Her initial statement was still fundamentally correct. The US is the only country to ever drop an atomic bomb on innocent people. Whether a country as a whole can be said to be “innocent” or “guilty” is debatable, but it’s not debatable that the US is the only country ever to deliberately nuke innocent people as a way to win a war.
My college freshman English teacher and I argued whether or not “won’t” is the contracted form of “will not” or “would not”. I was in the “will not” camp.
I remember in third grade, we were reading a story about Indians living on the Amazon River. The teacher pulled down the world map to show us where that was – in India, of course.
I raised my hand and said that I was pretty sure the Amazon was in South America. She didn’t believe me until I pointed out the river on the map. I’m still not sure she didn’t cling to the belief that there was another Amazon River in India.
The US is the only country to ever deliberately nuke people.
I should look this up, but am I remembering incorrectly that at the time of the Atomic bombings, Germany had already surrendered?
If so, then the teacher’s second statement, in defense of her first, wasn’t even factually correct!
Re: beavers
It’s a question of poor definitions, which elementary school kids are fed by the ladleful. If you merely define amphibian as “an animal that spends part of its time in the water and part on land,” then you’re going to wind up with a lot of stupid sh!t classified as amphibian.
Like Esther Williams.
yes, the war in europe was over in aprilish. the war in the pacific went on into augustish. today is the anniversary of bombing hiroshima.
:smack: Arggh! I meant galaxy, I meant galaxy!
If the peace treaty hadn’t been signed yet, we’d still be officially at war with them even though there was no fighting going on. Egypt and Israel were officially at war for decades, even when there was no fighting. But somehow I doubt this teacher appreciated that kind of nuance.
That’s OK. It’s funnier if we all pretend you really meant “solar system.”
The teacher was probably right. There are conflicting accounts, but the stories that Crockett was one of the ones who surrendered have dubious origins.
Students’ parents, apparently.
No it wasn’t.
True, but neither Sam nor his teacher claimed otherwise.
True, but for it to be “debatable” someone has to take the opposing side. Nobody here did.
Whether the US bombed an “innocent country” cannot be falsified, since that phrase can’t have anything other than a subjective, figurative meaning. In my opinion, I would say that a country is mostly it’s people and since the Japanese people were innocent, then Japan was an innocent country. The fact that we were at war with it does not make it less innocent. Was the US NOT an innocent country during WWII? What does it mean to say a country is NOT innocent. There are no objective answers to that question, and no objective basis for contesting any answer.
The teacher was not factually wrong. Sam just disagreed with him.
The teacher appeared to be saying the U.S. was not at war with Japan, which is extremely wrong.
A country is also its government, and the Japanese government was guilty as hell.
Of course the US wasn’t an innocent country–we dropped the bomb on Japan, after all.
I had a professor in college who insisted that the Holocaust never happened. We were told to write papers on the Middle East/Palestinian situation using a specific set of books we were told to read; any students with papers that contained any information that didn’t come from those books immediately had their papers failed. (I was once told “Encyclopedia Britannica? Is all bullshit; they are in the Jew’s pockets!”)
He also threw several female students out of class for “dressing provocatively” and “eating in front of him”.
This guy was a former member of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations and had written a bunch of books on Middle Eastern politics. The university was always saying how proud they were to have him.
Oh yeah, the class was a required class on European history.
It was the only class I got less than a 3.0 in.
Well that’s the problem I have, you have to agree to some degree of “yeah, I know what you mean” even if on occasion there are in fact sometimes you don’t fully know what they meant. Otherwise you become so pedantic that communication without hours of qualification becomes meaningless: “Democratic lawmakers today introduced a bill… All of them? In DC? In the US? In the world?” “Scientists this week discovered that… All scientists everywhere in every field?” “Authorities have arrested a suspect in the case of… Which authorities? In which fields?”
Typically when talking about countries in this way we ascribe the actions done in the name of the country (usually by its leaders) to the country itself. Such as “Why are we attacking Iraq for 9/11, they are innocent?”
So if we say Japan was truly “an innocent country” because some, if not most, of it’s people did not participate in the planning or carrying out of attacks, then the statement of the teacher is still false because by that standard “America” never designed, built or dropped an atomic bomb on anybody, innocent or not. Unless you can cite proof that all citizens participated fully in all steps of the bombing.
As to America’s being innocent in WWII: Before Pearl Harbor, yes. After we declared war on the Axis, certainly not.
If it’s debatable whether a country can be innocent or guilty, then it is debatable that the US is innocent or guilty of nuking innocent people. The US is a country, after all. Just like Japan.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t see a reason not to name this professor. Who was he?