Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the Japanese exclusion act? Yellow Peril, anyone?
But hey. We can always put thenm in camps. That's justifiable, as well...
There were also laws against the Chinese as well and its not like Asian countries are known for allowing "foreign devils" to become citizens either. Try becoming a citizen of Japan even today for example.
Japan was rampaging throughout Asia. The oil embargo was justifiable because they needed the oil to sustain their war in China. I see no reason why the US (or any country for that matter) should sell oil to violent expansionist country when they find that nation's actions repugnant. Would the US have been justified invading OPEC nations during the oil embargo?
The internment camps weren't justifiable by any stretch. I won't defend them in any sense.
There were also laws against the Chinese as well and its not like Asian countries are known for allowing "foreign devils" to become citizens either. Try becoming a citizen of Japan even today for example.
Try finding a caucasian exclusion law in any country.
Quote:
apan was rampaging throughout Asia. The oil embargo was justifiable because they needed the oil to sustain their war in China.
Japan was doing nothing the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Spain had not done before her in acquiring their colonial empires by conquest and holding them by force. Japan's mistake was to come late to the table. Oh, and not be white.
Quote:
I see no reason why the US (or any country for that matter) should sell oil to violent expansionist country when they find that nation's actions repugnant.
Japan did not ask to buy oil from the US. She wanted to buy it on the open markey, from the Dutch and other interests in South Asia. The US strong-armed her allies into the embargo.
Quote:
Would the US have been justified invading OPEC nations during the oil embargo?
Different topic. But since the US explored and discovered the oil in those countries, and taught them how to extract and refine it, it remains a mystery to me why we are so compliant in the blackmail visited on us on a daily basis by our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, etc. No doubt, though, that Hugo Chavez should have been a distant and unpleasant memory by now...
Quote:
The internment camps weren't justifiable by any stretch. I won't defend them in any sense.
They reflected the attitude of the US toward Asian people at that time.
So did our aggressive foreign policy against Japan.
And the Japanese exclusion act? Yellow Peril, anyone?
But hey. We can always put thenm in camps. That's justifiable, as well...
Come on now. The Japanese did not attack the US in response to discrimination against Japanese who had emigrated to the US. That is untrue and I suspect you know that.
As for the camps, it is redundant to declare them an injustice, which they were. However, they came about after Pearl Harbor, so I am not sure why you are using them as a justification for the Japanese attack.
You are stoutly defending fascism and agression. You do realize that, don't you?
It's not the war that stopped the depression. The war ended unemployment because so many young men were removed from the work force. After the war was over, every other developed nation was bombed and burned to oblivion and definitely not manufacturing anything. We sold our products to the entire world through the 50s with little competition. We could charge what we liked because we had a virtual manufacturing monopoly. Since then our advantage has steadily decreased, yet we are still doing things as though nothing has changed. We have the second highest tax rates on business behind only Japan. This adds to the cost of our already overpriced exports, yet we cannot understand why we have trade deficits and unemployment. We have to ask ourselves, What is our advantage in the world's marketplace? Right now it is nothing. Until we correct that, we can throw all the money in the world into our economy and it won't change a single thing except to blow up the national debt and pay off Democratic supporters.
You raise some interesting questions and a few points as well. But first, your argument about men being removed from the workforce. The problem with that argument is the massive influx of women into it. I don't think that we have to debate the economic role of women in the pre-war years to understand that by transferring men out of the civilian workforce didn't change the aggregate size of the labor pool. If anything it enlarged it.
Your second argument, the U.S. as the last plant standing, is quite true, that, let's say six, of the largest industrial nations laid in ruins, Great Britain and the Soviet Union did not, those bombed out nations also had bombed out economies where demand was woefully inefficient to explain the continued economic expansion of the U.S. economy in the post war period. A time in which personal consumption was held in check by the unavailability of consumer goods. Additionally, you have left out the Marshall plan which was a major Federal expenditure (although guaranteed against future loan payments).
And last but not least, to argue that WWII didn't end the Great Depression is a bit far off the mark. Even though unemployment had only rebound to 9.66 by the end of 1941 (the war didn't start last month of 41) GDP had nearly reached 1929 levels by 1940.
Come on now. The Japanese did not attack the US in response to discrimination against Japanese who had emigrated to the US. That is untrue and I suspect you know that.
As for the camps, it is redundant to declare them an injustice, which they were. However, they came about after Pearl Harbor, so I am not sure why you are using them as a justification for the Japanese attack.
You are stoutly defending fascism and agression. You do realize that, don't you?
Not at all.
My use of the example of the relocation camps was to point out the deep-seated prejudice against Asians -- and particularly Japanese -- that obtained in the US sixty years ago, and whch was in part responsible for the aggressive US foreign policy against Japan.
The military government of Japan was an abomination. It had to be destroyed. But its take-over of the government in Japan was aided by such US provocations as the Exclusion Acts and the oil embargo, which occurred prior to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
I would be reluctant to link Japan too closely to Germany in a discussion of fascism. The militarists who took over Japan were motivated more by a primitive pseudo-religious ("divine Emperor") fervor than by Germany's perverted racial doctrines and mystical "Aryan" insanity. Both countries were ruled by vicious hatemongers. But their theologies, if you will, were quite different.
It is instructive to look at the Japanese acts of brutality in the light of similar American acts in Vietnam. While not comparable, of course, in scale or universality, they both orginated in an essential ignorance, and dehumanization, of the enemy.
Any time we exclude other people from our concept of what it means to be human, we run the risk of committing atrocities and dehumainzing ourselves.
The Bataan Death March, My Lai, Abu Ghraib -- these all constitute manifestations of such dehumanization.
So, I would argue, did US policy toward Japan prior to World War II.
Oh well that's just pure homespun wisdom....if you don't mind I'll listen to experts on the economy, and leading economists rather than some talking point you got from Sean Hannnity.....LOL
Golly gee....Government is the problem..LOL
Are those the same economists who suggest we borrow money from china to support our spending, and wars. Are those the same economists who told President Bush he should ignore the free market princples and believe government is the solution. We already did the government, federal reserve bailout and spent money we dont have. We already promised and backed loans we know banks can't keep with freddie mae and mac. Anything else you want to explain while your at it on how borrowing and spending makes the economy stronger and if it does who wins and gets the rewards besides bigger government and international bankers.
Seems to me we are listening to the wrong economists and they believe in destroying the dollar to save their own butts and keep up the lies they have been spinning for the last 50 years.
Where is the money coming from? When you look in the mirror remember you and your future generations will be paying for the mistakes and lies of bigger government and more spending with the future livelyhood of your paychecks. All of this central government planning on the economy is nothing more then chains they will have on every working person from here on out. Corporations will continue to grow around banks and corporations with the help of bigger government pad the wallets for themselves and those they help elect.
Common sense economics has nothing to do with hannity and frankly I can't stand the man.
In fact if Hannity and a few other people had listened to Ron Paul during the primaries instead of looking for another neocon to put into the white house he might have learned something. There is no Change in Obama only the face and name has changed but the policy remains the same.
I ask your leading economic advisors this.
Is this is economics or madness?
My use of the example of the relocation camps was to point out the deep-seated prejudice against Asians -- and particularly Japanese -- that obtained in the US sixty years ago, and whch was in part responsible for the aggressive US foreign policy against Japan.
The military government of Japan was an abomination. It had to be destroyed. But its take-over of the government in Japan was aided by such US provocations as the Exclusion Acts and the oil embargo, which occurred prior to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
I would be reluctant to link Japan too closely to Germany in a discussion of fascism. The militarists who took over Japan were motivated more by a primitive pseudo-religious ("divine Emperor") fervor than by Germany's perverted racial doctrines and mystical "Aryan" insanity. Both countries were ruled by vicious hatemongers. But their theologies, if you will, were quite different.
It is instructive to look at the Japanese acts of brutality in the light of similar American acts in Vietnam. While not comparable, of course, in scale or universality, they both orginated in an essential ignorance, and dehumanization, of the enemy.
Any time we exclude other people from our concept of what it means to be human, we run the risk of committing atrocities and dehumainzing ourselves.
The Bataan Death March, My Lai, Abu Ghraib -- these all constitute manifestations of such dehumanization.
So, I would argue, did US policy toward Japan prior to World War II.
Rather ludicrous to draw a connection between the humiliation or murder of civillians and surrendered soldiers with an embargo that was in response to...the humiliation or murder of civillians and surrendered soldiers, which is what the Japanese were doing.
You are welcome to respond, but we are digressing from the OP and I suspect the mods will be along.
Rather ludicrous to draw a connection between the humiliation or murder of civillians and surrendered soldiers with an embargo that was in response to...the humiliation or murder of civillians and surrendered soldiers, which is what the Japanese were doing.
I don't think that is what I am doing. Rather, I am trying to provide a broader perspective on how ignorance and racism provokes aggression and engenders violence and brutality. And to make the point that virtually every nation has been guilty of such ignorance and racism.
And really: to argue that only Japan has ever engaged in "the humilation or murder of civilians and surrendered soldiers" is patently absurd.
It is obvious, you are nothing but a right-wing shill. I will not even try to examine extremely complex events like the Great Depression objectively. I will automatically dismiss any and all articles and studies that do not meet my pre-existing biases while accusing you of bias. I will ignore that economists and economic historians are divided on what exactly caused the Great Depression, what sustained the Great Depression, and what ended the Great Depression. I will ignored that economists and economic historians are divided on the New Deal. I will ignore that many economists and economic historians who think that the New Deal was a good thing think that many regulations and programs that were enacted by the New Deal were counter-productive. I will ignore that many critics of the New Deal think that many regulations and programs that were enacted by the New Deal were beneficial.
Although I am a reasonably intelligent person, I am extremely narrow minded and reactionary. I realized at one point in my life that I am the ultimate arbiter of truth and anyone who disagrees with me must be lying, stupid, or ignorant. My worldview lacks subtly and nuance. I find it difficult that sometimes both sides can be right and sometimes both sides can be wrong. For instance I find it hard to believe that some New Deal regulations and programs were beneficial such as the SEC, the public works programs, rural development, and others. Some New Deal programs were destructive like price controls and farm subsidies. Some were benefitial in the short term like Social Security, but were fatally flawed and may prove to be counter-productive in the long-term. This confuses and angers me. It makes deification and demonization much more difficult.
-S
Ask six economists the same question and you'll get seven answers.
Guess what almost all historians have in common. Give up?
They weren't there. What they know they were told.
As for the "new deal", stimulating a fatally flawed economy changes nothing. The Smoot-Hawley Act caused retaliation by our trading partners that resulted in a two thirds reduction of imports and exports by 1930. Today no one can afford our exports. We can't even afford our own products. So what's the point in throwing money at it until we lower our cost of exports. If we spend the money now we'll just end up buying a bunch of Chinese products. They'll loan us back the money for the spending program we had that caused us to buy the Chineese products in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
