Jack Chick Strikes Local Jail

[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 =-

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Thanks.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

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

 

[Sceptic Realist]

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

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_119514627f0a9679c5.jpg[/URL]

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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_119514627f0a9679c5.jpg[/qimg]

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.

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.

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 -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

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?

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 -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.

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!

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?

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

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 somewhat questionable source claims 500 thousand deaths, here

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.

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!

FINE!

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 .

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

Hell, for some Japanese chicks, it's worth 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 somewhat questionable source claims 500 thousand deaths, here

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...