A Facebook acquaintance recently posted
We always hear about the tragedies that occurred in Germany during WWII; when will American history books acknowledge this tragedy that happened on OUR soil with more than just a passing paragraph? Or what about the millions killed at the hands of Russians? I think the general world population would have greater respect for America if we took responsibility for when we've screwed up rather than just being the "dominant winner." But then again, the winner writes the rhetoric...
Is there some sort of debate about this that I'm not aware of? Hardly anyone disputes that FDR's internment of American citizens during WWII was wrong. It was also many orders of magnitude less severe than what the Nazis or Soviets did, and it was done for vastly different reasons; to compare them is sort of disingenuous, isn't it? On your last point, I'd be eager to see some evidence that our adversaries have any practical interest in our apologies for past policies.
The reason I see these as related phenomenon is that there was less of an attempt on the part of the commenter to understand and listen to and think about any perspectives contrary to his beliefs than their knee-jerk reaction to jump into defensive posturing. The facts of the case are clear: the U.S. detained Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans throughout the second World War in light of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Right or wrong, it's what happened.
One person's truth asserts that this action should be more widely circulated and discussed as part of U.S. curriculum while another person's truth seems to declare that this isn't necessary (somewhat poorly, might I add - declaring an action less noteworthy than arguably similar - if less atrocious - actions because "it was done for vastly different reasons" appears to be neither an affirmation of the means nor the ends but another truth up for debate...).
I found this quote, and it's one I will certainly keep in mind:
"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have."We often spend so much time listening to those perspectives we already agree with - we read the books painting our chosen political party in a positive light, we listen to the pundits spouting whatever nonsense we already adhere to... If you believe that guns don't kill people, that people kill people, guess what? You're absolutely correct! And you'll find reams of evidence that prove the more guns save lives!
-Emile Chartier
But, if that's your perspective, hold on a second: there exists an equal amount of evidence to prove (also) that guns do, in fact, kill people, and that tighter restrictions indeed limit the number of deaths.
How 'bout that?
Personal test time: I challenge you to come up with three arguments and pieces of evidence for each side of the following debates:
Free Markets vs. Government Restrictions
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights
Small Government vs. Involved Governments
Prayer in Public Schools vs. Separation of Church and State
Universal Healthcare vs. Privatized Insurance
Social Programs vs. Privatization of Education/Welfare/Medicaid/Infrastructure/Military/Police Force/etc.
There. That's your challenge. Now here's the kicker: I would argue that if you can't come up with at least three legitimate arguments to both sides of each argument, that you, perhaps, are part of the problem. And, from personal experience, that you're probably a vocal proponent of your selected side...
"If only closed minds came with closed mouths."
No offense.
No comments:
Post a Comment