Please explain/justify this

[Guno צְבִי]

Hello Whythink,



OP link: "Zielke said she was told “we can’t just provide one side or the other side” before the parent pressed Boyer about the issue, demanding the board member clarify her definition of “other.”

“What she said to me was that we actually need an ‘American’ perspective,’” said Zielke, who said she pointed out that those who were incarcerated were, in fact, Americans, before the conversation grew increasingly heated.

“She clarified and said that she felt that we needed the perspective of the American government and why Japanese internment happened. And so then again, we had raised voices at this point. I told her specifically, I said, ‘The other side is racism.’” "

Darn right it is.

Strange Germans weren't rounded up on the east coast even though U boats were in east coast waters

[ThatOwlWoman]

Did/can you read my post., ‘With your twisted logic, historical books about “justified slavery” are just fine to be taught to young school children.’

Teaching just one side of an issue is unacceptable at any grade level.

The ultra liberal, FDR authorized the internment and he was right.

It and the atomic bomb saved lives, one of whom was my brother and hundreds of thousands of American soldiers’ lives, if we had to invade Japan.

Again, derp, it is being presented as LITERATURE. We had to read "The Grapes of Wrath" in h.s. Today you worshipers-of-ignorance would ban that as well, since it doesn't show the plight of the poor struggling landowners ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ employing the migrant Dust Bowl refugees. Then there was "Catch 22." Nope, no other side there, portraying the struggling Axis powers just trying to take over the world. Ditto for "Hiroshima," "1984," the kids in "Lord of the Flies," etc.

Basically what you desire most of all is to raise children as devoid of empathy, compassion, and critical thinking skills as you all are.

[PoliTalker]

Hello guno,

Strange Germans weren't rounded up on the east coast even though U boats were in east coast waters

They don't look different.

[ThatOwlWoman]

No it isn’t racism.

We were in a world war. Our country was not guaranteed a win.

The ultra liberal, FDR, put this policy in effect under world wartime conditions.

He was right, it saved lives and possibly the war and it was not racism.

You truly are insane. This revelation explains a lot.

[Earl]

Again, derp, it is being presented as LITERATURE. We had to read "The Grapes of Wrath" in h.s. Today you worshipers-of-ignorance would ban that as well, since it doesn't show the plight of the poor struggling landowners ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ employing the migrant Dust Bowl refugees. Then there was "Catch 22." Nope, no other side there, portraying the struggling Axis powers just trying to take over the world. Ditto for "Hiroshima," "1984," the kids in "Lord of the Flies," etc.

Basically what you desire most of all is to raise children as devoid of empathy, compassion, and critical thinking skills as you all are.

No, dummy, it’s indoctrination and propaganda.

So, you thought at first it was “exploiting” but then realized how stupid you are.

Good job.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Strange Germans weren't rounded up on the east coast even though U boats were in east coast waters

There was a lot of negativity directed towards Americans with German surnames during both World Wars. Some ppl even Anglicized their last names for that reason. BUT -- none of them were rounded up and put into internment camps.

It is just incredible that Earl is defending this. If he had lived 80 years ago, he'd be turning in his Jewish neighbors as a threat to the Vaterland.

[Cypress]

Again, derp, it is being presented as LITERATURE. We had to read "The Grapes of Wrath" in h.s. Today you worshipers-of-ignorance would ban that as well, since it doesn't show the plight of the poor struggling landowners ̶e̶x̶p̶l̶o̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ employing the migrant Dust Bowl refugees. Then there was "Catch 22." Nope, no other side there, portraying the struggling Axis powers just trying to take over the world. Ditto for "Hiroshima," "1984," the kids in "Lord of the Flies," etc.

Basically what you desire most of all is to raise children as devoid of empathy, compassion, and critical thinking skills as you all are.

I am pretty sure Solzhenitsyn's "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" is assigned or optional reading in college literature classes. I think Evince even read it for a high school class.

And I don't think conservatives ever demanded we hear Stalin's side of the story on the Gulag experience.

[Earl]

You seem to know all about the homosexual community

I know it’s a deviant, perverted lifestyle which, without outside intervention, would be. Death style lifestyle.

[T. A. Gardner]

Okay, let me just put an end to your incessantly stubborn effort to avoid conceding a logical point for the objective, rational reader to see.

Your first sentence states Sslavery was obviously not a primary mover for the US revolution.

This displays either poor reading comprehension or intentional intellectual dishonesty to misrepresent parts of the discussion. Again, Hannah-Jones said that her piece “doesn't claim that (the Revolutionary War) was fought solely to preserve slavery, but it does claim that it was a primary reason that some colonists, particularly in Virginia, decided to join the Revolutionary War.”
https://www.browndailyherald.com/art...in-watson-talk

Got that? I hope so, because it renders your little myopic story (which you do not document) not only unnecessary, but unaccountable to ALL the information in the links I provided.

See, that's the problem with your knee jerk version of conservatism....you isolate, you juxtapose, you promote supposition & conjecture as fact and you consistently try to detour a debate away from any facts that conclude contrary to what you believe.

Now folk like you NEVER admit you're wrong or concede a point. You'll just double down and spew various versions of what you already have done. So unless you've got something original and/or can give a true point for point debate, I'll just let you ramble on and move on to something else.

She makes slavery a centerpiece of her book. Using what amounts to weasel words to try and mitigate that doesn't change it. That is, slavery was a minor issue of little or no importance in making the American revolution. In fact, thousands of slaves ended up fighting in American militia and military units often being given their freedom in exchange for service--often paid.
If perpetuating slavery was a serious reason, explain how. That only 1.5 to 2% of all Americans at the time owned slaves indicates that that reason as a motivator would have affected virtually no one, and certainly not on a scale that would allow success in the revolution.

Hannah-Jones in her book makes it sound as if slavery were a major reason for the revolution and a major motivator of it. That's utter bullshit and she's been called out for that and other historical mistakes repeatedly now.

[ThatOwlWoman]

No, dummy, it’s indoctrination and propaganda.

So, you thought at first it was “exploiting” but then realized how stupid you are.

Good job.

You are beyond stupid. I'm done with you. Your soul sickness could be contagious.

Haben Sie einen nett Tag, faschistisch Arschloch.

[ThatOwlWoman]

I know it’s a deviant, perverted lifestyle which, without outside intervention, would be. Death style lifestyle.

Then you shouldn't do it. Problem solved.

[Earl]

There was a lot of negativity directed towards Americans with German surnames during both World Wars. Some ppl even Anglicized their last names for that reason. BUT -- none of them were rounded up and put into internment camps.

It is just incredible that Earl is defending this. If he had lived 80 years ago, he'd be turning in his Jewish neighbors as a threat to the Vaterland.

Nonsense, horse mierda.

The internment, by up your ultra liberal president, FDR, was justified to win a world war that we were not winning, for most of the war.

Are you still a racist, that’s unattractive.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Just for pEarl. Here, wanker, park one of your impotent groans on this.

[Earl]

Then you shouldn't do it. Problem solved.

I don’t but you abominations want it taught as “normal” to six year old girls and boys.

[T. A. Gardner]

So since it's a personal account, it's fiction? Don't you wish.

Funny how you RWers weep and cry over the removal of Confederate statues and call it "erasing history," yet here you are -- defending the very same thing you think is cancel culture.

No, it's historical fiction. It's based on her family's experiences but isn't a factual account but rather a version that makes for a better read. It's like a movie where they claim the movie is based on a true event and the movie is nothing like the actual event by sensationalized to make it more enjoyable to watch.