of Nanking. Being Japanese American (as you both have probably discerned, and have had the civility to ignore)

I did not know you were Japanese American.

...

Got a cute sister that's single? :D

The reason I did not know is because I do not judge nationality or race depending on what position they take. Americans could easily defend the Japanese, and Americans could easily defend America. It doesn't really matter in the end. An argument is still an argument, no matter who makes it.

I ask any German about Hitler, and they agree unanimously: Hitler Was Bad, mm'kay? So were the concentration camps, so were the way the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. were treated by the state. I ask any American about Hitler, and I get the same unanimous response. Nationality does not matter in that particular case, why should it matter in this one?

I am acutely aware of Japanese atrocities during the war, but similarly aware of American atrocities against the Japanese.

But is there a difference? Was the Japanese march on Nanking the same as the bombings that took place on our side, nuclear or no?

There's a difference between punching someone so that he can't draw a gun on you, and punching someone that isn't expecting it, and then falling on him and punching him in the face again and again until his cheekbones are destroyed.

I'm not familiar with many of the reasons behind the Nanking Massacre, but was it as much a preventive measure as our bombings were? Because, as far as I know, I do not think that our measures were the same as intentionally targetting innocent civilians and killing them to get a "kick" out of it.

I'd also make one more point: Hands-down, if I had to be arrested by a side and put into a POW, I'd want to be arrested by the Americans, at any period of time, than by the Japanese at that particular period of time. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but as far as I know, the Japanese POWs were not nice places to stay the night in. I've heard the claim that Japanese POW camps were even worse than Vietnamese POW camps during the Vietnam War. I'm not sure about this particular point, however.

The Bataan death march, the Tokyo firestorm, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima...It is a very difficult moral ground-much to Loss Leader's delight, I'm sure :p-and one that I myself am not entirely sure where I stand. I'll try and summarize my positions on Seuss and the war in a little while here, see if you all agree.

When it's time to kill or be killed, it's good to get to the killing fast. Especially if, on the grand scale of things, less lives would be lost than if you did not get to the killing.

(A side note-I've learned pretty extensively about Nanking in high school. I do attend a private high school, so maybe there's a government conspiracy here.)

Maybe so. Or maybe I flunked out of high school, and didn't pay too much attention to my studies. :p

Can't blame the schools. Just that Nanking doesn't come up much in actual discussions on that time period.



(OMG. We went from talking about Jack Chick to talking about Dr. Seuss, and now we're talking about WWII actions, morality, and diplomacy. Think it's time for a new thread to be made?)

[Glen.Nogami]

Not directly. I don't know if Seuss was really for internment or not. If he was, then I would judge him.

That caricutare appeared to me to be supporting some sort of action against the mass of Japanese Americans. The faceless Japanese horde, stretching back through the western states, all waiting to pick up TNT...clearly an untenable situation.

Well, okay, I'll give you that. I'm just not convinced that Seuss was heavily a racist.

Yeah, that's something that'd need more research (writings of Seuss, any postwar thoughts of Seuss regarding his wartime work, etc.)

Agreed then.

WELL FINE! :D


Justification is based on personal beliefs and opinions. What is justified to one person is not justified to another.

Agreed.

That may be so. I'm not sure, I never actually studied Britain during the time of WWII.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belzgoxfayo

(I'm an idiot and can't embed. How's that one work?)

We agree here. Just because something is necessary, does not make it a "good" thing. It makes it a necessary thing.

Eh, I agree up to a point. But if I took a time machine towards that time period, I'm not sure that I'd try to stop the bombings from occuring.

I'm not sure, either. Bad but necessary, once again.

Perhaps, but I do not think that our actions were the worst of the war. We did not gas 11 million people, Japanese or not, for instance.

I thought I took pains to make that point clear. We were atrocity newbies, as it were.

That may not justify them to your perspective, but it was a bad time for everyone.

Certainly.

But still a necessity, with even worse circumstances if we did not use it.

If your only choice is to kill 100 people or 1 person, then killing the 1 person becomes far more legitimate than if you had a choice between 0 and 1. Which is why we can sit here in our comfortable chairs talking online about how bad we were in the past; but when you get to the point of judging between that 100 or 1, you may find ambiguities in morality.

This is true, also to a point. Hundreds of thousands of people weighed against more hundreds of thousands of people becomes less easy, I think.


I did not know you were Japanese American.

...

Got a cute sister? :D


They can arrest you for that sort of thing, you know :P.

But is there a difference? Was the Japanese march on Nanking the same as the bombings that took place on our side, nuclear or no?

There's a difference between punching someone so that he can't draw a gun on you, and punching someone that isn't expecting it, and then falling on him and punching him in the face again and again until his cheekbones are destroyed.

I'm not familiar with many of the reasons behind the Nanking Massacre, but was it as much a preventive measure as our bombings were? Because, as far as I know, I do not think that our measures were the same as intentionally targetting innocent civilians and killing them to get a "kick" out of it.

Alright, so, maybe deontologically the nanking massacre was worse. In my view, though, the additional atrocity beyond the killings of the massacre brings it into a scale pretty close to the mass murder of more civilians through bombing. Rape of Nanking-about 300k civilians died. Nuclear bombings-approx 220k. Firebombings-having difficulty finding numbers. This (http://zmag.org/) somewhat questionable source claims 500 thousand deaths, here (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7868)

I'll update this with more reputable numbers if I can find them.

Anyway. With such huge scales of death, I think it becomes hard to say who was worse. Maybe the depravity of the Japanese actions makes them worse. Ultimately, though, I think that when multiple hundreds of thousands of people are dead, whose mass murder was "worse" becomes a fairly pointless question.

I'd also make one more point: Hands-down, if I had to be arrested by a side and put into a POW, I'd want to be arrested by the Americans, at any period of time, than by the Japanese at that particular period of time. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but as far as I know, the Japanese POWs were not nice places to stay the night in.

Oh, certainly. It wasn't called the Bataan morning constitutional.

When it's time to kill or be killed, it's good to get to the killing fast. Especially if, on the grand scale of things, less lives would be lost than if you did not get to the killing.

That is true. The atomic bombings were, as you say, necessary. The firebombings I would still contest, since the sheer destructive potential of the atom bomb went a long way towards demoralization, and perhaps made the firebombings superfluous?

Maybe so. Or maybe I flunked out of high school, and didn't pay too much attention to my studies. :p

Can't blame the schools. Just that Nanking doesn't come up much in actual discussions on that time period.

I dunno, I've never really experienced that. It's always seemed pretty notorious to me, and frequently cited in discussions of various WWII atrocities.

ETA: Yeah, we could do this. Where should we stick such a thread?

More edits: A more biased site (refers to "democide") is quoting about 340k deaths in the strategic bombing campaign (hiroshima and all). I know about 100k died in Tokyo alone, so maybe 300k is pretty close.

[Glen.Nogami]

Also, I was saying that people might have discerned my ancestry from my surname, not from my argument.

[Lonewulf]

That caricutare appeared to me to be supporting some sort of action against the mass of Japanese Americans. The faceless Japanese horde, stretching back through the western states, all waiting to pick up TNT...clearly an untenable situation.

True, there are scary implications in that one. I guess I can't really deny that. Some more context might be nice, though. What was he drawing it in response to?

Yeah, that's something that'd need more research (writings of Seuss, any postwar thoughts of Seuss regarding his wartime work, etc.)

Those would definitely help.

WELL FINE! :D

FINE! :mad: :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belzgoxfayo

(I'm an idiot and can't embed. How's that one work?)

Magic? (I don't know yet)

I'm not sure, either. Bad but necessary, once again.

I thought I took pains to make that point clear. We were atrocity newbies, as it were.

Certainly.

This is true, also to a point. Hundreds of thousands of people weighed against more hundreds of thousands of people becomes less easy, I think.

Hundreds of thousands of people vs. millions becomes a bit more easy, IMO.

They can arrest you for that sort of thing, you know :P.

Who would arrest me, where, and what time period, and for what? :o

Hell, for some Japanese chicks, it's worth it... :D

Alright, so, maybe deontologically the nanking massacre was worse. In my view, though, the additional atrocity beyond the killings of the massacre brings it into a scale pretty close to the mass murder of more civilians through bombing. Rape of Nanking-about 300k civilians died. Nuclear bombings-approx 220k. Firebombings-having difficulty finding numbers. This (http://zmag.org/) somewhat questionable source claims 500 thousand deaths, here (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7868)

I can see your point, but it's still shakey ground to equate the two.

Anyway. With such huge scales of death, I think it becomes hard to say who was worse. Maybe the depravity of the Japanese actions makes them worse. Ultimately, though, I think that when multiple hundreds of thousands of people are dead, whose mass murder was "worse" becomes a fairly pointless question.

The preference would been for them to never have happened at all. Unfortunately, that seems to have been an impossibility.

That is true. The atomic bombings were, as you say, necessary. The firebombings I would still contest, since the sheer destructive potential of the atom bomb went a long way towards demoralization, and perhaps made the firebombings superfluous?

I don't know a whole lot about the firebombings, but didn't the latter come first?

It would seem to me that we used the firebombs with hope that it would demoralize the enemy. It didn't. So we upgraded out of desperation.

I dunno, I've never really experienced that. It's always seemed pretty notorious to me, and frequently cited in discussions of various WWII atrocities.

Probably so. I'm talking about the average conversation with the average joe, though, but my experiences are not your own. :)

ETA: Yeah, we could do this. Where should we stick such a thread?

Politics, maybe?

More edits: A more biased site (refers to "democide") is quoting about 340k deaths in the strategic bombing campaign (hiroshima and all). I know about 100k died in Tokyo alone, so maybe 300k is pretty close.

Hmmm...

[Glen.Nogami]

True, there are scary implications in that one. I guess I can't really deny that. Some more context might be nice, though. What was he drawing it in response to?



Those would definitely help.

Don't have either material atm.

Hundreds of thousands of people vs. millions becomes a bit more easy, IMO.

Yeah, possibly. I still don't think that that sort of judgment can be moral, though. This does imply that a truly moral nation would probably lose a war, so, uh, I dunno :o.



Who would arrest me, where, and what time period, and for what? :o

Hell, for some Japanese chicks, it's worth it... :D

She's in the seventh grade is what I meant.


I can see your point, but it's still shakey ground to equate the two.

I don't know, the Japanese mass murder and the American mass murder were on similar scales, and the American version might have killed even more. I think that the rape of Nanking was, in fact, worse than the American acts, but that they were both so morally appalling that the distinction becomes minimal.


I don't know a whole lot about the firebombings, but didn't the latter come first?

It would seem to me that we used the firebombs with hope that it would demoralize the enemy. It didn't. So we upgraded out of desperation.

Yeah, that's more or less what happened. If only the nuclear bomb had come at the beginning of the war.

Politics, maybe?
Yeah, or history, or our very own philosophy. Kinda broad :D .

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, possibly. I still don't think that that sort of judgment can be moral, though. This does imply that a truly moral nation would probably lose a war, so, uh, I dunno :o.

On the contrary.

Inaction is equivalent to action. Deciding not to do something is still deciding, and acting on that decision.

To refuse to fight and die because of it, if it ends up killing millions of your men, is still committing an evil, only a much grand one.

She's in the seventh grade is what I meant.

Oooooooooh...

That makes my statement just plain awkward. :boggled:

I don't know, the Japanese mass murder and the American mass murder were on similar scales, and the American version might have killed even more.

Though to be fair, Japan did a lot more than simply attack Nanking. But you mentioned those cases already.

I think that the rape of Nanking was, in fact, worse than the American acts, but that they were both so morally appalling that the distinction becomes minimal.

Ehhh, I'll have to disagree that the distinction becomes minimal. One was a regrettable form of self defense (American attacks on Japan). The other hardly seemed an action of self defense, but I'm unsure (Japan attacking Nanking)

Yeah, that's more or less what happened. If only the nuclear bomb had come at the beginning of the war.

Why? How were we to really know that firebombing wouldn't be enough? If it was enough, then far fewer people would have ended up dead.

This would be a case of Post Ad Hoc reasoning, or perhaps just simply, "Hindsight is 20/20".

Yeah, or history, or our very own philosophy. Kinda broad :D .

Indeed, it is.

[Glen.Nogami]

On the contrary.

Inaction is equivalent to action. Deciding not to do something is still deciding, and acting on that decision.

To refuse to fight and die because of it, if it ends up killing millions of your men, is still committing an evil, only a much grand one.

No, I was talking about the widespread killing of civilians. As regards fighting back against an aggressor, I do think that that is certainly a moral action. By "lose," I didn't mean simply take no hostile action, but rather lack the demoralizing force that the firebombings and nuclear bombings carried, without which we might have lost, or at least have had an immensely more painful victory over Japan.

Oooooooooh...

That makes my statement just plain awkward. :boggled:

Hehe, just a little :p .


Ehhh, I'll have to disagree that the distinction becomes minimal. One was a regrettable form of self defense (American attacks on Japan). The other hardly seemed an action of self defense, but I'm unsure (Japan attacking Nanking)

Well, it was self defense against military targets in Japan, of which there were some, but even what passed for precision bombing at the time wasn't used. Just blanket incendiaries dropped at a low altitude over known residential districts. It did constitute, I think, the intentional mass killing of Japanese civilians.

-Full disclosure-The US did drop leaflets warning the soon-to-be firebombed cities. Nevertheless, the death toll was at least a couple hundred thousand.

Why? How were we to really know that firebombing wouldn't be enough? If it was enough, then far fewer people would have ended up dead.

This would be a case of Post Ad Hoc reasoning, or perhaps just simply, "Hindsight is 20/20".

The second part is probably true, but still: If we had the atom bomb at the beginning of WWII and attempted to force Japan's surrender by the same method early on, I think the destructive power of the nuclear bomb might have been effective. (note: Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually killed fewer people than the firebombings, even including those that died later from burns or other side effects.) The problem is, we probably would not have been aware of the sheer intimidation potential of the nuclear bomb. Maybe we might have used more in a mass attack, thus raising the toll to more like millions, maybe we would have used a few in all the axis countries very early in the war, effectively saving millions of lives. It was an essentially pointless hypothetical, anyway.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Reading Jack Chick cartoons that have been linked to from here, I always gave a condescending laugh. Wherever it is in America's heartland where this stuff flies, it certainly isn't here in a suburb 30 miles from New York City.

I was wrong. Jack Chick publications found their way into my local jail and are stirring up quite the controversy. It seems Muslim inmates in my county don't have their own chaplain and can't even get Halal food. They have to settle, ironically, for the kosher meals. Now, they're being told theirs is a false God and Muhammed is a "religious dictator."

See for yourself: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070413/NEWS03/704130409
Hrm, it would appear that there is indeed inequality occurring. The jail should get rid of the chaplain and the kosher food.

[Lonewulf]

No, I was talking about the widespread killing of civilians. As regards fighting back against an aggressor, I do think that that is certainly a moral action. By "lose," I didn't mean simply take no hostile action, but rather lack the demoralizing force that the firebombings and nuclear bombings carried, without which we might have lost, or at least have had an immensely more painful victory over Japan.

I was talking in a more general sense.

Sometimes, it isn't a false dichotomy; sometimes, you really only have a few choices. And yes, you're right, "more painful victory" or "we might have lost" is perfectly correct.

Should we have specifically targeted civilian targets? I don't know. I have to figure that there was a reason. It's hard for me to accept that we didn't do a cost-benefit analysis before we did.

Well, it was self defense against military targets in Japan, of which there were some, but even what passed for precision bombing at the time wasn't used. Just blanket incendiaries dropped at a low altitude over known residential districts. It did constitute, I think, the intentional mass killing of Japanese civilians.

Yes, I agree with you. The question was, was it necessary to attack the civilians? Personally, I do not know. I think that there had to have been a reason, at the least; you're making me question that, though, which is good. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

-Full disclosure-The US did drop leaflets warning the soon-to-be firebombed cities.

To me, this indicates that we were less concerned with targeting innocent civilians, though. Why else give them a warning?

Destroying their property and industrial strength though... that's a different issue. And still questionable, but not as much as taking their lives.

The second part is probably true, but still: If we had the atom bomb at the beginning of WWII and attempted to force Japan's surrender by the same method early on, I think the destructive power of the nuclear bomb might have been effective. (note: Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually killed fewer people than the firebombings, even including those that died later from burns or other side effects.)

You're still working with hindsight, though.

The two atom bombs did all of their damage in two strikes (one for each), while the firebombings took place over a period of time. And I don't think we had any real reason to assume that the casualties may very well have been higher; I think that if we did act, we would have acted upon limited information.

The problem is, we probably would not have been aware of the sheer intimidation potential of the nuclear bomb. Maybe we might have used more in a mass attack, thus raising the toll to more like millions, maybe we would have used a few in all the axis countries very early in the war, effectively saving millions of lives. It was an essentially pointless hypothetical, anyway.

Which is part of my point: What you are stating is relying on hindsight. Before actually using the bombs, you had every reason to assume that things may happen differently.

[Abdul Alhazred]

What's the problem with Kosher food?

If it's Kosher, it's also Halal (except for wine).

Not vice-versa, however. The Jewish rules are more stringent when it comes to acceptable meat.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What's the problem with Kosher food?

If it's Kosher, it's also Halal (except for wine).

Not vice-versa, however. The Jewish rules are more stringent when it comes to acceptable meat.
Kosher hot dogs ftw.

[Glen.Nogami]

I was talking in a more general sense.

Sometimes, it isn't a false dichotomy; sometimes, you really only have a few choices. And yes, you're right, "more painful victory" or "we might have lost" is perfectly correct.

Should we have specifically targeted civilian targets? I don't know. I have to figure that there was a reason. It's hard for me to accept that we didn't do a cost-benefit analysis before we did.

One would hope, anyway.

Yes, I agree with you. The question was, was it necessary to attack the civilians? Personally, I do not know. I think that there had to have been a reason, at the least; you're making me question that, though, which is good. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna do some more research this afternoon, see if I can't figure out how much of the firebombings were industrial, how many were necessary, etc. It has been oddly difficult to get coherent info on it from wiki.

To me, this indicates that we were less concerned with targeting innocent civilians, though. Why else give them a warning?

Destroying their property and industrial strength though... that's a different issue. And still questionable, but not as much as taking their lives.

It's possible that there were multiple motives here. A wish for civilian destruction, for demoralization purposes conflicting with the moral high ground that the United States generally occupies.

You're still working with hindsight, though.

The two atom bombs did all of their damage in two strikes (one for each), while the firebombings took place over a period of time. And I don't think we had any real reason to assume that the casualties may very well have been higher; I think that if we did act, we would have acted upon limited information.

Which is part of my point: What you are stating is relying on hindsight. Before actually using the bombs, you had every reason to assume that things may happen differently.

You're correct, regarding hindsight, I think. I'm looking back, analyzing the situation with the facts of the time and saying "Well, they could have gotten this." That is, I think, unlikely. The benefit of history, of what actually happened is difficult to ignore in speculations about the past.

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, I'm gonna do some more research this afternoon, see if I can't figure out how much of the firebombings were industrial, how many were necessary, etc. It has been oddly difficult to get coherent info on it from wiki.

It's an emotional topic.

It's possible that there were multiple motives here. A wish for civilian destruction, for demoralization purposes conflicting with the moral high ground that the United States generally occupies.

It's possible...

You're correct, regarding hindsight, I think. I'm looking back, analyzing the situation with the facts of the time and saying "Well, they could have gotten this." That is, I think, unlikely. The benefit of history, of what actually happened is difficult to ignore in speculations about the past.

Definitely.

No matter what, whenever you look at the past, you always look back at it with the perspective of today, not the perspective of yesterday. That kind of vision tends to skew things, put them out of focus, and sometimes make it seem far more black and white.

[Abdul Alhazred]

One of the purposes of bombing in WWII was to break civilian morale.

This was said at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris

You wanna have a blood feud about it now?