5 ms·

What you're saying is terrifying. You want history and historical debate to be completely politicized, with all authors investigated for having the correct ideo

What you're saying is terrifying. You want history and historical debate to be completely politicized, with all authors investigated for having the correct ideological underpinnings. History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings.

sandworm101 11y ago
Not all, only where authors so openly insert modern political views into historical situations. If this were a more detached examination of the Japanese bomb program then I probably would welcome the new information. >History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings. Yes. Given the scope of what's available today re WWII, everything beyond primary sources should be investigated. Nothing should be taken as fact simply because it is written down. If you start accepting facts simply because they are in some online article, you are down the road to the belief that lizard people run the world. Every author's background and political goals are relevant where they inject opinion atop original research.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  > Not all, only where authors so openly insert modern political views into historical situations. And who decides if they "so openly" do that? Apparently you think it is happening here, while to me, your perspective seems very puzzling. You appear to be looking for something so hard, you find it even when it isn't there. Where did this article inject opinion? The part you so take issue with, the closing, is a literal quote.
the_af 11y ago
In what way is it terrifying to analyze the hugely controversial deployment of a terrible weapon against a civilian population, and the post-hoc justifications for this act? This is not science. This is war and recent history, which are political beasts by nature. This was the deployment of a terrifying strategic weapon, which has doubly political implications. Any piece of journalism or recent news related to this -- either justifying or decrying this horrific historical event -- must be closely scrutinized by everyone interested in the subject matter. If tomorrow a piece of news reads "secret documents have been uncovered which prove conclusively and decisively that the dropping of the atom bomb was done only to scare the Soviets and had no relation to the actual threat posed by the Japanese army, and the government and high command was aware of this, and here is a secret recording that proves it once and for all" this would also merit close scrutiny: why are they saying this now? Why near this date? Who benefits from this interpretation? Who doesn't? Is there any way this alleged recording could have been taken out of context or faked? Will the current military be similarly willing to deploy nuclear weapons against cities to impress other world powers, or have modern attitudes changed? If this doesn't merit close scrutiny, what does?
- brighteyes 11y ago
  Of course I agree we should debate that very important topic. No objection to that. What I find worrying is that sandworm takes a quite objective piece of reporting - a news article, not an opinion piece - and begins immediately to make assumptions about the author's politics, and to find grievous fault in those politics. He or she jumps straight to attacking the author and their motives, instead of considering what they are saying. sandworm doesn't even find anything not objective in the article. His or her complaints amounts to "the author presents evidence that, while true, is clearly meant to argue such-and-such specific political point of view, and they are terrible people for promoting that agenda." The article is just an interesting piece on new evidence. Sure, it could in theory be used to argue for some political side (more than one in fact), but no one actually did that, except in sandworm's head. If we lose the ability to have objective discussions about history, facts, and science, we lose as a society.

sandworm101 11y ago

Not all, only where authors so openly insert modern political views into historical situations. If this were a more detached examination of the Japanese bomb program then I probably would welcome the new information. >History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings. Yes. Given the scope of what's available today re WWII, everything beyond primary sources should be investigated. Nothing should be taken as fact simply because it is written down. If you start accepting facts simply because they are in some online article, you are down the road to the belief that lizard people run the world. Every author's background and political goals are relevant where they inject opinion atop original research.

brighteyes 11y ago
> Not all, only where authors so openly insert modern political views into historical situations. And who decides if they "so openly" do that? Apparently you think it is happening here, while to me, your perspective seems very puzzling. You appear to be looking for something so hard, you find it even when it isn't there. Where did this article inject opinion? The part you so take issue with, the closing, is a literal quote.

the_af 11y ago

In what way is it terrifying to analyze the hugely controversial deployment of a terrible weapon against a civilian population, and the post-hoc justifications for this act? This is not science. This is war and recent history, which are political beasts by nature. This was the deployment of a terrifying strategic weapon, which has doubly political implications. Any piece of journalism or recent news related to this -- either justifying or decrying this horrific historical event -- must be closely scrutinized by everyone interested in the subject matter. If tomorrow a piece of news reads "secret documents have been uncovered which prove conclusively and decisively that the dropping of the atom bomb was done only to scare the Soviets and had no relation to the actual threat posed by the Japanese army, and the government and high command was aware of this, and here is a secret recording that proves it once and for all" this would also merit close scrutiny: why are they saying this now? Why near this date? Who benefits from this interpretation? Who doesn't? Is there any way this alleged recording could have been taken out of context or faked? Will the current military be similarly willing to deploy nuclear weapons against cities to impress other world powers, or have modern attitudes changed? If this doesn't merit close scrutiny, what does?

brighteyes 11y ago
Of course I agree we should debate that very important topic. No objection to that. What I find worrying is that sandworm takes a quite objective piece of reporting - a news article, not an opinion piece - and begins immediately to make assumptions about the author's politics, and to find grievous fault in those politics. He or she jumps straight to attacking the author and their motives, instead of considering what they are saying. sandworm doesn't even find anything not objective in the article. His or her complaints amounts to "the author presents evidence that, while true, is clearly meant to argue such-and-such specific political point of view, and they are terrible people for promoting that agenda." The article is just an interesting piece on new evidence. Sure, it could in theory be used to argue for some political side (more than one in fact), but no one actually did that, except in sandworm's head. If we lose the ability to have objective discussions about history, facts, and science, we lose as a society.