4 ms·

The attitude is a dangerously rose-tinted view of war, the US was operating internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent you know. In a war, dissent is

by roenxi 1y ago

The attitude is a dangerously rose-tinted view of war, the US was operating internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent you know. In a war, dissent is quashed. That doesn't mean that it isn't there, just that there is a high tolerance for sub-optimal decisions because there isn't time to ruminate. The US isn't getting poor outcomes from their manufacturing sector because people are divided, but because the US has policies tending towards deindustrialisation and there is a broad political consensus to keep them. Ban the smokestacks, ban the smokestack economy and enjoy the clean air.

divbzero 1y ago
I only learned recently that several Japanese Americans were killed in those camps. [1]: https://www.history.com/articles/japanese-american-relocation#Violence-in-Prison-Camps https://www.history.com/articles/japanese-american-relocatio... [2]: https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Homicide_in_camp/ https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Homicide_in_camp/
- Duwensatzaj 1y ago
  Do you know about the Niihau Incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident
rayiner 1y ago
> the US was operating internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent you know That is non-responsive to the point raised by OP. That had little effect on Americans unless they were the small minority of Japanese. The point OP raised is much more salient. If we end up in another World War, what lessons do you want to have from the past? “Don’t put racial minorities in internment camps” is well and good, but it won’t help you build a giant navy and win a war. I learned con law from a social studies PhD who had little interest in the constitution, and focused the entire class on this or that minoritized or oppressed group. It’s a terrible way to learn constitutional law—or anything else—because you over-focus on the 20% of the story while missing the big picture about how the country was actually designed to work.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - rayiner 1y ago
    [flagged]
- bcrosby95 1y ago
  I think you missed their point. Everyone was pulling in the same direction because not doing so could land you in prison. During a war (a real declared one) you have little to no right to free speech. More than one person was jailed due to dissent.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    That’s a good lesson. What the U.S. did in war time isn’t dissimilar to what China and Singapore did in peacetime to lift themselves out of poverty in a generation.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - roenxi 1y ago
      The quashing of dissent isn't what is propelling them forward though - it is probably holding them back more than anything else. Allowing dissent and maybe even adjusting to it generally leads to better results in the long term. I was mulling on my commute today as I dodged several homeless people. I can't speak to the US experience, but in Australia if I'd offered those people jobs at the wages and conditions of Chinese workers in the 90s, with the expectation of achieving the same civilisation progress as China ... I would expect to be fined and told off. If I persisted in running a business that way, eventually I'd probably be arrested. Quashing dissent is illegal in the West, but that isn't the thing that needs to be changed to get industrial results. We need to legalise the industry part. Pollution has to be acceptable, mistakes decriminalised and it needs to be easy to employ people productively. All these Western countries are going a good way to banning mining, restricting cheap energy, blocking industrial processes as environmentally unsound and over-regulating how business is done. All on purpose and largely due to consensus opinions that too much industrial progress is bad for people. The result is much to most of the capital investment for the last few decades seeming to have happened in Asia where they were happy to let the world improve around them. It has nothing to do with division. If anything we don't have enough division, the people who want progress are hamstrung because they are forced to conform to the whims of timid environmentalists. (and I endorse bcrosby95's reading of my comment).
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
bluGill 1y ago
The us is getting great manufacturing results - but because of automation only a few people labor and so it is invisible
- brandonmenc 1y ago
  We can't build ships.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    We could but divison of labor is a good thing in general.
  - rascul 1y ago
    We do build some ships, though.
GuardianCaveman 1y ago
You don't think people with victory gardens, and buying warbonds, scraping together spare silk and aluminum and other metals to donate to the war effort, manufacturing of vehicles and other factories converted to output munitions and tanks and other materials is impressive? You can be amazed at the output and the point of the article without turning this into yet another guilt post about how bad America is. What we did was wrong. But also, we stopped the nazis and the japanese and the italians. the war in the pacific killed 15-20 million chinese civilians, and I won't even go into the other theaters or the war crimes of the japanese or the axis powers (nothing to do with the internment). But maybe whatever the opposite of rose tinted glasses is the way you're viewing the wars. And no, no amount of good by US forces justifies or absolves us of the sin of the japanese internment but maybe some credit is due at least.
- int_19h 1y ago
  FWIW, what stopped the Nazis, for the most part, was the bodies of Soviet conscripts.
  - tzs 1y ago
    Yup, but they needed arms to do that and a huge amount of Soviet arms came from the US. The US supplied a little over half of all ammo, shells, mines, and explosives the Soviet Union used during the war. The US also supplied something like 400k trucks, 13k combat vehicles, 14k aircraft, and 13k tanks along with petroleum and food that the Soviet army needed to sustain operations.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    "British intelligence, US material, and Soviet blood" Which is STILL a ridiculous oversimplification that does not accurately capture the level of death and sheer effort expended because Germany and Japan decided that reality wasn't important and Fascism was neat.

by roenxi 1y ago

divbzero 1y ago

I only learned recently that several Japanese Americans were killed in those camps. [1]: https://www.history.com/articles/japanese-american-relocation#Violence-in-Prison-Camps https://www.history.com/articles/japanese-american-relocatio... [2]: https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Homicide_in_camp/ https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Homicide_in_camp/

Duwensatzaj 1y ago
Do you know about the Niihau Incident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_incident

rayiner 1y ago

> the US was operating internment camps for US citizens of Japanese descent you know That is non-responsive to the point raised by OP. That had little effect on Americans unless they were the small minority of Japanese. The point OP raised is much more salient. If we end up in another World War, what lessons do you want to have from the past? “Don’t put racial minorities in internment camps” is well and good, but it won’t help you build a giant navy and win a war. I learned con law from a social studies PhD who had little interest in the constitution, and focused the entire class on this or that minoritized or oppressed group. It’s a terrible way to learn constitutional law—or anything else—because you over-focus on the 20% of the story while missing the big picture about how the country was actually designed to work.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 1y ago
  [flagged]
bcrosby95 1y ago
I think you missed their point. Everyone was pulling in the same direction because not doing so could land you in prison. During a war (a real declared one) you have little to no right to free speech. More than one person was jailed due to dissent.
- rayiner 1y ago
  That’s a good lesson. What the U.S. did in war time isn’t dissimilar to what China and Singapore did in peacetime to lift themselves out of poverty in a generation.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - roenxi 1y ago
    The quashing of dissent isn't what is propelling them forward though - it is probably holding them back more than anything else. Allowing dissent and maybe even adjusting to it generally leads to better results in the long term. I was mulling on my commute today as I dodged several homeless people. I can't speak to the US experience, but in Australia if I'd offered those people jobs at the wages and conditions of Chinese workers in the 90s, with the expectation of achieving the same civilisation progress as China ... I would expect to be fined and told off. If I persisted in running a business that way, eventually I'd probably be arrested. Quashing dissent is illegal in the West, but that isn't the thing that needs to be changed to get industrial results. We need to legalise the industry part. Pollution has to be acceptable, mistakes decriminalised and it needs to be easy to employ people productively. All these Western countries are going a good way to banning mining, restricting cheap energy, blocking industrial processes as environmentally unsound and over-regulating how business is done. All on purpose and largely due to consensus opinions that too much industrial progress is bad for people. The result is much to most of the capital investment for the last few decades seeming to have happened in Asia where they were happy to let the world improve around them. It has nothing to do with division. If anything we don't have enough division, the people who want progress are hamstrung because they are forced to conform to the whims of timid environmentalists. (and I endorse bcrosby95's reading of my comment).

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

bluGill 1y ago

The us is getting great manufacturing results - but because of automation only a few people labor and so it is invisible

brandonmenc 1y ago
We can't build ships.
- bluGill 1y ago
  We could but divison of labor is a good thing in general.
- rascul 1y ago
  We do build some ships, though.

GuardianCaveman 1y ago

You don't think people with victory gardens, and buying warbonds, scraping together spare silk and aluminum and other metals to donate to the war effort, manufacturing of vehicles and other factories converted to output munitions and tanks and other materials is impressive? You can be amazed at the output and the point of the article without turning this into yet another guilt post about how bad America is. What we did was wrong. But also, we stopped the nazis and the japanese and the italians. the war in the pacific killed 15-20 million chinese civilians, and I won't even go into the other theaters or the war crimes of the japanese or the axis powers (nothing to do with the internment). But maybe whatever the opposite of rose tinted glasses is the way you're viewing the wars. And no, no amount of good by US forces justifies or absolves us of the sin of the japanese internment but maybe some credit is due at least.

int_19h 1y ago
FWIW, what stopped the Nazis, for the most part, was the bodies of Soviet conscripts.
- tzs 1y ago
  Yup, but they needed arms to do that and a huge amount of Soviet arms came from the US. The US supplied a little over half of all ammo, shells, mines, and explosives the Soviet Union used during the war. The US also supplied something like 400k trucks, 13k combat vehicles, 14k aircraft, and 13k tanks along with petroleum and food that the Soviet army needed to sustain operations.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  "British intelligence, US material, and Soviet blood" Which is STILL a ridiculous oversimplification that does not accurately capture the level of death and sheer effort expended because Germany and Japan decided that reality wasn't important and Fascism was neat.