Alright. Now all of you who are constant readers know that I'm all about finding and exposing the truth, and I don't care about whose toes I step on. I do not intend to mislead or misinform. I try not to be biased towards one idea, however, it may come off as such when exposing the other side of the story. We all have opinions. We all have beliefs. We all have different ways of doing things. Doesn't make us right and others wrong. What's great about this country is that we all get to share our beliefs. Your beliefs may differ from mine, and that's fine. If you don't like what you're reading, don't read. This is my blog, so what I want to say will be on here. If you want to express your ideas, leave a comment or start your own blog.
I'll start off by saying that I'm a conservative. I don't identify myself with the Republican party, because frankly, a lot of them don't share my beliefs. I'm pro-choice, to a point. I believe that after the first trimester you've made your decision to keep the baby. The only way to have an abortion after that point is if the mother's life was in danger and having one would save her. However, it would be her choice, and I believe the federal government has no right to tell her what to do with her body. I leave religion out of my decision making. I see a separation of church and state. I don't feel it's correct to make decisions based solely on religious beliefs. I'm not saying that religious people are ignorant, because they're not. I'm saying that there's a place for faith, and it's not in government. Again, my beliefs.
Now, the point of this post is to expose some truths. Especially historical truths, which is also what this blog is for. Let me make some observations for you.
The Republican Party was founded on the principles viewed by Abraham Lincoln, who himself always went back to the principles of the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence was very important to him. We should also think about why the Republican Party was created. The party was created due to the public opinion in this country, towards slavery, breaking away from the principles of the founding fathers. Many people in this country, mainly in the Democratic Party, accepted the idea that slavery was a good thing, even though the founding fathers only tolerated slavery out of necessity. Without the toleration of slavery, the southern states would not have signed and ratified the Constitution and our country would not exist the way we know it today. Thomas Jefferson was the founder of what eventually became the Democratic Party, and he argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the owner. John C. Calhoun turned it around, stating that slavery was actually a good thing for both slave and owner. Calhoun defended slavery and by doing so went against the principles of the founders. He argued that the proposition of "all men are created equal," was a huge political error and was completely false. Calhoun then transformed the Democratic Party of Jefferson into the Party of Slavery.
(Just so you know Calhoun was VP for John Q. Adams, and served as secretary of war 1817-1825. He was a leader in politics in South Carolina, and a major political theorist, died in 1860.)
Anyways, a very liberal position that this party took was regarding slavery. They believed that slavery should be decided by popular vote and that it should be decided by the people in the territories. Whether or not they want slavery to be outlawed, or if they would allow southerners to transport slaves into the new territories. So then we have a war that lasts for 4 years and slavery would be abolished 8 months after the end of the war. After the war Democrats continued their war against African-Americans, which had been going on even during the Civil War. (They actively worked to undercut the Union war effort.) It is also known that the KKK was the arm of terror for the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction. In the end, Democrats defeated Reconstruction and at the same time created Jim Crow. We should all know who Jim Crow was. Look up the Jim Crow laws. These were the base of the segregation laws that we know which caused the riots in the 60s for Civil Rights. Democratic liberalism didn't involve the issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the epitome of a liberal racist.
(I might even do a post about Wilson at some point. He can be seen as the father of progressive ideals. Maybe not the father, but a big proponent. As we all know, progressives have taken over the Democratic Party that we know today.)
In the 1920s the Republican Party repeatedly called for some type of anti-lynching legislation which was rejected repeatedly by Democrats, so for the most part African-Americans supported Republicans. It wasn't until FDR came out with his New Deal that African-Americans broke away from the Republican Party and went along with Democrats, and became Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle. Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by Democrats. If you look at the voting records of both parties, 96% of Republicans were for the Act. 80% of Democrats were opposed to it.
Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R) pushed the bill through, even though Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D), continued to refuse to bring the bill to a vote. Of those no-votes, we get names of people such as Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd, who remained a powerful figure in the Senate until his death on June 28, 2010, and that is another point.
Robert Byrd is a double standard. Robert Byrd was viewed as a hero in the Democratic Party when he died, yet Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and not only was he just a member, he became Exalted Cyclops while in the organization. He even used the "N" word on national TV. But Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services, noting "rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Republican president Eisenhower had to intervene when a Democrat governor of AR by the name of Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock. We all know about this standoff and it is one of the most famous in this country. Only after the intervention by Eisenhower was the standoff settled.
Going back to FDR, considered to be the hero of modern day Democrats, let's look at some of his bigotry:
Japanese Internment Camps during WWII. Through the use of presidential Executive Orders, FDR single-handedly imprisoned an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, and the majority were natural born 2nd and 3rd generation American citizens. Countless civilians lost property, fortunes, and some even lost their lives due to the result of these internment camps. These were basically America's concentration camps. He was also looking at doing the same to Italian-Americans, and German-Americans.
It is also known that Roosevelt had spoken with Stalin about giving Stalin the displaced Jews from the war and anyone who knows anything about Communist Russia, knows they hated the Jews.
Then I hear from current Democrats, that it's all in the past. "All of that stuff is in the past and we're different now." "We push a pro-African-American agenda." Not based on reality.
Let's look at a couple of examples:
EDUCATION: One of the biggest obstacles our country faces for true equality is education. Really think about that. If the Democrats truly wanted to help minority children, which the Democrats are constantly stating during speeches that they work for those children, then they would embrace school choice. School choice allows minority children to escape from being stuck in sub-standard schools and allow them to go to schools where they can receive the best education possible. But why don't Democrats go this route? The answer is quite simple. Teachers' unions. The Democratic Party depends on the financial support from the largest union in this country, and allowing school choice would offend the teachers' unions. So in order to keep the support from the unions they sacrifice African-American interests, mainly because the unions have more pull.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: This has become the quintessential part of Democratic racial politics. Yet, affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to it's own core. Think about it. It's basically saying that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It kind of reminds me of what Calhoun was saying. "Blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need the whites' help, and woe be to any African-American who wanders off the Democratic plantation." This mindset is clearly racist, yet goes unnoticed, or is purposefully ignored.
As a conservative I've been told that I am part of the party that is totally racist. We hate people of all colors, and hate people who have nothing. Well I can assure you that I am not racist, and I don't drive fancy cars or live in a mansion. I've been where I've worked 2 jobs at the same time, just to make extra money for my wedding, so I don't hate the have-nots, however, I do dislike those who choose not to do anything to change their situation and expect others to bail them out. I'm not here to pick on one side. I'm here to expose the side that seems to get a free pass when they shouldn't. I'm showing that the Democrat party isn't the innocent one that it's portrayed as. Both sides are guilty of some form of racism/bigotry and both sides have people within the party that act racist. But to say that only Republicans are racist and bigots and haters, is to basically lie. Democrats in office use the race card as a way to win elections. Look at the election of 2008. What a pathetic way to run a campaign. Whatever happened to running on positions and merit, or record? No instead we got, "If you don't vote for Obama you're a racist." Disgusting. As stated before, both parties are guilty of such actions. I'm merely exposing the side that goes unnoticed. The next time someone is on TV or radio and is accusing Republicans of racial hatred, remember the people on the following list. These people are considered heroes and leaders of the Democrat Party, and have participated in racism, and many were/are affiliated with racist hate groups. These are the people to think about when someone says the Democrat Party is different now than it was in the time of Lincoln. The following list of people is from FDR's New Deal Era to present. The list does not include all who are guilty, but names we all should know.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment
Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group
Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television
Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs
Rev. Al Sharpton, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known for inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City
Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups
Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters
Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent.
Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast
Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis
Friday, December 16, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
A Date Living in Infamy
President Franklin D. Roosevelt: Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong, Guam, the Philippine Islands, Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. . .
 |
| USS Arizona |
 |
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong, Guam, the Philippine Islands, Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. . .
70 years ago today, the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor causing the following damage:
4 Battleships sunk
3 Battleships damaged
1 Battleship grounded
2 Destroyers sunk
1 Destroyer damaged
3 Cruisers damaged
188 Aircraft destroyed
155 Aircraft damaged
2,402 men killed
1,247 wounded.
The first picture I put on here is of the USS Arizona. This is the most famous picture of Pearl Harbor. Of those killed this day, nearly half of the total, (1,177), were due to the explosion of the Arizona's forward magazine after it was it hit by a modified 16 inch shell. I'm not going to give details of the attack since this will be a short post. I just wanted to remind you of today so that you would think about it.
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN....
Friday, October 28, 2011
Our National Anthem(Short Post)
O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
’Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation.
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave
(This next stanza was the one added after the start of the Civil War.)
When our land is illumined with liberty's smile,
If a foe from within strikes a blow at her glory,
Down, down with the traitor that tries to defile
The flag of the stars, and the page of her story!
By the millions unchained,
Who their birthright have gained
We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained;
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave,
While the land of the free is the home of the brave.
GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!!!!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Something Shocking (Well, Not To Me)
This post may upset people. In fact, it might upset more people than it educates. Frankly most people don't want the pot stirred. That's fine. However, that's why I do what I do, and I'm going to assume that if you are reading this, then you want to know what I have to say. Maybe you want to oppose me. Maybe you want to learn, or maybe you just want something to read while you have some time to kill. I'm going to write out some quotes, and I'm going to let you tell me who said/wrote them.
"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"
"This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry"
Who said these things? If you guessed Adolf Hitler, I wouldn't fault you. Look at the first quote. Talking about taking back the old German territory of the West Bank of the Rhine. The third quote defining the religion of the Jewish population. Deciding if the "everyday Jew" needs to be freed so that "mankind" can be free. Sounds like one of Hitler's rants. Sounds like him wanting to build the Third Reich in his own way. But what if I told you that what you assumed was incorrect? Would you believe me? Would you believe that Hitler wasn't a far right-extremist? Of course you wouldn't. You were taught years ago that Hitler was a fascist. A far right-wing nut-job who had issues. But you would be wrong about him being far-right. Let me explain.
The first two quotes you read were written by a man by the name of Friedrich Engels, who was Karl Marx's co-author. As we all know, Karl Marx was a communist. The third quote was written by Karl Marx himself. What's even more fascinating is that the title of the essay Marx wrote is "Zur Judenfrage." The Englsih translation is "The Jewish Question." Is it a coincidence that Hitler's famous phrase is, "Endloesung der Judenfrage" or "Final solution of the Jewish question." Hmm. Some of the most condemned concepts of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels. Including the language used. But, I thought Communism was on the left. It is.
What is the left? What are the ideas from the left today? We know they support labor unions, and believe that the government was created to help the needy. To better explain it, I'll use a description from Edward Feser of someone who would be a good Presidential candidate for the "modern-day US Democratic party" as well as use a quote to describe the left's belief of labor unions. Please let me know if I'm incorrect in this description:
Look at the protests in Madison, WI that took place earlier this year. The Republican legislature and governor sought to change the rules when dealing with union contracts, and there were massive protests saying that the Republicans have no heart and look to end safe work environments. So naturally, these two quotes describe the view of liberals, or left-leaning people. Many of them are for gays rights, strict gun-control laws, workers' rights, labor unions, they are usually against forms of Christianity (mainly Catholicism), they hate big corporations or chain stores and prefer small businesses when confronted with large successful stores. Back to the point I was making. These two quotes sound very much like a leftist in today's world. However, the first quote is a very accurate description of Hitler, and the second quote, about labor unions, is an excerpt from Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf, where in that chapter, Hitler stressed the importance of unions, so much so, that he went through great efforts to have the unions support his party.
Another quote from Artur Axman, who was a Nazi youth leader remembering a conversation with Goebbels in the Hitler bunker May 1, 1945. Same day Goebbels and his wife killed themselves after she killed their children.
"He (Goebbels) said one of the great accomplishments of the Hitler regime had been to win the German workers over almost totally to the national cause. We had made patriots of the workers, he said, as the Kaiser had dismally failed to do. This, he kept repeating, had been one of the real triumphs of the movement. We Nazis were a non-Marxist yet revolutionary party, anticapitalist, antibourgeois, antireactionary...."
Hmm. For some reason these ideas sound familiar. Oh that's right, Michael Moore had a movie about capitalism and how this country is wrong for supporting it. Weird, Michael Moore hates capitalism, yet benefits from it. Oh well. Now I won't get caught up in just quotes. Let's also look at symbols.
Pre-WWI socialists (including American socialists) wore a patch on their shoulder. A red one. One that was used by the Red Army in the early days of their creation. The patch was red with a golden symbol in the middle. The socialists used the symbol on the grounds that it was two arms representing two entwined letters. They were both the letter "S" which was to stand for socialist. Wanna take a bet as to what that symbol was? I'll give you a hint. Hitler used the two "S's" to stand for "Sozialismus" and "Sieg". "Sozialismus" means Socialism, and "Sieg" means Victory. Give up? Know what a swastika is? Hitler said that it stood for the victory of Aryan men (original speakers of Indo-European languages) and the victory of the idea that the worker was a creative force. Nationalism and socialism.
It seems I'm ganging up on socialists, so let's talk about the conservatives that were around in Hitler's day. Hitler despised the conservatives. Both in Germany, and especially in Britain, as well as they despised him. They weren't anywhere close to being an ally of him. His most famous foe, and arch enemy, was a famous conservative. Winston Churchill. This is the same man who once said, "If you are not a liberal by 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by 40, you have no brain." The same man who praised the Finns for "tearing the guts out of the Red Army," found himself in a pickle. He was forced to become an ally with Stalin due to Churchill seeing Hitler as the bigger threat.
Here's the funny thing. Hitler came to power by democratic means. He didn't take power by force. He won it. It was awarded to him by the people. Germany was in a depression at the time, and the people looked for a leader who was willing to take from those who had wealth, and redistribute it to those who had nothing. Hitler started by nationalizing industries. Not all, but most. Even post-war Communism didn't totally nationalize industry. He provided the much needed employment opportunities by expanding programs of public works, roads, providing subsidized holidays that only the rich had the luxury of experiencing. These were ideas that were put into place by a man who is seen as a hero by many socialists and liberals. FDR. That's right Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ever heard of Social Security? Hitler's idea.
A lot to absorb? I think it is. I recommend reading this a couple of times. Remember, I've been doing this kind of research for years. Now I know that many of you who are on the left are saying, "Hitler was a fascist. He was a right-wing psycho. This isn't true." That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, however, I ask that if you do oppose me, bring examples and well researched material. Saying something over and over again, doesn't make it true. I will say this:
Leftists in present time hate it when I say that Hitler was actually one of them. They deny the whole thing. Many conservatives jump to the conclusion that since Hitler's party was named National Socialist then he must be a socialist. The conclusion is correct, but the path to get there is too thin. I will give the Leftists one point. Socialism, according to Marxists, requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. This tells me that Hitler was less left than the Communists, which is true. The Nazis did not advocate the public ownership of the means of production, which is contrary to Marxist beliefs. They did, however, demand that government oversee and run the nation's economy. They also stated that private citizens could continue to hold titles to their property, but the state reserved the right regulate the use of those properties. It does sound like the Leftists of today. I have heard that conservatives favor politics and militarism over diplomacy, and dictatorship over democracy. Leftists prefer pacifism and democracy. Ok. I guess Stalin wasn't a militarist nor a dictator. Hmm. Think about that one.
It should be stated that Hitler was more right than Stalin, in the sense that Stalin used extreme forms of oppression to control his people. Germany was different. The people followed Hitler willingly. However, and I get this quite a bit, just because Hitler and Stalin were enemies during the war, it doesn't mean that their ideology were complete opposites. Take for example Leon Trotsky. You know the Russian born Marxist who got an ice-pick in the head compliments of Stalin. This would be an example that even Communists, including revolutionaries, had the potential to be rivals. Mussolini himself called Hitler a "barbarian, a criminal and a pederast." Mussolini. The Fascist leader in Italy. Granted he later became Hitler's ally in WWII.
Hitler was both a nationalist and a socialist. The full name of his party is The National Socialist German Worker's Party.
Now I will admit that the small band of worshippers of Hitler, that still exist today, are extreme right. However, their mission is racial in nature. Hitler himself stated that his antisemitism wasn't going to distract him from his vision of fundamentally transforming Germany. However, to say that racism is a form of right-wing thinking is totally incorrect. Example:
Stalin was a Communist. Communism is far left. Read about the post-war exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union, and the persecution that they brought with. Would that mean that, with this kind of racism, Communism is a far right agenda? Any association of racism and Rightism comes only from circumstances and not by definition. Anti-Semitism was more of a Northern European issue. Mussolini was a Fascist, but wasn't anti-Semitic. Initially. He was pushed by Hitler to do so. Actually, during WWII, the safest place for Jews was in Fascist Italy. Many Jews to this day say they owe their lives to the Fascist Italians. Hmm. Am I shattering that image you once had? I hope so.
The point I'm making here is don't always take what you hear as the truth. Don't even take what I'm saying as the truth. Take what I'm saying and research it. Look for things that I'm incorrect on. Look for things that I'm correct on. Oppose me, but do it in a well researched fashion and not one that is just, "You're wrong Brian W." If I didn't change your mind, then nothing will, and I'm not talking about your view of Hitler being a Socialist. I'm talking about your view of history is boring. What I find most interesting is that I can guarantee you that nowhere in any of your high school history classes, were you ever taught what I just told you. Why is that? Well let's see. Hitler: Probably the most hated dictator in modern history. Hmm. The teachers in public schools today, well most of the teachers, are in unions. Let's see. Hitler loved unions. They are in one. Therefore they would be preaching how bad Hitler was, and at the same time talking about his love for the type of organization they are apart of. Can't have that now, can we? Teachers in public schools teach what they are told to. Not what they know, but what they are told to teach. Maybe someone should "fundamentally change" the schooling system in this country. I prefer in a more Republican fashion. We are a Republic. Not a Democracy. Don't believe me? Recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Don't remember the words? Here ya go:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"
"This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry"
Who said these things? If you guessed Adolf Hitler, I wouldn't fault you. Look at the first quote. Talking about taking back the old German territory of the West Bank of the Rhine. The third quote defining the religion of the Jewish population. Deciding if the "everyday Jew" needs to be freed so that "mankind" can be free. Sounds like one of Hitler's rants. Sounds like him wanting to build the Third Reich in his own way. But what if I told you that what you assumed was incorrect? Would you believe me? Would you believe that Hitler wasn't a far right-extremist? Of course you wouldn't. You were taught years ago that Hitler was a fascist. A far right-wing nut-job who had issues. But you would be wrong about him being far-right. Let me explain.
The first two quotes you read were written by a man by the name of Friedrich Engels, who was Karl Marx's co-author. As we all know, Karl Marx was a communist. The third quote was written by Karl Marx himself. What's even more fascinating is that the title of the essay Marx wrote is "Zur Judenfrage." The Englsih translation is "The Jewish Question." Is it a coincidence that Hitler's famous phrase is, "Endloesung der Judenfrage" or "Final solution of the Jewish question." Hmm. Some of the most condemned concepts of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels. Including the language used. But, I thought Communism was on the left. It is.
What is the left? What are the ideas from the left today? We know they support labor unions, and believe that the government was created to help the needy. To better explain it, I'll use a description from Edward Feser of someone who would be a good Presidential candidate for the "modern-day US Democratic party" as well as use a quote to describe the left's belief of labor unions. Please let me know if I'm incorrect in this description:
He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill."As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".
He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: As Christ proclaimed 'love one another', he said, so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!
The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people's ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one's ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one's ethnic group
Look at the protests in Madison, WI that took place earlier this year. The Republican legislature and governor sought to change the rules when dealing with union contracts, and there were massive protests saying that the Republicans have no heart and look to end safe work environments. So naturally, these two quotes describe the view of liberals, or left-leaning people. Many of them are for gays rights, strict gun-control laws, workers' rights, labor unions, they are usually against forms of Christianity (mainly Catholicism), they hate big corporations or chain stores and prefer small businesses when confronted with large successful stores. Back to the point I was making. These two quotes sound very much like a leftist in today's world. However, the first quote is a very accurate description of Hitler, and the second quote, about labor unions, is an excerpt from Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf, where in that chapter, Hitler stressed the importance of unions, so much so, that he went through great efforts to have the unions support his party.
Another quote from Artur Axman, who was a Nazi youth leader remembering a conversation with Goebbels in the Hitler bunker May 1, 1945. Same day Goebbels and his wife killed themselves after she killed their children.
"He (Goebbels) said one of the great accomplishments of the Hitler regime had been to win the German workers over almost totally to the national cause. We had made patriots of the workers, he said, as the Kaiser had dismally failed to do. This, he kept repeating, had been one of the real triumphs of the movement. We Nazis were a non-Marxist yet revolutionary party, anticapitalist, antibourgeois, antireactionary...."
Hmm. For some reason these ideas sound familiar. Oh that's right, Michael Moore had a movie about capitalism and how this country is wrong for supporting it. Weird, Michael Moore hates capitalism, yet benefits from it. Oh well. Now I won't get caught up in just quotes. Let's also look at symbols.
Pre-WWI socialists (including American socialists) wore a patch on their shoulder. A red one. One that was used by the Red Army in the early days of their creation. The patch was red with a golden symbol in the middle. The socialists used the symbol on the grounds that it was two arms representing two entwined letters. They were both the letter "S" which was to stand for socialist. Wanna take a bet as to what that symbol was? I'll give you a hint. Hitler used the two "S's" to stand for "Sozialismus" and "Sieg". "Sozialismus" means Socialism, and "Sieg" means Victory. Give up? Know what a swastika is? Hitler said that it stood for the victory of Aryan men (original speakers of Indo-European languages) and the victory of the idea that the worker was a creative force. Nationalism and socialism.
It seems I'm ganging up on socialists, so let's talk about the conservatives that were around in Hitler's day. Hitler despised the conservatives. Both in Germany, and especially in Britain, as well as they despised him. They weren't anywhere close to being an ally of him. His most famous foe, and arch enemy, was a famous conservative. Winston Churchill. This is the same man who once said, "If you are not a liberal by 20 you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by 40, you have no brain." The same man who praised the Finns for "tearing the guts out of the Red Army," found himself in a pickle. He was forced to become an ally with Stalin due to Churchill seeing Hitler as the bigger threat.
Here's the funny thing. Hitler came to power by democratic means. He didn't take power by force. He won it. It was awarded to him by the people. Germany was in a depression at the time, and the people looked for a leader who was willing to take from those who had wealth, and redistribute it to those who had nothing. Hitler started by nationalizing industries. Not all, but most. Even post-war Communism didn't totally nationalize industry. He provided the much needed employment opportunities by expanding programs of public works, roads, providing subsidized holidays that only the rich had the luxury of experiencing. These were ideas that were put into place by a man who is seen as a hero by many socialists and liberals. FDR. That's right Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ever heard of Social Security? Hitler's idea.
A lot to absorb? I think it is. I recommend reading this a couple of times. Remember, I've been doing this kind of research for years. Now I know that many of you who are on the left are saying, "Hitler was a fascist. He was a right-wing psycho. This isn't true." That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, however, I ask that if you do oppose me, bring examples and well researched material. Saying something over and over again, doesn't make it true. I will say this:
Leftists in present time hate it when I say that Hitler was actually one of them. They deny the whole thing. Many conservatives jump to the conclusion that since Hitler's party was named National Socialist then he must be a socialist. The conclusion is correct, but the path to get there is too thin. I will give the Leftists one point. Socialism, according to Marxists, requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. This tells me that Hitler was less left than the Communists, which is true. The Nazis did not advocate the public ownership of the means of production, which is contrary to Marxist beliefs. They did, however, demand that government oversee and run the nation's economy. They also stated that private citizens could continue to hold titles to their property, but the state reserved the right regulate the use of those properties. It does sound like the Leftists of today. I have heard that conservatives favor politics and militarism over diplomacy, and dictatorship over democracy. Leftists prefer pacifism and democracy. Ok. I guess Stalin wasn't a militarist nor a dictator. Hmm. Think about that one.
It should be stated that Hitler was more right than Stalin, in the sense that Stalin used extreme forms of oppression to control his people. Germany was different. The people followed Hitler willingly. However, and I get this quite a bit, just because Hitler and Stalin were enemies during the war, it doesn't mean that their ideology were complete opposites. Take for example Leon Trotsky. You know the Russian born Marxist who got an ice-pick in the head compliments of Stalin. This would be an example that even Communists, including revolutionaries, had the potential to be rivals. Mussolini himself called Hitler a "barbarian, a criminal and a pederast." Mussolini. The Fascist leader in Italy. Granted he later became Hitler's ally in WWII.
Hitler was both a nationalist and a socialist. The full name of his party is The National Socialist German Worker's Party.
Now I will admit that the small band of worshippers of Hitler, that still exist today, are extreme right. However, their mission is racial in nature. Hitler himself stated that his antisemitism wasn't going to distract him from his vision of fundamentally transforming Germany. However, to say that racism is a form of right-wing thinking is totally incorrect. Example:
Stalin was a Communist. Communism is far left. Read about the post-war exodus of Jews from the Soviet Union, and the persecution that they brought with. Would that mean that, with this kind of racism, Communism is a far right agenda? Any association of racism and Rightism comes only from circumstances and not by definition. Anti-Semitism was more of a Northern European issue. Mussolini was a Fascist, but wasn't anti-Semitic. Initially. He was pushed by Hitler to do so. Actually, during WWII, the safest place for Jews was in Fascist Italy. Many Jews to this day say they owe their lives to the Fascist Italians. Hmm. Am I shattering that image you once had? I hope so.
The point I'm making here is don't always take what you hear as the truth. Don't even take what I'm saying as the truth. Take what I'm saying and research it. Look for things that I'm incorrect on. Look for things that I'm correct on. Oppose me, but do it in a well researched fashion and not one that is just, "You're wrong Brian W." If I didn't change your mind, then nothing will, and I'm not talking about your view of Hitler being a Socialist. I'm talking about your view of history is boring. What I find most interesting is that I can guarantee you that nowhere in any of your high school history classes, were you ever taught what I just told you. Why is that? Well let's see. Hitler: Probably the most hated dictator in modern history. Hmm. The teachers in public schools today, well most of the teachers, are in unions. Let's see. Hitler loved unions. They are in one. Therefore they would be preaching how bad Hitler was, and at the same time talking about his love for the type of organization they are apart of. Can't have that now, can we? Teachers in public schools teach what they are told to. Not what they know, but what they are told to teach. Maybe someone should "fundamentally change" the schooling system in this country. I prefer in a more Republican fashion. We are a Republic. Not a Democracy. Don't believe me? Recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Don't remember the words? Here ya go:
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
My Birthday (A Day of History)
Today's my birthday. You probably don't care, and that's fine. For those of you who share my birthday, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!!!!!!
Now, what has happened in history on my birthday.
Well there's the start of Oktoberfest in Germany. This is true, the 17th of Sept. is the official start of Oktoberfest. PROST to all of you.
The US Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The Constitution of this country is the second oldest in the world. Well, written constitution that is. We are still going strong.
The Battle of Antietam happened on my birthday. September 17, 1862 near Sharpsburg, MD. It was the first major battle to take place on Northern soil, and was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history. About 23,000 casualties.
The Red Baron scored his first aerial kill on my birthday. September 17, 1916 near Cambrai, France.
Operation Market Garden happened on my birthday. September 17, 1944-September 25, 1944. Allied forces were dropped into the Netherlands, more specifically Holland, in an attempt to seize bridges that went across the Meuse river and two sections of the Rhine. Other bridges were over smaller canals. Was a total operational failure, and resulted with the loss of 15,000-17,000 casualites for the Allies and only 6,000-13,000 casualties for the Germans.
SO, Happy Birthday to all of you who share this day with me, and Happy Education to those who hopefully learned something. Maybe I'll take each event and write about it.
Now, what has happened in history on my birthday.
Well there's the start of Oktoberfest in Germany. This is true, the 17th of Sept. is the official start of Oktoberfest. PROST to all of you.
The US Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The Constitution of this country is the second oldest in the world. Well, written constitution that is. We are still going strong.
The Battle of Antietam happened on my birthday. September 17, 1862 near Sharpsburg, MD. It was the first major battle to take place on Northern soil, and was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history. About 23,000 casualties.
The Red Baron scored his first aerial kill on my birthday. September 17, 1916 near Cambrai, France.
Operation Market Garden happened on my birthday. September 17, 1944-September 25, 1944. Allied forces were dropped into the Netherlands, more specifically Holland, in an attempt to seize bridges that went across the Meuse river and two sections of the Rhine. Other bridges were over smaller canals. Was a total operational failure, and resulted with the loss of 15,000-17,000 casualites for the Allies and only 6,000-13,000 casualties for the Germans.
SO, Happy Birthday to all of you who share this day with me, and Happy Education to those who hopefully learned something. Maybe I'll take each event and write about it.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Wars in Perspective
Every sane and compassionate human hates war. War is terrifying, horrific, and down right nasty. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. Take for example what happened with our own independence. We took our case to King George III demanding that he change the laws imposed on us. He refused. Eventually that oppression created anger. That anger caused revolts. Those revolts caused injuries to British soldiers, who retaliated by shooting into crowds, which then caused even more anger and rage. A war was then fought. We won, and we soon became our own country. Would this have happened without the war? I strongly doubt it. Take a look at WWII. Diplomacy was tried with Hitler. Britain and France tried to negotiate with Hitler. We all know how that turned out. If you don't, read my other posts.
The point of this short post is to put things into perspective and to show you how war has evolved. In this country we lose our cool when 4,700 of our own troops are KIA while defending our country. Yes, these men/women gave their lives so that I may come on here and speak my mind. They knew that by signing up for the military that there was always the chance of them getting deployed, and there was a chance that they may not come home. I pray for these men/women in uniform, as well as their families, and I thank them every day for their service. But let me put something into perspective.
Ever heard of the Battle of the Somme? July 1, 1916, during WWI, the British Army experienced the bloodiest day in their history. It was the first day of a 4 month offensive that saw 57,470 casualties. Most of these casualties were seen in the first hour. Of these casualties, 19,240 were dead. DEAD!!! In one day the British had 19,240 soldiers dead. More than 4 times as many as we had die in 7 years of us being in Iraq. That was in one day. The entire offensive cost the British Army nearly 420,000 men. In 4 months they lost nearly 420,000 men. We took almost 500,000 casualties during WWII with both theaters combined. That was in 4 years.
How about the battle of Tarawa? November 20-23, 1943, US v. Japan. 4,500 Japanese defenders fought to nearly the last man, killing 1,009 Marines and wounding another 2,101. That totals to more than 3,000 Marines in 3 days, yet many don't know about this battle. I had the absolute honor to speak with a veteran who was a medic at this battle. The stories he told will be for another post.
Here's a battle we all know. D-Day. In one day, on Omaha Beach, we lost 3,000 men. The entire operation, which included US, Britain, and Canada, saw 120,000 casualties for the Allies, and 113,059 casualties for the Germans. Without this invasion, we wouldn't have been able to secure France. The loss of life was horrible, however the overall goal was now attainable. Wasn't the end of the war, 11 months later, worth this sacrifice? Isn't it possible that without this day, the war would have dragged on, and even more life would have been lost?
Did you know that the 8th, 9th, 12th, and the 15th Air Forces, which operated with each other in the European theater of WWII, lost 30,000 men. That's KIA. 30,000. Yet people don't flinch.
I don't care about what your political affiliation is, or whether or not you support the war in Iraq. The truth is that not one war this country has fought, was ever popular. Not even the Revolutionary War, or WWII. In fact approval of WWII was at 27%. War sucks, however, I don't understand why is it that people get more upset with losing 4,000 troops, yet don't care to see it in a broad perspective. Think about how many servicemen we lose due to training exercises.
Here's something else to think about. From the Defense Manpower Data Center, they had this to say:
As of Jan 2007 we have lost over 4,000 military personnel. Of that figure 2,500 have died due to hostile action in Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining 1,500 are due to accidents, homicides, illnesses, suicides, and a few have been undetermined. Yet, these numbers are added into the 2,500 for political reasons.
For those of you who are against wars, you aren't alone. I too am against war, however, I know when it is necessary. But there are many who are opposed to war just because and don't think about when it is necessary to defend ones country. I thank all of those who serve in our military, and all of those who have sacrificed, including their families. Because of you I have the freedom to speak my mind on here. Because of you, those who oppose wars period, have the freedom to do so. It is because of those sacrifices that those people are allowed to oppose anything. A life is a life, however look at how much more different wars are fought now as compared to 70, even 100 years ago. It could be much, much worse.
The point of this short post is to put things into perspective and to show you how war has evolved. In this country we lose our cool when 4,700 of our own troops are KIA while defending our country. Yes, these men/women gave their lives so that I may come on here and speak my mind. They knew that by signing up for the military that there was always the chance of them getting deployed, and there was a chance that they may not come home. I pray for these men/women in uniform, as well as their families, and I thank them every day for their service. But let me put something into perspective.
Ever heard of the Battle of the Somme? July 1, 1916, during WWI, the British Army experienced the bloodiest day in their history. It was the first day of a 4 month offensive that saw 57,470 casualties. Most of these casualties were seen in the first hour. Of these casualties, 19,240 were dead. DEAD!!! In one day the British had 19,240 soldiers dead. More than 4 times as many as we had die in 7 years of us being in Iraq. That was in one day. The entire offensive cost the British Army nearly 420,000 men. In 4 months they lost nearly 420,000 men. We took almost 500,000 casualties during WWII with both theaters combined. That was in 4 years.
How about the battle of Tarawa? November 20-23, 1943, US v. Japan. 4,500 Japanese defenders fought to nearly the last man, killing 1,009 Marines and wounding another 2,101. That totals to more than 3,000 Marines in 3 days, yet many don't know about this battle. I had the absolute honor to speak with a veteran who was a medic at this battle. The stories he told will be for another post.
Here's a battle we all know. D-Day. In one day, on Omaha Beach, we lost 3,000 men. The entire operation, which included US, Britain, and Canada, saw 120,000 casualties for the Allies, and 113,059 casualties for the Germans. Without this invasion, we wouldn't have been able to secure France. The loss of life was horrible, however the overall goal was now attainable. Wasn't the end of the war, 11 months later, worth this sacrifice? Isn't it possible that without this day, the war would have dragged on, and even more life would have been lost?
Did you know that the 8th, 9th, 12th, and the 15th Air Forces, which operated with each other in the European theater of WWII, lost 30,000 men. That's KIA. 30,000. Yet people don't flinch.
I don't care about what your political affiliation is, or whether or not you support the war in Iraq. The truth is that not one war this country has fought, was ever popular. Not even the Revolutionary War, or WWII. In fact approval of WWII was at 27%. War sucks, however, I don't understand why is it that people get more upset with losing 4,000 troops, yet don't care to see it in a broad perspective. Think about how many servicemen we lose due to training exercises.
Here's something else to think about. From the Defense Manpower Data Center, they had this to say:
As of Jan 2007 we have lost over 4,000 military personnel. Of that figure 2,500 have died due to hostile action in Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining 1,500 are due to accidents, homicides, illnesses, suicides, and a few have been undetermined. Yet, these numbers are added into the 2,500 for political reasons.
For those of you who are against wars, you aren't alone. I too am against war, however, I know when it is necessary. But there are many who are opposed to war just because and don't think about when it is necessary to defend ones country. I thank all of those who serve in our military, and all of those who have sacrificed, including their families. Because of you I have the freedom to speak my mind on here. Because of you, those who oppose wars period, have the freedom to do so. It is because of those sacrifices that those people are allowed to oppose anything. A life is a life, however look at how much more different wars are fought now as compared to 70, even 100 years ago. It could be much, much worse.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Why I Do This
Do you honestly think that a senior level World History course would allow me to teach about the Imperial Japanese Army and what they did to the Chinese? Or have me teach the students about how the "Confederate Flag" isn't a racist symbol? The answer is no. The public school system in this country is a joke, especially in the history section. Before my last post, how many of you knew about the Second Sino-Japanese War? Be honest. You may have known about the Japanese fighting the Chinese, but how far below the surface did you go? Did any of what I told you make you want to learn more? Or at least want to try to disprove me? If you answered yes to either question, then I did my job. As a school teacher, I wouldn't be allowed to spark any interest for students to want to learn more. I would be required to teach the same material that has been taught numerous times before.
As in my first post I mentioned how the schools don't stray away from the basic material, or at least go into deeper meaning. What they don't want is for some newbie teacher to come in and stir the pot. I would be let go from the school, (basically kicked out) for wanting to shake up the curriculum and get it to where it interests more mature minds. I'm talking about high school in this sense. There's no way I would ever want to teach about the Japanese and Chinese to 4th graders, but I do believe that high school seniors can learn about it. If we can learn about Anne Frank and the Holocaust in Europe in 8th grade, then maybe we are mature enough to learn about the other holocaust. Tell me, why is it that we were mature enough to learn about victims being put into ovens, but we weren't mature enough to know about the Japanese playing their sword game? If you can seriously tell me the difference here, I'll keep my mouth shut. Sounds like being burned alive is a lot more graphic, than being decapitated, yet the Japanese sword game sounds taboo.
The school system in this country has failed us. They failed us in the sense that instead of showing us how to take initiative in our own education, they've created drones, meaning people who only repeat back what they have heard. Is it possible that people don't take initiative in their own education because they were never shown that digging deeper, leads to better understanding? Why is it that people feel that what they know, is adequate? Why don't they want to know more? I feel that this might be a political agenda at work.
One way the Catholic Church stayed in power for so long was that they made it illegal for anyone outside of the church to be literate. Why is that important? Well, an educated person is more of a threat to a government than a non-educated person. How is that possible? Think about it. An educated person is one who is willing to research, investigate, and speak out against the establishment, and do so thoroughly and effectively. This means that when a government starts to go out of its bounds, there's somebody there to rein them in. However, when the next generation comes in, and they don't have the education necessary to pull on the reins, the government can do what they want, and nobody will oppose them.
I'm going to assume that if you are regular reader here, that you don't fall into this category. You have actively searched for another answer. A different view, or way of thinking. You don't have to agree with my views, however, if you choose to oppose them, ensure that you are knowledgeable of your own view. Too many times I find that everyone has an opinion, yet few are able to justify it.
I'm not saying that what I'm teaching you is material that'll allow you to go out in the world and successfully change everybody's opinions. However, I'm trying to spark that little thing in your brain that makes you actively go out and search for more information on whatever it is that you are interested in.
Though I am not running out of material to post, I would like to hear from my readers. Please leave a comment telling me what you would like to learn about next. I think my next post will be about Pearl Harbor, and how Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the attack beforehand, but decided to keep it secret to allow the US to enter the war, but could be one of your topics instead.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Forgotten Holocaust
This post has no intention of taking anything away from the horrors that the Jewish population faced in Nazi Germany. Nothing could. However, what I am going to do is educate you of what has come to be known as the Forgotten Holocaust. This period of genocide started in 1937 and ended at the conclusion of the Second World War in 1945. We know about WWII. Do you know about the Second Sino-Japanese War? My guess is no. Do you know about the Tokyo Trials? Probably not. How about the Nanking Massacre? No? I had a hunch that you wouldn't. There are reasons for that. Those reasons will come at the end, so sit back and read this, and you will find out just how cruel humans can really be.
Second Sino-Japanese War:
This war started in July of 1937 when Japan, after invading China, assaulted the Marco Polo Bridge, which was a crucial access point to Beijing. Japan wasn't looking for a full scale war, but those attempts when Chiang Kai-shek mobilized the army and air force, under his command, assaulted the Japanese in Shanghai, failed. The Japanese thwarted this assault and shortly after went into Nanjing, (Nanking) towards the end of 1937. At the start of 1938 the Japanese govt. had lost control of the army in China and the generals escalated the war when they were defeated in Taierzhuang. After this the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) had to change its strategy and attack the city of Wuhan, which was the center of operations for China. After the city's capture the government retreated to Chongqing to set up a provisional capital, and Chiang Kai-shek refused to negotiate unless the Japanese agreed to withdraw their forces to pre-1937 borders. The Japanese responded by sending in massive air raids on civilian targets in Chongqing, and almost every major city in unoccupied China. This left millions dead, wounded, and without homes. The war would end with the Japanese surrender to America on September 9, 1945. China suffered 20 million dead, and 15 million wounded. The total number of military dead and wounded is 3.7 million. This means that 16.3 million civilians were killed during this 8 year conflict. 16.3 million. That means that for every 1 Jewish person killed under Nazi control nearly 3 Chinese were killed.
The Nanking Massacre (Rape of Nanking):
On December 13, 1937, Japanese forces captured the city of Nanking and during the six-week period that followed, hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians and disarmed soldiers were murdered. In addition to that, around 20,000 women, including infants, were brutally raped by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Japan has stated that the figures have been exaggerated, but they do admit to the acts of killing a large number of noncombatants. It's kinda hard to believe the story from the ones accused. Japanese officers had a contest amongst themselves of who could be the first to kill 100 people (civilians) using only a sword. Two 2nd Lieutenants recorded 106 for one and 105 for the other. Japanese soldiers would throw babies into the air and try to catch them on their bayonets, allowing gravity to slide the infant fully onto the blade. Little boys would be bayoneted to death. Some survived. An 8 year old boy survived being stabbed 5 times according to an American surgeon who was there in 1938 when he wrote home to his family.
The most sickening, and shocking, reports, that came from this time, were the rapes. As mentioned before about 20,000 women were raped, which included infants and the elderly. Most of these rapes were systematized in a process where soldiers would go door-to-door searching for young girls. When found, the soldiers would take the women captive where they would be gang raped. Usually immediately following the rape, the women were killed. However, these were often carried out through explicit mutilation.
***I can't stress enough that if you are easily sickened, do not read any further.***
The way the women were killed was usually by stabbing. They were not stabbed in the neck, heart, or stomach. They were stabbed with objects into their private area. Objects used were bayonets, long sticks of bamboo, canes, and anything else they could find. For children and infants, they were cut open to allow the Japanese soldiers to rape them. Pregnant women weren't exempt. There are numerous accounts of soldiers lining up women and raping them systematically. If they came across a pregnant woman, they would rape them, kill the woman by stabbing her in the stomach, cut her open, pull out the fetus, stab the fetus, and throw it away. This would happen, in front of everyone, including her family members. If the brother, father, or husband tried to resist, they were killed.
I apologize for the graphic detail, but there are numerous times where graphic details are used when describing the Holocaust in Europe as well.
After 6 weeks of this, it was over. Shortly after the surrender of Japan, the primary officers in charge of the IJA troops at Nanking were put on trial.
Tokyo Trials:
These were the war crimes tribunals that put these officers on trial. Unfortunately, only 2 defendants were connected to the Nanking Massacre.
General Matsui, who was charged with being one of the senior officers who "deliberately and recklessly disregarded their legal duty [by virtue of their respective offices] to take adequate steps to secure the observance [of the Laws and Customs of War] and prevent breaches thereof, and thereby violated the laws of war."
Hirota Koki, was the Foreign Minister when Japan conquered Nanking, and was convicted of waging a war of aggression and a war in violation of international laws.
The two men were senetenced to death by hanging and those sentences were carried out. 18 other men received lesser sentences, but they weren't convicted of being the ones who orchestrated the massacre.
On August 15, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the surrender of Japan, the Japanese prime minister gave a formal apology for his country's actions in China, during the war. The atrocities committed during the Second Sino-Japanese War are so bad that Japan doesn't even teach those events to their own children. They feel that it is better to just forget them and move on. You are probably asking yourself, "Why haven't I heard this before?" It's quite simple. The politicians in this country, wanted this to remain quiet. Think about how this country reacted when they found out what Germany was doing. We had a hard time accepting the fact that we needed to stay in that country following the war. What happened immediately following the surrender of Japan? We went to war with Communism, and more accurately, Russia. Japan served as our base of operations, and as our way of having air bases close to Russia. This would allow quick air missions into Russia if war was ever officially declared. Would the American public allow us to rebuild Japan, and build our air bases, if they knew what the Japanese had done? I doubt it.
What's your opinion of the Japanese now? Do you see them differently? Do you think that they should be viewed in the same way as Nazi Germany? If not, what's the difference?
Second Sino-Japanese War:
This war started in July of 1937 when Japan, after invading China, assaulted the Marco Polo Bridge, which was a crucial access point to Beijing. Japan wasn't looking for a full scale war, but those attempts when Chiang Kai-shek mobilized the army and air force, under his command, assaulted the Japanese in Shanghai, failed. The Japanese thwarted this assault and shortly after went into Nanjing, (Nanking) towards the end of 1937. At the start of 1938 the Japanese govt. had lost control of the army in China and the generals escalated the war when they were defeated in Taierzhuang. After this the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) had to change its strategy and attack the city of Wuhan, which was the center of operations for China. After the city's capture the government retreated to Chongqing to set up a provisional capital, and Chiang Kai-shek refused to negotiate unless the Japanese agreed to withdraw their forces to pre-1937 borders. The Japanese responded by sending in massive air raids on civilian targets in Chongqing, and almost every major city in unoccupied China. This left millions dead, wounded, and without homes. The war would end with the Japanese surrender to America on September 9, 1945. China suffered 20 million dead, and 15 million wounded. The total number of military dead and wounded is 3.7 million. This means that 16.3 million civilians were killed during this 8 year conflict. 16.3 million. That means that for every 1 Jewish person killed under Nazi control nearly 3 Chinese were killed.
The Nanking Massacre (Rape of Nanking):
On December 13, 1937, Japanese forces captured the city of Nanking and during the six-week period that followed, hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians and disarmed soldiers were murdered. In addition to that, around 20,000 women, including infants, were brutally raped by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). Japan has stated that the figures have been exaggerated, but they do admit to the acts of killing a large number of noncombatants. It's kinda hard to believe the story from the ones accused. Japanese officers had a contest amongst themselves of who could be the first to kill 100 people (civilians) using only a sword. Two 2nd Lieutenants recorded 106 for one and 105 for the other. Japanese soldiers would throw babies into the air and try to catch them on their bayonets, allowing gravity to slide the infant fully onto the blade. Little boys would be bayoneted to death. Some survived. An 8 year old boy survived being stabbed 5 times according to an American surgeon who was there in 1938 when he wrote home to his family.
The most sickening, and shocking, reports, that came from this time, were the rapes. As mentioned before about 20,000 women were raped, which included infants and the elderly. Most of these rapes were systematized in a process where soldiers would go door-to-door searching for young girls. When found, the soldiers would take the women captive where they would be gang raped. Usually immediately following the rape, the women were killed. However, these were often carried out through explicit mutilation.
***I can't stress enough that if you are easily sickened, do not read any further.***
The way the women were killed was usually by stabbing. They were not stabbed in the neck, heart, or stomach. They were stabbed with objects into their private area. Objects used were bayonets, long sticks of bamboo, canes, and anything else they could find. For children and infants, they were cut open to allow the Japanese soldiers to rape them. Pregnant women weren't exempt. There are numerous accounts of soldiers lining up women and raping them systematically. If they came across a pregnant woman, they would rape them, kill the woman by stabbing her in the stomach, cut her open, pull out the fetus, stab the fetus, and throw it away. This would happen, in front of everyone, including her family members. If the brother, father, or husband tried to resist, they were killed.
I apologize for the graphic detail, but there are numerous times where graphic details are used when describing the Holocaust in Europe as well.
After 6 weeks of this, it was over. Shortly after the surrender of Japan, the primary officers in charge of the IJA troops at Nanking were put on trial.
Tokyo Trials:
These were the war crimes tribunals that put these officers on trial. Unfortunately, only 2 defendants were connected to the Nanking Massacre.
General Matsui, who was charged with being one of the senior officers who "deliberately and recklessly disregarded their legal duty [by virtue of their respective offices] to take adequate steps to secure the observance [of the Laws and Customs of War] and prevent breaches thereof, and thereby violated the laws of war."
Hirota Koki, was the Foreign Minister when Japan conquered Nanking, and was convicted of waging a war of aggression and a war in violation of international laws.
The two men were senetenced to death by hanging and those sentences were carried out. 18 other men received lesser sentences, but they weren't convicted of being the ones who orchestrated the massacre.
On August 15, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the surrender of Japan, the Japanese prime minister gave a formal apology for his country's actions in China, during the war. The atrocities committed during the Second Sino-Japanese War are so bad that Japan doesn't even teach those events to their own children. They feel that it is better to just forget them and move on. You are probably asking yourself, "Why haven't I heard this before?" It's quite simple. The politicians in this country, wanted this to remain quiet. Think about how this country reacted when they found out what Germany was doing. We had a hard time accepting the fact that we needed to stay in that country following the war. What happened immediately following the surrender of Japan? We went to war with Communism, and more accurately, Russia. Japan served as our base of operations, and as our way of having air bases close to Russia. This would allow quick air missions into Russia if war was ever officially declared. Would the American public allow us to rebuild Japan, and build our air bases, if they knew what the Japanese had done? I doubt it.
What's your opinion of the Japanese now? Do you see them differently? Do you think that they should be viewed in the same way as Nazi Germany? If not, what's the difference?
Friday, July 8, 2011
A Nation Founded by Wanted Criminals(A short post)
Why did John Hancock write his name really big on the Declaration of Independence? "Because he wanted to make sure the king could read his signature without his glasses." Ok, why? "Because he wanted to show the king that we were a separate nation now." Kinda. Did you know, that almost every one of our founding fathers were wanted criminals? It isn't that hard to believe. England had a system of government that we rejected and we rebelled. That would make those who oppose the king, traitors.
Back to my original question. To answer, I'll give you a little background. John Hancock was a very wealthy shipping magnate. He actually stood to lose the most with having English tea being imported to Boston from the East India Company. Hancock made his money by illegally smuggling items. Everything from glass, lead, paper, French molasses, and of course tea. However, in 1768, when he arrived from England, his ship, Liberty, was impounded by British officials for violating revenue laws. He was then formally charged with smuggling, and obviously being as guilty as he was, he had a very quick witted attorney that got all charges dropped. His name was John Adams. When the Declaration of Independence was finally written, this was Hancock's way of saying to the king, "You can't get me." (like a child) Basically, he was thumbing his nose at the king, because he was a wanted criminal, and the king couldn't do anything about it.
At the beginning of our American history, (I say that because before the Declaration, we were English), everyone who opposed, fought, or sought rebellion was a traitor according to the king. They were all wanted criminals, and all would have faced possible hangings. For this reason, it is correct in saying that criminals wrote up our Constitution and our system of government. You know what I believe? I prefer it this way. I prefer a country that has become more successful than the country that tried to rule it. Our founding fathers were criminals to the English, but patriots to me, and my country.
Back to my original question. To answer, I'll give you a little background. John Hancock was a very wealthy shipping magnate. He actually stood to lose the most with having English tea being imported to Boston from the East India Company. Hancock made his money by illegally smuggling items. Everything from glass, lead, paper, French molasses, and of course tea. However, in 1768, when he arrived from England, his ship, Liberty, was impounded by British officials for violating revenue laws. He was then formally charged with smuggling, and obviously being as guilty as he was, he had a very quick witted attorney that got all charges dropped. His name was John Adams. When the Declaration of Independence was finally written, this was Hancock's way of saying to the king, "You can't get me." (like a child) Basically, he was thumbing his nose at the king, because he was a wanted criminal, and the king couldn't do anything about it.
At the beginning of our American history, (I say that because before the Declaration, we were English), everyone who opposed, fought, or sought rebellion was a traitor according to the king. They were all wanted criminals, and all would have faced possible hangings. For this reason, it is correct in saying that criminals wrote up our Constitution and our system of government. You know what I believe? I prefer it this way. I prefer a country that has become more successful than the country that tried to rule it. Our founding fathers were criminals to the English, but patriots to me, and my country.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Paul Revere and His Ride
Do you know the story of Paul Revere? Of course you do. Who doesn't know the poem?
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five
Hardly a man is now alive
etc....
We all should know that story. But what if I told you that somebody rode harder than he? What if I told you that the story you know was embellished? Would you believe me? Are you interested? Then listen my children and you shall hear of the four day ride of Israel Bissell.
You're probably thinking to yourself, "This can't be true. Who the heck is Israel Bissell?" I can tell you that he rode more than Revere. I can tell you that Revere rode 19 miles and Bissell rode 345 miles. Israel Bissell was charged with alerting the colonists from Massachusetts to Connecticut to Pennsylvania. Here's his story:
General Joseph Palmer, who was a general during the American Revolution as well, gave Bissell a note, that stated:
Wednesday morning near 10 of the clock - Watertown.
To all the friends of American liberty be it known that this morning before break of day, a brigade, consisting of about 1,000 to 1,200 men landed at Phip's Farm at Cambridge and marched to Lexington, where they found a company of our colony militia in arms, upon whom they fired without any provocation and killed six men and wounded four others. By an express from Boston, we find another brigade are now upon their march from Boston supposed to be about 1,000. The Bearer, Israel Bissell, is charged to alarm the country quite to Connecticut and all persons are desired to furnish him with fresh horses as they may be needed. I have spoken with several persons who have seen the dead and wounded. Pray let the delegates from this colony to Connecticut see this.
I'm also going to let you in on a little secret, since that's what this blog is all about.
Paul Revere was captured during his ride by the British and was held at gunpoint. During this time he told the British that he knew of their army's movement from Boston, and warned them that the British would be in danger if they approached Lexington, due to a large number of militia gathering there. (For the record there were only around 70 colonists at Lexington). The British didn't believe him and they took Revere, and other captives, towards Lexington until they heard a gunshot when they were within a half of a mile. They demanded that Revere explain the reason for the shot. Revere told them that it was a signal to alarm the country of the British's presence. Panicked, the British let the prisoners go free and they ran back to their commander to warn him of the stand at Lexington. Paul Revere did warn the British of the colonists gathering to make a stand during his ride, and the British were prepared when they entered Lexington.
I would have liked to have seen that in the poem.
It goes to show you that no matter what you are taught in school, or what you read in a book, there's always more to the story. Sometimes, important information is lost, like with what happened with Bissell. Other times the information is hard to come by, but is still available. It wasn't until 40 years later that Revere's ride was made into a legend when Henry Wadsworth Longfellow made Revere the subject of his poem. Longfellow's poem is historically inaccurate and what's worse is that the mistakes were deliberate. I don't agree that historical inaccuracy is needed to tell a good story. Usually the truth is better.
Remember the movie Braveheart? SPOILER ALERT!! In the movie the king dies when William Wallce yells freedom. Did you know that the king actually died around 13 years after Wallace? Slight misinterpretation of the facts, but I guess for cinema purposes it made it better. Find a time period, and dig in. You'd be surprised.
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five
Hardly a man is now alive
etc....
We all should know that story. But what if I told you that somebody rode harder than he? What if I told you that the story you know was embellished? Would you believe me? Are you interested? Then listen my children and you shall hear of the four day ride of Israel Bissell.
You're probably thinking to yourself, "This can't be true. Who the heck is Israel Bissell?" I can tell you that he rode more than Revere. I can tell you that Revere rode 19 miles and Bissell rode 345 miles. Israel Bissell was charged with alerting the colonists from Massachusetts to Connecticut to Pennsylvania. Here's his story:
General Joseph Palmer, who was a general during the American Revolution as well, gave Bissell a note, that stated:
Wednesday morning near 10 of the clock - Watertown.
To all the friends of American liberty be it known that this morning before break of day, a brigade, consisting of about 1,000 to 1,200 men landed at Phip's Farm at Cambridge and marched to Lexington, where they found a company of our colony militia in arms, upon whom they fired without any provocation and killed six men and wounded four others. By an express from Boston, we find another brigade are now upon their march from Boston supposed to be about 1,000. The Bearer, Israel Bissell, is charged to alarm the country quite to Connecticut and all persons are desired to furnish him with fresh horses as they may be needed. I have spoken with several persons who have seen the dead and wounded. Pray let the delegates from this colony to Connecticut see this.
- J. Palmer, one of the Committee of Safety.
I'm also going to let you in on a little secret, since that's what this blog is all about.
Paul Revere was captured during his ride by the British and was held at gunpoint. During this time he told the British that he knew of their army's movement from Boston, and warned them that the British would be in danger if they approached Lexington, due to a large number of militia gathering there. (For the record there were only around 70 colonists at Lexington). The British didn't believe him and they took Revere, and other captives, towards Lexington until they heard a gunshot when they were within a half of a mile. They demanded that Revere explain the reason for the shot. Revere told them that it was a signal to alarm the country of the British's presence. Panicked, the British let the prisoners go free and they ran back to their commander to warn him of the stand at Lexington. Paul Revere did warn the British of the colonists gathering to make a stand during his ride, and the British were prepared when they entered Lexington.
I would have liked to have seen that in the poem.
It goes to show you that no matter what you are taught in school, or what you read in a book, there's always more to the story. Sometimes, important information is lost, like with what happened with Bissell. Other times the information is hard to come by, but is still available. It wasn't until 40 years later that Revere's ride was made into a legend when Henry Wadsworth Longfellow made Revere the subject of his poem. Longfellow's poem is historically inaccurate and what's worse is that the mistakes were deliberate. I don't agree that historical inaccuracy is needed to tell a good story. Usually the truth is better.
Remember the movie Braveheart? SPOILER ALERT!! In the movie the king dies when William Wallce yells freedom. Did you know that the king actually died around 13 years after Wallace? Slight misinterpretation of the facts, but I guess for cinema purposes it made it better. Find a time period, and dig in. You'd be surprised.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Confederate Flag and Racism (or so you thought)
Long time ago we were told in school that the Union were the good guys and the Confederates were the bad guys. Naturally, since the Union was fighting to keep slaves out of newly acquired territories, and the south feared that such government regulation meant that the slaves would be outlawed in their states as well, one would come to that conclusion. First off, I'm glad the country is one and that slavery was abolished. Slavery is one of the worst ways humans can treat other humans, however the Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves in servitude at the time. It was fought over outlawing slaves in the new territories. That's not what I'm here to talk to you about. What I'm here to talk about is the Confederate Flag being viewed as a racist symbol, and how that is completely and utterly incorrect, and how the school system has brainwashed the minds of millions into believing it. History isn't so cut and dry, or black and white. If it was, I wouldn't be interested in it. Here's a little explanation for you:
First off, the "Confederate Flag" isn't the Confederate Flag. The flag we know as the Confederate flag was actually the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was never adopted by the Confederacy. In fact most regiments flew the flags that came from their state. You may be asking yourself, "what's the difference?" Here's the difference.
Recognize this? Probably not. This is the first adopted National Flag of the Confederacy. Now look at this one.
![]()
![]()
Here's one thing to think about when seeing the "Confederate Flag" and viewing it as racist:
![]()
Recognize this? This is our current US flag which has 50 stars. I assume you all knew that. Now, think about this. 1959 was when Hawaii became our 50th state. 1964 was when the Civil Rights Act was signed into law. To be more exact, August 21, 1959 was when Hawaii came into the union. The Civil Rights Act was enacted July 2, 1964. The Civil War broke out on April 12, 1861 and ended on April 9, 1865. How many years did the Civil War last? 3 days short of 4 years. More importantly, how long did the Confederate flag exist? About 3 years. How long was our current flag, with all 50 stars, around before the Civil Rights Act was enacted. 4 years and around 11 months. Almost 5 years of racism under our current flag, and yet it is the Confederate flag that is considered racist. Wouldn't that, by these standards, mean that our current flag is a symbol of racism? I truly believe that it isn't a racist symbol, but I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in that type of thinking. Not only that, the flag we salute today, was the symbol of a nation that supported racism for longer than the entire Civil War. I'll let you dwell on that.
I'll also let you in on a little secret. Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation which, as we were taught in school, freed the slaves. However, look closely at the document. The document only outlawed slavery in the 10 states that were still in rebellion in 1863. It didn't even apply to the 4 slave states that stayed with the union, nor did it apply to Tennessee who did secede from the union but was mainly under union control by 1863. Tennessee was exempt from the proclamation. Why is this interesting? Because it was a political move on Lincoln's part. Because those 10 states that were still in rebellion weren't controlled by Lincoln. It was merely for show, and the union at the time ridiculed the act because it only applied to those states. Slavery was still technically allowed in the northern states. It wasn't until December of 1865, 8 months after the war, that slavery was finally abolished in the entire country. The war didn't end slavery. It ended secession. In order for those 10 states to come back into the union, they had to agree to adopt the 13th Amendment. Also, keep in mind that it was the North who demanded that each black/slave be counted as 3/5 of a person when it came to representation in the House of Representatives. Race was never an issue before, during and for 100 years after, the Civil War. So, while Lincoln may have attempted to end slavery, he never once, nor the federal government, attempted to end racism. This is the reason I chuckle when I hear people say that Lincoln fought for the slaves. According to history, not exactly.
In no way am I saying that I wish the Confederacy had won, or that racism should be allowed. I know some who will read this post will believe that that is what I am saying. Frankly, those people are too ignorant and closed-minded to be reading this blog anyway, and I don't need them. I am reaching out to those who wish to expand their knowledge and understanding. I commend you for taking the time.
In the post before this one, I made the remark that people find history boring. I found history interesting when I stirred the pot. Made people feel uncomfortable. People don't like to stray far from their comfort zone. That area outside of the comfort zone is where I dwell. I'm never satisfied with any answer given to me. I need to know why and how.
History has never been black and white, and it never will be. Knowing all points of view, even if you go against the majority, will let you see through the wool that has purposely been pulled over your eyes. Just because a certain view has the majority or is popular, doesn't make it right. Before Civil Rights, the majority was racist towards blacks. Were they right? Who were the few that helped change it, and how long did it take?
This is the flag the Union was using during the first part of the war. They may not seem that similar, but read the accounts of the First Bull Run and see that there was confusion among the armies as to who's flag it was that they were shooting at. You have to think about being shot at and trying to see through smoke to understand the mindset of those that were there. Not only that, for generals who were watching from far away, the two flags looked the same and caused confusion among them when trying to issue orders. In 1862, one year after the Civil War broke out, a new flag was being decided on by General Beauregard, the first general for the Confederates, who needed to design a new flag for the Army of Northern Virginia which was the primary force for the Confederates. He needed a flag that looked completely different so that any confusion would be eliminated. The flag he came up with is the flag we call the Confederate flag. It was never adopted by the Confederacy, but used by many armies in the Confederacy with certain variations depending on the army. The design had a couple of different meanings. The meaning that I accept is that the 13 stars on the flag mean the 13 original colonies and that the blue "X" is actually on the stars. This is their way of saying NO to the original colonies and that they reject the union and support forming their own country. After the Civil War, the flag was adopted by the KKK and later by neo-Nazis to symbolize their racist cause, however the flag was never meant to represent racism, nor promote it.
Here's one thing to think about when seeing the "Confederate Flag" and viewing it as racist:
I'll also let you in on a little secret. Abraham Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation which, as we were taught in school, freed the slaves. However, look closely at the document. The document only outlawed slavery in the 10 states that were still in rebellion in 1863. It didn't even apply to the 4 slave states that stayed with the union, nor did it apply to Tennessee who did secede from the union but was mainly under union control by 1863. Tennessee was exempt from the proclamation. Why is this interesting? Because it was a political move on Lincoln's part. Because those 10 states that were still in rebellion weren't controlled by Lincoln. It was merely for show, and the union at the time ridiculed the act because it only applied to those states. Slavery was still technically allowed in the northern states. It wasn't until December of 1865, 8 months after the war, that slavery was finally abolished in the entire country. The war didn't end slavery. It ended secession. In order for those 10 states to come back into the union, they had to agree to adopt the 13th Amendment. Also, keep in mind that it was the North who demanded that each black/slave be counted as 3/5 of a person when it came to representation in the House of Representatives. Race was never an issue before, during and for 100 years after, the Civil War. So, while Lincoln may have attempted to end slavery, he never once, nor the federal government, attempted to end racism. This is the reason I chuckle when I hear people say that Lincoln fought for the slaves. According to history, not exactly.
In no way am I saying that I wish the Confederacy had won, or that racism should be allowed. I know some who will read this post will believe that that is what I am saying. Frankly, those people are too ignorant and closed-minded to be reading this blog anyway, and I don't need them. I am reaching out to those who wish to expand their knowledge and understanding. I commend you for taking the time.
In the post before this one, I made the remark that people find history boring. I found history interesting when I stirred the pot. Made people feel uncomfortable. People don't like to stray far from their comfort zone. That area outside of the comfort zone is where I dwell. I'm never satisfied with any answer given to me. I need to know why and how.
History has never been black and white, and it never will be. Knowing all points of view, even if you go against the majority, will let you see through the wool that has purposely been pulled over your eyes. Just because a certain view has the majority or is popular, doesn't make it right. Before Civil Rights, the majority was racist towards blacks. Were they right? Who were the few that helped change it, and how long did it take?
Friday, June 17, 2011
Americans Find History Boring? (Not Surprised)
It upsets me when I think about this. A recent report came out stating that only 13% of high school seniors showed that they had a solid grasp of the subject. As horrendous as that stat sounds, it is actually an improvement from 1994. Some claim this poor score comes from a heavier emphasis on Math and Science due to the No Child Left Behind law, but I feel that it is something other than that. I'm a historian, and more specifically, a military historian. I've been this way since I was in the 4th grade watching my dad play war games on the tops of tables with miniature, hand-painted, soldiers. The idea of this game caught my attention, so I strove to learn more about the different time periods. Ancient Rome to the Seven Years War (French and Indian War in America), American Revolution, Napoleonic Era, WWII etc... Why or how did I become interested in history? Why is it so few feel the same way about history? It's simple.
History is fascinating to me. How many people enjoy listening to their older relatives telling stories about what they did as kids? Why is it that only few of those enjoy history? The answers I have are the curriculum, the textbooks, and the lack of caring. Going through school, especially junior high and high school, history was taught in a boring manner. Memorizing dates, people, and why certain things were important, was done in a boring fashion. Think about it. What do you know of WWII? Hitler bad. America good. Japanese attacked us without us knowing. The one question that is rarely taught in the schools is "Why?" Honestly, think about why WWII started. Do you know why Hitler invaded Poland? Do you know why Japan attacked us? Do you know why the atomic bomb was dropped? I can almost guarantee you that about 10% of people in this country would know the "true" answers to these questions. We know that Hitler invaded Poland causing Britain and France to declare war on Germany. We know that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 to bring us into the war. We know that we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to bring the end of the war. We know what, who, and where, but history is fascinating when you ask why. I'll give an example.
1. Why did Hitler start WWII?
Answer: Would you believe that it is because of an event that happened 20 years before? 20 years before was the Treaty of Versailles which brought about the end of WWI. Now to fully understand the answer, we need to know how WWI was started. The Black Hand (a group of assassins from Serbia) was hired to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, who was heir to the throne of Austria, in an attempt to break off from Austria to form their own Slavic country. The assassination was successful and what followed was the second deadliest conflict in Western history. Austria declared war on Serbia in retaliation, causing Russia to decalre war on Austria, since Serbia was allied with Russia. Germany declared war on Russia due to Germany being allied with Austria. France was allied with Russia and therefore was at war with Germany by association, hence Germany declares war on France. Germany then invaded Belgium, Luxembourg, and France in an attempt to take Paris. End result was Germany and her allies being defeated. At the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was blamed for starting the war. You're probably asking yourself how, or why. That's good if you are. Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria, then Germany declared war, yet they are blamed for starting the war. They were an easy scapegoat. An easy target. The Austrian Empire didn't exist anymore. Germany was next in line. Germany was forced to reduce its military to 1,000 troops total. They were not allowed to have a Navy, or Air Force. They were also forced to pay war reparations, but the amount was never defined. One year it would be a certain amount, but the next year it would be even more. The following year would be more, and eventually Germany would be paying millions of dollars every year with no end in sight. When Hitler came to power he demanded that money be printed in an effort to pay the amount demanded by the British and French. Eventually, Germany went into a depression because of this. Hitler decided to do away with the Treaty. He started building up the military, including building ships and planes. He was able to recruit people to follow him because they were just as tired of the Treaty as he was. So because of the winning powers of WWI, WWII was fought which ended up being the bloodiest conflict in world history costing 60 million lives, and they built the foundation for one of the craziest people ever to gain power. How many textbooks have told you this part of the story?
That's my point. Schools are set to only teach the same story over and over and over and over. Would people be interested in math if the curriculum stayed on addition and subtraction through senior year in high school? How about science? Would it be interesting if you only learned about "water is a liquid and air is a gas" through senior year in high school? Why is it that the material for every other subject evolves to keep up with maturing minds, yet the curriculum of history remains the same no matter what grade? Granted the events, people, and dates don't change, but neither does 2+2. Adding more to the story will make it more interesting. Math evolves from learning basic addition and subtraction to Trigonometry. Science evolves from learning the kingdoms of organisms, to physics and molecular biology etc... History stays the same. Fifth grade American history class: American Revolution 1775-1783. Ok. Got that. Eighth grade American history class teaches: American Revolution 1775-1783. Got it. Eleventh grade American history: American Revolution 1775-1783. How about something with a little more detail or deeper understanding of the American Revolution. What did it accomplish? How was it fought? How did it help George Washington become president? No wonder it's boring for most people. There's only so many times that you can be told that Hitler was bad, and he started WWII which was won because America entered the war and fought in France, marching their way to Berlin where the Nazis were eliminated and Hitler committed suicide. Yeah. You know the what. You know the where, and who, but you weren't taught why.
Of course history isn't just wars, or military actions. History is anything about how or why something came to be. I recommend that everybody should pick a period of time that they find interesting and just go searching. If you are a fan of Shakespeare, learn about the time period he lived. If you like politics, learn how our system of government was formed. If you like movies, learn how movies evolved. It's all history.
I will say this, I had the oppotunity to march in the inaugural parade for Bush's second term. I don't care what your politics are, or if you like him or not. He was president for two terms, get over it. Anyway, while in D.C. we were allowed to go visit the monuments and memorials. This turned out to be history lessons from me to most of the marching band, (yes I was a band nerd), and some strangers who were merely passing by. What I found interesting was that, for the most part people find history boring. It's just memorizing dates, people, and events without application, yet for 2-3 hours I had the attention of everybody I was talking to. I wasn't reteaching what they knew about a certain monument. I was teaching additional information about the monument and showing how they could apply what they learned. Little factoids that would only help you if you were on Jeopardy, but are still interesting to know. An example would be that the Vietnam Wall is the only monument in D.C. that is black. The reason being that the artist, who was female, wanted the wall to be black so it would show a reflection of you looking at it. It would make your reflection seem like the soul of one of those names on the wall. It makes the wall seem alive. Kinda like if the "soul" was staring back. In the DVD made about our trip, unknown to me, there was an entire chapter dedicated to my tour of D.C. Apparently my little tour was being filmed by a member of the band, but what I found fascinating was that I held the interest of everybody who was listening. I gained that knowledge because I was always asking the questions of why and how.
History isn't boring. It can be if the same thing is taught numerous times over the course of a few years. Instead of only memorizing who the Americans fought in the Revolution, or when and where, ask why. You could also ask, why or how we won. Farmers beat one of the most powerful armies in the world. How or why? History is only as interesting as you make it, same with being boring. Pick something you are interested in, and learn how it came about. You'd be surprised what you can dig up. The information is out there.
I've decided that I will use some posts for history lessons that will vary in time periods. They will usually be about military history, but every now and then I will enlighten those who choose to listen, with things that have nothing to do with wars.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Remembering D-Day (June 6, 1944)
Sixty-seven years ago today, American, British, and Canadian forces stormed the beaches of Normandy in one of the biggest and most complicated invasions in history. Seven years ago I had the privilege and honor of remembering those who had fallen, and honor those who were still alive that fought on that day. On June 6, 2004 I accompanied our University's Band to Omaha Beach and performed at the ceremonies celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion.
euro-t-guide.com
euro-t-guide.comThe specific location we performed at was Pointe du Hoc (pictured above), which was where the Rangers scaled the 100ft cliffs, with ropes, while taking fire from the Germans on top. Of the initial landing force of 225+ Rangers from the 2nd Ranger Battalion, only 90 survived the 2-day action. The 5th Rangers were to land with the 2nd, but because of the delay of flares that were to signal the 5th Rangers to attack, they landed on Omaha Beach instead of Pointe du Hoc. It is said that because of these added Rangers, a disastrous failure was averted.
Pointe du Hoc is the same as it was 67 years ago, even though the artillery has been removed and the bunkers and pillboxes had the "windows" sealed up, but you can still walk inside them. In 2004 we honored 9 of the Rangers who fought at that location, and I was blessed to have the opportunity to speak with them. One Ranger was standing on top of a pillbox and was telling his story. Apparently, that pillbox was one that he helped to clear out. A woman asked him what it was like being there 60 years later. He wept. He stated that he couldn't understand why his life was spared. Why he survived and many of his friends didn't even make it up the cliff. I thanked him for his service, and my best friend and I did something that I will never forget. Since Pointe du Hoc was left alone, the craters from the naval guns are still there (picture of person climbing out of one above). My best friend was a marine and he wrote a message remembering and honoring those who died on that day, on his ceremonial cover ("Hat" for those who don't know) and we buried the cover in a crater. I don't know if it is still there today, but I hope that it is, and I hope that it will remain there for all time.
Being a military historian, standing on that ground was overwhelming. It was the single greatest honor I've ever had, and at the same time, I was standing on ground that I consider sacred. This was the ground where the world was saved. Where the war changed. Where our military stared adversity in the eye, and shoved it back with courage, ferocity, and blood. Our tour bus took us to the cemetery that is seen in Saving Private Ryan, and you would be amazed as to how massive that place is. They also opened up the path to the beach allowing us to run down the long winding path all the way to the sand. At that moment, when my feet hit the sand, tears welled up in my eyes. There is a sense of awe and glory when standing there. To put yourself at that location 60 years before, is something that can't be explained.
The men who died on that day sacrificed themselves to rid the world of tyranny and shall forever receive our gratitude. The men who survived that day made it possible to carry on the mission of ending the war, and shall forever receive our gratitude now and after they have passed. I will always remember, and I will never forget. 
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)