Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

[Relic]

Insults aside, I'm not even sure if this shows an understanding of what group bias is or how/why it might be a factor. How about situated knowledge? Familiar with that?

What I'm getting from your posts is that we Americans are somehow guilty of a group bias in seeing ourselves as the "good guys" in this instance when we are in reality, just as guilty as Japan in our imperialistic ways..?
While you, on the other hand are somehow enlightened and above any sort of bias and therefore have a more valid opinion?
It's coming across as being incredibly arrogant IMHO, but maybe I'm just reading you wrong.

 

[Schlyder]

I don't think you are reading him/her wrong, that's exactly how I read the pompous epistimological bloviating in his/her posts as well.
He/she seems to have read some philosophy books, and now has a rather large opinion of his/her ability over others to form an opinion.
That our opinion is based on cultural follow the leader, and his/hers is formed from higher knowledge.
Give me a break.

Applying modern standards of morality, which are completely out of context, to historical events, is not an accurate way to analyze what happened, and why it happened, and what the people making it happen were thinking.
That's why I'm sure everyone agrees that dropping an atomic bomb on civilians nowadays would be a war crime, and would not have a defendable position.

 

[Deleted member 92857]

No - history is NEVER exactly as taught and written.

History is always at a minimum reduced in scope by editorial decision as taught and written - never mind that everything human is biased and that cannot be avoided.

+1. But that doesn't automatically mean that:

1. The opposite is true
2. there is a huge conspiracy afoot
3. your (emperical your, not you personally) version is 100% correct

 

[12bass]

What I'm getting from your posts is that we Americans are somehow guilty of a group bias in seeing ourselves as the "good guys" in this instance when we are in reality, just as guilty as Japan in our imperialistic ways..?
While you, on the other hand are somehow enlightened and above any sort of bias and therefore have a more valid opinion?
It's coming across as being incredibly arrogant IMHO, but maybe I'm just reading you wrong.

Am I absolutely certain that group bias has impacted historical views of Hiroshima? No, however, I could outline a number of reasons why I think it is worth seriously considering. Frankly, I'm not absolutely certain about much of anything other than logic, and even that admits some doubt.

Further, what people think of me personally has absolutely no bearing on the facts under question here. Such comments are unnecessary, offensive, and only serve to muddy the discussion. If anything, I'd say that the reaction of making personal attacks (or comments) instead of making reasoned arguments against my points serves to illustrate that I may be correct in my observations and that they have hit a sore sport. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is fallacious reasoning. But then, considering the ideological environment here, I suspected as much when I entered into this thread, as apparently for some mere questioning itself is an act deserving rebuke.

The bottom line for me is that I happen to care about the truth very much, and when it becomes apparent that the history of WWII has not been objectively recorded, but rather came from a perspective which was situated in an a highly-charged ideological environment, this gives good reason to doubt its veracity.

 

[Phil Smith]

What I'm getting from your posts is that we Americans are somehow guilty of a group bias in seeing ourselves as the "good guys" in this instance when we are in reality, just as guilty as Japan in our imperialistic ways..?
While you, on the other hand are somehow enlightened and above any sort of bias and therefore have a more valid opinion?
It's coming across as being incredibly arrogant IMHO, but maybe I'm just reading you wrong.

Not to take this off topic, but more to make a point...

If you take a poll from the average man or woman on the street in the USA, Iraq and Afghanistan do you think they would all agree that we are the "good guys"?

When I say "we" I'm referring to the government who makes the decisions, not the people.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Not to take this off topic, but more to make a point...

If you take a poll from the average man or woman on the street in the USA, Iraq and Afghanistan do you think they would all agree that we are the "good guys"?

All of them? Absolutely not, the majority though? Probably.

 

[12bass]

Not to take this off topic, but more to make a point...

If you take a poll from the average man or woman on the street in the USA, Iraq and Afghanistan do you think they would all agree that we are the "good guys"?

Excellent point. It illustrates that how such perceptions are highly context dependent.

Another similar question: How would history have differed if the Axis had won instead? Anyone still think that history would have been "objectively recorded" and beyond question if that had been the case?

 

[Relic]

Am I absolutely certain that group bias has impacted historical views of Hiroshima? No, however, I could outline a number of reasons why I think it is worth seriously considering. Frankly, I'm not absolutely certain about much of anything other than logic, and even that admits some doubt.

Further, what people think of me personally has absolutely no bearing on the facts under question here. If anything, I'd say that thereaction of making personal attacks (or comments) instead of making reasoned arguments against my points serves to illustrate that I may be correct in my observations and that they have hit a sore sport. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is fallacious reasoning. But then, considering the ideological environment here, I suspected as much when I entered into this thread, as apparently for some mere questioning itself is an act deserving rebuke.

The bottom line for me is that I happen to care about the truth very much, and when it becomes apparent that the history of WWII has not been objectively recorded, but rather came from a perspective which was situated in an a highly-charged ideological environment, this gives good reason to doubt its veracity.

No, this is all directly related. The "sore spot" does not at all come from your claims. You're misunderstanding.
I'll attempt to exlain if you're willing to listen:
My impression is that you are making claims that our (US members) group bias might be influencing our views - I'm countering by pointing out that you very well may also have bias-influenced views, and if you deny that real possibility, then it would seem to me to be very arrogant. IE what would make you more qualified to be the "holder of truth" than someone else? Thus, the "sore spot".
If I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to convey, then I stand corrected. I'm really not one to aimlessly argue... I tend to be open-minded sometimes to a fault, so if you're simply trying to convey that we should not take history at face value, then I agree with you and there's no need to continue.
If you are truly trying to say "ya'll are Americans so have no idea what yer tawkin' about" then I take exception to that.
Does that help?

 

[Relic]

Not to take this off topic, but more to make a point...

If you take a poll from the average man or woman on the street in the USA, Iraq and Afghanistan do you think they would all agree that we are the "good guys"?

Nope, they'd all say something different.

but..I'll ask you now - which ones would be right?

 

[12bass]

No, this is all directly related. The "sore spot" does not at all come from your claims. You're misunderstanding.
I'll attempt to exlain if you're willing to listen:
My impression is that you are making claims that our (US members) group bias might be influencing our views - I'm countering by pointing out that you very well may also have bias-influenced views, and if you deny that real possibility, then it would seem to me to be very arrogant. IE what would make you more qualified to be the "holder of truth" than someone else? Thus, the "sore spot".
If I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to convey, then I stand corrected. I'm really not one to aimlessly argue... I tend to be open-minded sometimes to a fault, so if you're simply trying to convey that we should not take history at face value, then I agree with you and there's no need to continue.
If you are truly trying to say "ya'll are Americans so have no idea what yer tawkin' about" then I take exception to that.
Does that help?

I've never claimed to be without bias. That is a straw man. If group bias is an issue, then it is an issue regardless of whether I'm a complete fruit loop, or someone capable of pure objectivity. And, yes, I am cautioning against taking history at face value.

 

[Phil Smith]

Nope, they'd all say something different.

but..I'll ask you now - which ones would be right?

The people with the first hand accounts of what went down, that describe and bring to light things we have not seen, heard or even considered.

 

[Relic]

I've never claimed to be without bias. That is a straw man. If group bias is an issue, then it is an issue regardless of whether I'm a complete fruit loop, or someone capable of pure objectivity.

Well then, I misunderstood you. No straw man argument here as I'm not interested in arguing.

 

[Relic]

The people with the first hand accounts of what went down, that describe and bring to light things we have not seen, heard or even considered.

Yep, true. But wouldn't there also be another "level of truth" ie, the bigger picture, when you take into account what a military leader in any one of those countries might think?

 

[12bass]

Was talking to a friend about this last night... Apparently he has seen an anime film which gives a Japanese perspective on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Will post it if I get the chance, as I think it might be interesting to see another point of view.

 

[Philbiker]

Am I absolutely certain that group bias has impacted historical views of Hiroshima? No, however, I could outline a number of reasons why I think it is worth seriously considering. Frankly, I'm not absolutely certain about much of anything other than logic, and even that admits some doubt.

Further, what people think of me personally has absolutely no bearing on the facts under question here. Such comments are unnecessary, offensive, and only serve to muddy the discussion. If anything, I'd say that the reaction of making personal attacks (or comments) instead of making reasoned arguments against my points serves to illustrate that I may be correct in my observations and that they have hit a sore sport. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is fallacious reasoning. But then, considering the ideological environment here, I suspected as much when I entered into this thread, as apparently for some mere questioning itself is an act deserving rebuke.

The bottom line for me is that I happen to care about the truth very much, and when it becomes apparent that the history of WWII has not been objectively recorded, but rather came from a perspective which was situated in an a highly-charged ideological environment, this gives good reason to doubt its veracity.

Wow. Get over yourself already.

It's apparent to me that you have a very limited understanding of the academic discipline of history.

Not to open up another big can of worms but your statements read much like those of an intelligent design advocate questioning evolution theory.

 

[Relic]

Was talking to a friend about this last night... Apparently he has seen an anime film which gives a Japanese perspective on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Will post it if I get the chance, as I think it might be interesting to see another point of view.

I've seen several Japanese movies dealing with WW2, they are usually excellent! The biggest controversy with them is that they usually completely ignore anything to do with China.

 

[12bass]

Well then, I misunderstood you. No straw man argument here as I'm not interested in arguing.

FWIW, I think that everyone has bias, including myself, although I try to mitigate it as much as I can. My view is that objectivity is not achievable for anything less than an omniscient, disinterested, entity... and that goes beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[12bass]

It's apparent to me that you have a very limited understanding of the academic discipline of history.

Please explain further how the academic discipline of history shows me to be in error.

Not to open up another big can of worms but your statements read much like those of an intelligent design advocate questioning evolution theory.

That's so far wrong that it is laughable.... I mean, really, think of all the puppies and kittens that are dying because of making such a ridiculous claim!

 

[12bass]

I've seen several Japanese movies dealing with WW2, they are usually excellent! The biggest controversy with them is that they usually completely ignore anything to do with China.

So, are these films giving an objective account of history, or are they perhaps skewing events to portray Japan in a certain (favorable) light? Why wouldn't the Japanese want to accurately document what happened in China?

 

[Relic]

FWIW, I think that everyone has bias, including myself, although I try to mitigate it as much as I can. My view is that objectivity is not achievable for anything less than an omniscient, disinterested, entity... and that goes beyond the scope of this forum.

Yeah, as for myself I do find that I'll usually have an initial "quick reaction" to something especially when there are certain triggers and I find that if I sit back and think something through, my view can change drastically. I'm absolutely sure that that initial quick reaction is more than a little biased.