I know there are people from all over the globe participating on Hubpages. I am curious how we were taught the history of the world. Take for example,something vague. The Cold War.
What were you taught about the Cold War? How did it begin why did escalate to such proportions? What country's schools did you attend?
I am curious if we were all taught different stories?
I was taught that the world was divided after WWII. Both sides maintained their borders aggressively. There was missle build ups on both sides in competition with each other.
That is what I taught. I know different now.
I was taught much the same. I think what we were taught is correct ONLY at the most basic level.
There certainly was a division between east and west before the war and after. The Soviet Union being the dominant force in the east (China joining them later) and the US in the west.
The details are more involved though, as you say.
That's pretty much the basics of what I was taught as well, but the details are much more complex.
There is a certain propoganda that is taught into history that has the tendency to favor the authors benefactors.
Case in point is the Texas text book controversy. Because the sale of the book is more important than the contents the relating of the history can be changed to meet the needs of the purchaser. Is this proper or correct? Absolutely not but it is acceptable to the consumer and therefore made available.
Perhaps time will help correct it as the history becomes more distant. As Robert E. Lee appologized for the blunder of Picketts charge in Gettysburg maybe Eisenhowers regrets of mounting the massive D-Day invasion with the resulting casualties will become better known.
Unfortunately the impassioned alliteration of some of the authors of these history books sometimes make war a glory bound account rather than the harsh reality of the death of some mothers son. Wars are fought for monetary or political gain and until the true reasons of these conflicts are recounted by the historians rather than the romantic recollections little will happen to change the horrors of war or histories accounts of it.
During the war of 1939-45, the people killed in earstwhile Soviet Union is more than those killed in all other countries. Not because Hitler invaded Russia. Its leader Stalin was heading a government which was so tyrannic that no one could even think against him. Deaths in Russia exceeded imaginations. When the war ended, the allied forces came near the Russian border. The western world, famous for lavishness and media-blitz, was imminent to enlighten the tyranny of Rusian dictator Stalin. If the harshness was enlightened to the people, another Russian revolution would have upset the whole world. So, the Russian ruler wanted to put an iron curtain between the east and west, separating the once one-ccountry people for a long time to come.
For Russians, the iron curtain was preventing the western media from entering their country. For west, it was preventing communism from spreading to their country.
An interesting "history" that I've never heard, and it makes a great deal of sense to me. Likely a lot of truth there.
Great answer Thank You, Was China part of the Iron curtain? Even though China- Russia almost came to battles throughout much of the time period.
When Nixon went to China did he cross the Iron Curtain?
No. China was not part of it. Iron curtain was aimed to separate the east (Russia) and west (Allies). Its utility was only in Europe. China was communised by Mao-tse-tung, who led the movement with the help of the suffering masses.
They wanted good government at that time and Mao provided it. He took some harsh measures to suppress the opponents which was openly reported by the press. But for westerners, China was a far-away country and they never cared what happened in the eastern world, comprising half of humanity. So the level of press reporting was and is very low compared to the west.
Nixon went to China in 1972, breaking all anti-communist barriers in his administration only to set right the balance of power, created by the Indian victory over Pakistan in 1971, when almost Pakistan was divided and reduced to rubbles and could no more promise a safe and reliable friend for the US in the east. All the financial aid, armaments, ammunition provided by US to Pakistan became waste at the end of the 1971 war. Even after that, the US seems not to have learnt a lesson.
"They wanted good government at that time and Mao provided it. "
BS. Mao 'provided' terror, famine, oppression, and death.
"But for westerners, China was a far-away country and they never cared what happened in the eastern world"
The slightest understanding of history shows that comment to be nonsense.
Btw, the term describing China's communist isolation was 'The Bamboo Curtain.'
Mao did not provide famine and so on. Is it easy to feed one billion people in a land, ravaged by the WW-2 ? The government of Chiang could not give an effective governance and had to flee to Taiwan (Formosa). After getting in, Mao had to enforce discipline among people. There are oppression, terror and death in some countries even now. That is not important. Mao left a country self sufficient and can be proud of leading a nation, entirely isolated from the world for 25 years.
"End should justify the means".
Press reporting about the eastern part of the world, by the west is certainly far below the level required.
"Mao did not provide famine and so on. "
He absolutely did. That is a matter of fact. History, remember?
" There are oppression, terror and death in some countries even now. That is not important. "
Oh, that's not important? How big of you to decide that. I'm sure the millions and millions and millions who died because of Mao and those suffering today would agree whole-heartedly.
"Mao left a country self sufficient and can be proud of leading a nation, entirely isolated from the world for 25 years."
He left no such country. China did not begin climb out of abject famine and poverty until the policies of Mao were definitively rejected. I'm sure you remember what Deng Xiaoping said.
I must admit it is a bit odd to try to defend Mao. There is probably something to the idea that we in the West know less about China than we think (though the poster is not from China either I might point out!), and I suspect Mao did do some things that were admirable (I'm pretty sure he may have done quite a lot of good things for China actually), but then again, not to trot out the usual example, Hitler did a lot of good for Germany... I am not sure your average German would say he was good for the country overall however! And, of course, the idea that terror and oppression are justified in the name of discipline is just, well, a joke. Yes, we'll increase suffering so as to reduce suffering. Riiight.
Nothing can be counted as 'good' that happens under a regime responsible for 50+ million deaths.
Deaths due to government repressions are never counted. It runs along with our imaginations. While the govt. kills its own people for political reasons, how can others go there and count the dead? So, the deaths attributed to Mao's era is exaggerated. Mao ruled from 1949 to 1975. May be during his 26 year term, the over all deaths would have been 50+ mn. But the population increased 150% during his rule.... ie., 400+ mn.
This does not follow, according to logic. "The deaths attributed to Mao's era" MAY be exaggerated, this is possible. But aren't we talking about an extremely closed society here? I mean, you could just as easily say that the statistics were modified so as to be more CONSERVATIVE than the truth of things. In such a secretive system as Maoist China, how are we going to know.
The point however does not change. If policies were implemented that were expected to probably cause large amounts of suffering, even if "only" in comparatively small numbers, then that counts as BAD in my book.
"Deaths due to government repressions are never counted"
Says who? I'm sorry that the lives of millions and millions of human beings seem to mean so little to you. I hope you can live with that.
This is a twisted and rather stupid comment. You want to attribute deaths through government repression to the poster and tell him he should feel bad about himself ! he is discussing the issues and to do that he must speak - pointless and stupid remarks to everyone who tries to put their point of view is counter productive and mindless.
Try to reply without the insults. And if you bothered to read carefully you would see I never attributed any deaths to the poster. Pay attention. When he said those deaths "don't count" that reflects a callous attitude toward human life in my opinion. Is that ok with you?
When Mao became the Chairman, the population of China was around 800 millions. When he died, the population was 1200 millions... How much would have died during that period?
It is easy to accuse everyone, but it is hard to felicitate them. Even if no one in the west is ready to accept, Mao's policies are very much alive in China and elsewhere under the name "Maoism".
Deng is not accepted as a hero, but Mao is certainly their hero.
You make sense here. I am only breezing by this thread as I have to go work but your comments have stood out.
No offense but it seems that while for some reason you have chosen to idolize a murderous communist dictator you do not understand Chinese history.
One of the many of Mao's policies that created generations of suffering was his 'brilliant' idea that the Chinese should have as many babies as possible and "out breed" the West in order to gain some imagined advantage. Mao is today recognized for what he was, and the fact of the matter is that China did not even begin to dig out of the privation he wrought until the change in direction initiated by Deng. You do remember what he said, right?
This is about correct. Another post here is also correct in that most people in the west know almost nothing about China = and other posts here just mouth off the same old propaganda that has been fed to them.
Mao is still a hero here, most village homes have his picture on their wall still and the party members that I know still hold him in high esteem. Modern times and rapid development have put his ideas out of fashion but they are still a living force within the Chinese culture. If you ask a Chinese about Mao the most common reply is 'no Mao no China'.
any leader in times of war and especially revolution will be responsible for many deaths, the idea that he is single handedly responsible for millions of deaths is just tired old propaganda being repeated by the ignorant or those with a political agenda.
"most people in the west know almost nothing about China"
The people of China often know almost nothing about things in China that the PRC doesn't want them to know.
"Mao is still a hero here, most village homes have his picture on their wall still and the party members that I know still hold him in high esteem"
Those pictures have been there for decades. He is an object of nostalgia today, not idolization. And PRC party hacks have no choice but to go through the motions even though it was the party itself that eventually saw that it could not survive without moving away from his stupid policies.
"Modern times and rapid development have put his ideas out of fashion"
"any leader in times of war and especially revolution will be responsible for many deaths"
Unbelievable. When one stoops to playing the apologist for a murderous communist dictator and disregarding the deaths of tens of millions you know that the indoctrination is complete. Beware the Queen of Diamonds...
Nobody here sees Mao as a murderous communist dictator - that is your own indoctrination talking.
Your blinkered views are already noted and rejected, get over it.
"Nobody here sees Mao as a murderous communist dictator "
That is incorrect.
I'm sorry if it makes you feel bad, but by now quite a few educated people are aware of their country's history, and the state-enforced sanitation of mao's image has loosened over time. Educated people have been aware of the truth of what mao put the country through for a long while. It has only been a matter of the extent to which it has been 'allowed' that this reality be openly recognized.
There are going to be different interpretations of history depending where in the world you were taught. Going by Allied history alone is sure to paint a tainted picture of reality. the same can be said of those taught in the East.
Was India and Russia working in cohesion to dominate the entire Asian Continent before the US opened relations with China?
They were certainly aggressive during the India/Pakistani war.
"here" refers to "in China" I assume. I am not sure anyone can make a blanket statement about 1.2 billion people, and especially not in a country where freedom of speech is not exactly a notion that is alive-and-well, but even if it is true, there are pictures of Cardinal Ratzinger (or whatever the hell he calls himself now) on the walls of millions of home across the world -- are we to take this to mean that he isn't the rat-snake he is who protects child molesters in favour of preserving his own institution (sorry, I got a bit carried away there, but I am just saying that having your picture on everyone's wall does not mean you are a saint, even if you are one. In the 1940's every major German city had an Adolf Hitler Street. So what?)
The answer was about whether Mao is still popular in China - not a character reference. That most poor people, who make up the greatest part of the population still, still consider Mao a hero is a fact, I see it every day - and he is fiercly defended by those people. I have a good friend in England of Chinese origin who hates China because her family were evicted from their lands. Her father still complains about how his grandfathers 'workers' were freed from their legal 'bonds' - it depends how you see things I guess. Making stupid comments like murdering dictator ignores the more recent historical figures who killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq - for money. But I guess that also depends on your view of things.
I would take the "murderous dictator" thing the other way however. In other words, I would say we SHOULD label Mao as "murderous" if in fact he was willfully negligent of the lives of thousands of people BUT that we should ALSO label George Bush Jr as "murderous" if in fact HE was willfully negligent of the lives of thousands of people (which I don't think we need to argue too seriously he was, in Iraq at least).
Once again: Mao is the object of nostalgia by some now that enough time has passed since all the suffering he caused, but he is no longer idolized because people are for the most part not being forced to any longer and because too many people now know the truth about that murderous dictator. Do some people still see him as a "hero"? Certainly, just as 'some' Russians look back fondly on Stalin despite his murderous rule, but to say "this is what the Chinese think" is ridiculously generalized and misleading. Some folks go too far when they really, really want to be seen as an 'authority.' Such folks have tied their egos into not only promoting themselves as an authority, but an absolutely unimpeachable one at that. People don't wear their Mao Suits and carry their Little Red Books under the threat of punishment nowadays. And YES, mao was responsible for tens of millions of deaths and is one of the worst villians in human history.
you are mis-informed and uneducated in these things. You have no idea what you are talking about and just repeating all the misconceptions that you have been fed.
Tens of millions? Have you ever seen the figures on Vietnam? Cambodia? Iraq? How about Japan? India? America is a warmongering nation. In case you jump to some conclusion about me being a socialist, communist, a liberal or whatever else, just have a look and digest the statement. I have made an objective factual statement. America is a war mongering nation.
When you say Mao killed tens of millions and carry on this bleeding heart nationalism and fighting reason with name calling, remember that the United States military has killed tens of millions also.
I know how badly you want to hold the view you have from inside your bubble as the one, only, and unquestionable take on any and every thing relating in any way to China, but it doesn't work that way. Sorry.
"the United States military has killed tens of millions also."
Your emotional opinion of the US aside, your 'facts' are incorrect.
NO - his facts are very accurate. If you dispute them perhaps you can say why, or just put up another silly little yellow face I suppose.
This thread is so clearly a distraction. Those of you who like life in China, and elsewhere outside the USA, enjoy yourselves! In the USA, we'll likely never have a Tiananmen(sp?) square massacre and jailing.....and should such a thing occur, Americans from all points would be there to put it to a swift ending and a new beginning.
China is killing you and you don't even realise. How Mao would be warm in his grave.
Oh, many Americans are very much aware of China's growing power economically, and we've long since been aware of their power militarily. And with that understanding, we certainly do not wish to see America weakened rhetorically in the eyes of the world, or in fact.
Hmmmm - like at the Uni shootings during protests at whichever gun-toting state it was in ?
"NO - his facts are very accurate."
Ok, prove it. Tens of millions killed by the US. Let's see it.
You missed the murderous debacle in Vietnam? The unwarranted slaughter still going on in Iraq? The support of numerous murderous dictators in killing their own people in South America?
Refusing to see both sides of all the wars and aggression is blind Nationalism, a strong trait of fascism.
Editorial adjectives aside, I'm stil waiting for proof of the tens of millions killed by the US.
"How much time have you spent in China?"
Who were you asking?
Mmm, all the same, it is hard for me to believe that he wasn't responsible for some horrendous atrocities. Naturally, as a Westerner, I have been trained to believe he was a monster, so I am willing to take my own enculturated instincts with a grain of salt. But no one here has mentioned the Cultural Revolution. I mean, say what you want about the Communists (and I appreciate that they did do some good things, like trying to introduce some sort of universal medical care, and of course trying to modernize (assuming that is a good thing, on balance!)) but the Cultural Revolution is NOT something that can be excused, in my view, in any terms.
The issue is more whether you (western people generally) understand the cultural revolution, right or wrong is like criticising your own civil war without understanding.
Events that kill people are generally 'not good', the Iraq invasion for one, but in the west we get a slanted history through the media who are attacking anything that might shift the power away from the very very rich. The history we are given is pretty much pure propaganda, is it is in most countries.
I am not American but British, so my own Civil War (I am not sure I own a Civil War, but I get what you're saying) had something to do with Cromwell and one of the Charleses; in any case, it is too divorced from modern Britain (which I would say starts with Victoria, at best) for me to comment on. The US Civil War, by contrast, has heaps to do with modern America, so is probably a pretty good analogy to the Cultural Revolution.
I am a bit confused as to whether you are a Westerner, Chinese, both in some sense, or neither, but the point is a good one in general: how many of us in the West understand the Cultural Revolution, or for that matter similar events in our own countries.
Unfortunately, however, if you use that argument it has to cut both ways. In other words, if we accept, as I agree we should, that people are hampered by a lack of the ability to truly understand an event, then that applies to you also.
Of course it applies to me - the only difference is that I am here, I talk to everybody I meet, I visit their homes and we discuss many of these issues in class (University) which also is a reflection of the free speech issue. speech here is not free, but neither is it restricted in the ways that most westerners believe.
I am English (anglo-saxon if you need a definition) and I write about this stuff, mostly about these differences. I have friends at every level in Chinese society from a few village families where I stay occasionally, the Chinese teachers and students and one guy who is a 'somebody' in the party above Provincial governor level, who also chats quite openly about most things. He told me directly that the cultural revolution had its bad and good side; as a (young) academic he was sent to the fields for 3 years and thinks that for him and others like him it was a major force in creating many of the more humane aspects of modern Chinese society. On the other hand I also chat to one of the building guards (one on every Uni building) he took part in it all and regrets the excesses, he is also well respected in the campus.
This is the way I like to find my history, it is possible to get some kind of genuine glimpse into things; I then write it as I see it and try to show my personal bias, where I am looking from if you like.
I am hoping to talk to my partner's Uncle this summer. He was in the 'white' army as a young man and then part of the political opposition most of his life. He gets an army pension from the state, hardly a thing that is depicted in our western view of what goes on here.
Your answer is coincidental. I have just read a Kissinger essay describing the India/Pakistan war over what I believe is now Bangladesh? This is one of the reasons for my question so once again thank you for your response.
I would take ANYTHING Kissinger wrote with a grain of salt. Of course, that is true of ANYTHING you read. You probably need to read a number of authors to get a sense of any topic. But I would include people FROM the region that any historical event took place in. Kissinger certainly was neither Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi...
As to the Cold War, I am old enough to remember a large chunk of it, plus I lived in Western Europe for a big chunk of that... it's a lot less theoretical for you when, after the explosion at Chernobyl in the USSR (of the day) you are told not to drink the milk in your own country...
I certainly remember the rise of Solidarity and Lech Walesa in Poland, I remember Brezhnev, and I certainly remember Reagan, Gorbachev, Star Wars, Iran-Contra (involving supposed Communist rebels), Mrs Thatcher, and so on.
But here is a question for you. Is it not just as important to ask about our sources of CURRENT events as it is to ask about our sources of history. In other words, are those of us who lived DURING the Cold War really better informed than those who didn't?
Honestly, I wanted a subject that would not become confrontational. I simply wished to discuss different world views of historic events. Different perspectives, no arguments.
I am going to be reading a post war version of the reconstruction of Europe after 1945 next. I also am looking forward to reading a novel of essays authored by Gore Vidal.
I know absolutely nothing about Gore Vidal but the cover sold me the book. LOL
Can't remember - I didn't like history much. What I do remember is something about the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy, Bomb Shelters, and Reagan (?) being at the end of the Cold War.
So, basically, what I was taught was it wasn't really a war at all, but the threat of Nuclear War that kept the 'peace'.
For every human being, the knowledge about his country, his people, his government, his religion, his language is a must. Without knowledge in those things, no one can analyse the present happenings in every country. Every happening around the world has its roots in history. We cant judge who is right and who is wrong, if we are ignorant of history.
So start reading history books.
nice try but I don't believe I'm meant to read history books. I'm meant to write them. (as long as someone else provides the facts )
That is an excellant suggestion...Venugo...never any harm in reading history or practically anything else.
As Churchill said
"History is written by the victors."
I believe that is true. Since moving to Hawaii, I have discovered how much has been swept under the rug about Hawaii's takeover and it is still an unhealed wound to many native Hawaiians. I feel sorry that I never knew it until I lived here. I went to public schools and history was not one of my strong suits, but so much is unsaid.
elayne001 I lived in Hawaii on and off for about 8 years and learned much about the overthrow of the monarchy there. I also lived in Samoa and visited many other islands in the South Pacific.
Some learned of the take over in Hawaii and passed laws to prevent it from happening in their own countries.
Fiji has an interesting situation with the resident Indian population that almost took over the Islands and the civil unrest and wars that took place.
I was back for a visit to Hawaii about a year ago and saw many changes since the 25 years I had been away. The thing that did not change was the people and how accomodating they were to us hoales.
This is true, UninvitedWriter. Winning a war or battle has its perks, and that is probably the biggest, longest-lasting one.
It was not Russia and the cold war, it was the USSR: Soviet Union. I remember it all very well along with China rise to power. Iron Curtain, Bamboo Curtain, they were both created to keep information and liberty from their own people. Eisonhauer knew it could not last and said so. Sadly the build up of arms was not needed, but it did bring about the collapse of the USSR a little quicker I think. If you weren't good at history and never read it, how would you know? Yes, we did an injustice to Hawaii, the Native Americans as well. So goes history and it does kind of repeat.
Mentioning the non-existent Soviet Union will not make sense when reading history. Soviet "Union" was a federation of around 16 countries with capital in Moscow in Russia.
The collapse of Soviet Union is mainly because of Chernobyl, Afganistan and American interference, when that country was at odds.
It was "mainly because" communism is inherently unsustainable. Reagan played them like a fiddle and sped them along toward the inevitable.
Communism is not a political party to become unsustainable. It is an ideology. Even now, the communist population in the world is equal (if not more) to democratic population. Reagan's playing wont have worked in China or anywhere else. He only gave the last blow to the already dead Soviet Union.
When Soviet Union collapsed, there was a minority government in India led by M.Desai and Charan Singh. (1981-91). If Mrs.Indira Gandhi was in power in India, she would not have let the Soviet Union down. There was a treaty of cooperation between India and Soviet Union at that time, which was disregarded by the then Indian government.
I'll consider some of your remarks in light of an apparent language barrier, but you're correct in that India had been in bed with the Soviets but bailed out when it became unavoidably obvious that the ship was (inevitably, given that it had been built upon an inherently unsustainable ideology) sinking.
India and Soviet Union were not in bed. They were bound by a treaty of peace, friendship, and cooperation, signed on Aug.9, 1971. In that treaty, an clause makes each one to come to the help of others in case of a threat. That threat came to India in 1971 and S.U. came to India's aid and India won the war decisively. Likewise, India was bound to have come to their help and should have stopped the downfall of the SU. But the government headed by Chandrasekar in 1991 never cared to help the SU. He had no time to safeguard his own govt. and he had to resign.
(PS: In my previous comment, it was not M.Desai and Charan Singh in power in India during the Soviet downfall (1989-91). It was Mr.VP Singh and Chandrasekar. Error is regretted.)
Like I said, India was in bed with the Soviets. And it was on bottom. Obviously, no treaty between the two was a treaty of equals. It was the Cold War and India chose its bedmate. When the political reality changed India's loyalties changed. It happens.
Relations between two nations should not be taken as "bedmats". And also whoever you hate is put in the bottom. But India's political and economic clout in the region made SU befriend India. SU was not better off than the India at any time, except militarily. Now that has also changed. Some nations like US tries to become bedmates of China, in your words. Whoever comes, China will always be on top.
It's a figure of speech commonly used in such discussions. I understand your national pride, but don't take it too personally.
Btw, "except militarily" was a controling factor of the Cold War.
And I don't "hate" any of the nations being discussed here. I wonder if you can say the same.
I also dont hate any nation, (except those who grabbed the neighbouring lands and planning to grab more). I have a special respect and interest for the western world including US. I have a clear vision about all countries, people and leaders. Whoever errs, I am free to point them out. I hate those who criticise their own country, their own government and leaders.
"I also dont hate any nation, (except those who grabbed the neighbouring lands and planning to grab more). "
Wait, does that mean you DO hate certain countries? Does that mean you would hate India if it tried to take land from Pakistan as I believe you have alluded to previously?
"I hate those who criticise their own country, their own government and leaders."
I very much like what SIVAGNA has had to say, and find his posts thought provoking. Such as:
"Deaths due to government repressions are never counted. It runs along with our imaginations,"
"I hate those who criticise their own country, their own government and leaders," which you cite.
I think he is speaking to an inner gut loyalty to one's own country, and I think the fact of his speaking up, here, able to do so freely, and wherever else, is somehow indicative of his embracing of America's freedom's - could be wrong of course.
And there are at present many who could well be considered our actual 'leaders' in America, . . . leaders who will take us back to an America that will economically thrive and be a nation of strength in this world.
Absolutely, starting with Mexican slave labour, sorry illegal low paid workers. Slavery worked last time I guess.
LOL. Inside view of the current Chinese anti-American rhetorical political line?
The Chinese line is very helpful toward America - they put their money where their mouth is I think. Or do you mean their disclosure of human rights abuses of and in America to the same values as those applied by America to the rest of the world? Didn't come up too rosy did it.
You may ask the 85 army commanders of the then Soviet Union why their country collapsed....
I read that all of them received millions of dollars in their bank accounts alongwith palace-like bungalows for keeping quiet while the States fell apart one by one. The culprits will reap their sins one day or other.
I thought history was the 'official' version of what happened and that it changes depending on whose in charge. I can thoroughly recommend a book I am reading at the moment - 1000 years of Annoying the French by Stephen Clarke. In this hilarious history reader the following fondly held myths are exploded -
The battle of Hastings was not a French victory, William the Conqueror was Norman and hated the French
- Joan of Arc was executed for wearing trousers
- and the guillotine was not a French invention but was first constructed in Yorkshire, England.
So Sabo may well be on to something.
Just ocurred to me, has China offered us help in this oil spill? How long does it take for a ship to traverse the seas to America's shores?
Apart from the fact that China is a long way away I guess the trillions of dollars it has loaned you could go some way toward it - Oh no - you gave it all to the bankers who took all your money I forgot for a moment
As long as it's taken for Obama to make any decisions, I would have thought it was a plot to put China forward as our savior! We've been waiting all this time for Chinese skimmers to get to the Gulf! And then say lookie loo.........
Well you would think it is plot - anything that does not agree with your view appears to be a plot in your eyes.
And your pathetic attempt to mock the Chinese language is outdated and racist in nature.
Ha, I'm no plot proponent, and I was ridiculing fondly my own Irish roots, get a better grasp of America's varied culture, and the Chinese within which you claim to live......as I said, it's me bed time, and me Mum's really shouting now. Take your fake racist blarney to someone else, doesn't fly 'ere.
Wow. I'm pretty sure "lookie loo" was NOT an attempt to mock the Chinese language.
"the trillions of dollars it has loaned you "
China did not "loan" the US money, it invested in the US. Don't be misleading.
invest is misleading - 'bailed out' might be more appropriate
That would not be appropriate at all because that is not the case.
No, in the real one. No matter how satisfying you may find certain misrepresentations, China - like many countries - has invested in the US because they have found it in their own best interests to do so. It's a wise investment.
Rattle, rattle, toys and tattle....
I'll work on a poem with that line.....after I get a good night's sleep....me Mum has said it's me bed time.
While politicized history is found in history books, history itself is found in the words and ideas passed between people living in that moment, communicating for their purposes and not for some students to learn...
For example, I have transcripted communications between Russian and Chinese diplomats ranging from 1918 to post World War II. I do couple this information with the multiple specialized "Western" texts written by professors and analysts in order to gain a greater perspective.
Concerning World War 1, per se, I again look to as many non-history text accounts as possible....but I am also fortunate to have inherited my great-aunts library, and I have several university texts from 1916, and it is very interesting to read the perceptions of scholars at that time watching the war brewing...
As with anything of great importance, history requires a restless, unsatisfied mind that is open to searching and challenging already conceived perceptions and understandings.... Through multiplicity of sources....from as many different angles as possible....this is how perspective is gained.
I look at the Cold War and I compare it to todays "War on Terror"....and in both cases the American people were hyped and mislead by their "elected" government...(quotations denote that, while many positions in the U.S. government are elected...far more are not).
The Soviet Union WAS a threat to the US during the Cold War and terrorism IS a threat to the US today.
I agree both seem to be never ending pursuits of victory!
Wars without victors.
Except the war on terror has no actual enemies we can name. Anyone in the world can be determined to be a terrorist and blam eradication.
And of course invading other countries and killing loads of people wouldn't increase the numbers of outraged citizens at all now - would it. Creating the 'terrorists' seems to be good business for some.
That is an illogical argument no matter how often repeated.
Let me make it simple - if you come to my house, in whatever country, and kill my wife and kids I will come and find you and kill yours if it at all possible. And I am a pacifist and mild mannered kinda guy.
If you make war on a country that cannot defend itself from your aggression the only option open to any resistance is to try to get to your country and attack in the only ways possible. It is a cliche now - but one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - blurring this distinction by saying everyone who wants to attack America is just some kind of religious bad guy is short sighted and dangerous because you don't then address the problem that you have created.
"saying everyone who wants to attack America is just some kind of religious bad guy "
Who said that? Everyone who specifically wants to kill American civilians and declares openly and often that it is because God told them to is some kind of religious bad guy and needs to be stopped.
The "you'll make more enemies" thing makes no sense because by that way of thinking the police could never arrest or, if necessary, kill a criminal who has gone on a killing spree for fear that his friends and family will become killers if we do. By logical extension it would invalidate all laws and any enforcement, to say nothing of national defense.
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
I'll see your stretched scaled down analogy and raise you one effective sensical hypothetical:
Imagine, for a moment, that an ideology gained currency in the U.S. which claimed that Canadians were evil socialist/communists who wanted to steal our freedom and slaughter our citizens. That's patently ridiculous, right?
Now imagine that, all of the sudden, Canada has invaded. Thy defeated our national army and are now occupying our cities, restricting our rights, and killing people who we have only on their word are deserving of death (and sometimes they end up killing civilians anyways, even by their own admission).
You don't think a likely response would be an increase in adherents to the aforementioned ideology?
I'm not saying that this, a priori, means we should make no war, but it is something to consider, and to pretend it isn't is intellectually dishonest.
There is a lot of problem+reaction=Solution
Thanks again Sab for the snippet response to a very specific selection of my statement.
I will assume, as usual, that you must agree with the larger remainder of what I stated.
As for your words concerning terrorism, terrorism is always a threat, and one that is by far more of an internal threat than its foreign counterpart. There is a vast powder keg of pent up ill-intended emotion that waits to spew to the surface, like super-heated rock..
To use "terrorism" and point abroad is also to deny our own national legacy. We profit from terrorism as a state, and we exercise and promote it. There is no denying or sideskirting this fact.
Beyond official acts, it is also those unofficial ones, like the actions of missionary groups worldwide that have also created and exacerbated tensions, breeding more threats.. I need not go to a history text to learn about this...for it is carried in my familial legacy..
I need not look to history texts, for I have the words and experiences of my forebears. Yet, I have done my research...and these groups actions abroad exacerbate the ills already created through European colonization and post-colonial economic and political dependence.
While I agree that the Soviet Union posed the U.S. a threat, it is known that it was the United States that taxed and spent its people the most to generate the largest stockpiles of weapons as well as the most powerful...spurring the "arms race" on...
Great wealth was harvested.....du Pont...Mellon...numerous others...the rich got richer..
"Fear the Soviet threat of Nuclear Fallout"
How about the reality of chromium 6 and other seriously toxic cancer causing chemicals found in large amount in the San Fernando Valley's groundwater...prompting our department of water and power to demand over 80 million dollars for immediate cleanup...or else they are going to close a large number of our wells.. This furthers our dependence on water imported from far to the north near Lake Tahoe, and to the East, from the Colorado River, which is being consumed more and more by growing communities from Arizona to Mexico... Tensions are growing....
Personal experience compiled with the insights of others....how some of us choose to understand history...
Others choose quick one liners and grand generalizations that they couldn't relate in a personal sense if they tried....a perfect example is the person to whom this post is a response...
"While I agree that the Soviet Union posed the U.S. a threat, it is known that it was the United States that taxed and spent its people the most to generate the largest stockpiles of weapons as well as the most powerful...spurring the "arms race" on... "
NO, what it did was hasten the Soviet Union toward its inevitable demise. It won the Cold War.
"I need not go to a history text to learn about this.....I need not look to history texts"
Well, well, well, isn't that convenient?
"it is also those unofficial ones, like the actions of missionary groups worldwide that have also created and exacerbated tensions, breeding more threats.. "
Ah yes, non violent groups and individuals who want to teach others about their faith are really responsible for creating terrorists. That makes perfect sense...
"As for your words concerning terrorism, terrorism is always a threat, and one that is by far more of an internal threat than its foreign counterpart. There is a vast powder keg of pent up ill-intended emotion that waits to spew to the surface, like super-heated rock.. "
That is not true. I understand why you want it to be true, but it is not.
Thank you Sab for demonstrating my point perfectly for me....
Aren't the grand generalizations glamourous?
by Jack Lee 15 months ago
This is a simple question. Every Democrats have come out against building a wall.They say it is too expensive, it won’t work and it is inhumane, it is racist and it is un Christian... every excuse I heard...The question is this - if not a wall, then what is your Idea? I want to know how exactly...
by Aiysha Jebali 10 years ago
Does anyone really want to see any country in poverty? Well some do I guess. Those in power, or it would have been irradicated by now. Let me know your thoughts.
by qwark 9 years ago
They are a billion plus and increasing, yet suffer little "within," and deftly resist being involved in war in other countries.They rule with an "iron fist" and stop internal dissonance immediatley.There is no doubt that predatory,contemporary man "needs" to be...
by C.J. Wright 9 years ago
Do you think we are withdrawing from Iraq in preparation for war with Iran?
by haroldwilson1985 9 years ago
Did corrupt politicians help the September 11th disaster?
by Barbara Radisavljevic 6 years ago
How will the history books describe the presidency of Barark Obama in 2050?It's often not evident what the effect of a given president's actions had on the county until history later judges him in the light of what comes after he leaves office. How will historians treat Barack Obama?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|