Culture Wars

[rmgill]

 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I suspect that if anyone's zooming in on those parts (an aggregate five pages or so from the originals), it's hysterical parents and the public reaction.

Don't you think it depends on if the teacher was zooming in or not? Also, why THAT particular version with the sexual content? 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

The point in using Anne Frank's diaries to teach kids about the holocaust has always been that she was a totally normal teenager just like them who fell victim to genocide along with millions of others, and it could happen to everyone.

Yes. I am aware. I was a kid who grew up and I remember that set of readings. I didn't have any sexualized content in it and it wasn't a thing the teachers pushed on us. I learned about the horrors of WWII well enough from that and then went and turned it up to 11 by becoming a military history geek. 
 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Of course she mused about form and function of genitalia, touching a friend's breasts, and getting her first period, too. But I daresay there's nothing a girl from the 1940s who spent age 13 to 15 hiding in a back building from the Nazis with her family could write that would corrupt her age cohort from Generation Internet. Even Americans. 😄

Right. But what's the need for this to be pushed in a history or literature class and not say a health class? I know germans are more libertine about sexuality with teen agers than the US is, but the fact is that parents in the US are, as a rule, a bit more careful on this and that's just a cultural detail to be expected. That there's a culture war over this with LGBT teachers pushing this onto students so they can make more of themselves. There's your rub. That it's over Anne Franke with the stalking horse of the Holocaust as the cover....

[BansheeOne]

Who is pushing anything on anyone here?

[lucklucky]

BBC let a journalist promote political violence.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/chris-packham-is-it-time-to-break-the-law-review/

Quote

 

Is Packham dangerous or naïve, using his platform to suggest the possibility of violent action? He’s certainly ignoring the BBC’s directive that stars associated with its shows – he has been the face of Springwatch for years – should be cautious about expressing political opinions. There was a desperation to him that felt slightly uncomfortable to watch. Some of it was carefully framed for the cameras – a shot of him with head in hands, despairing after an interview with Lord Lilley, who challenged his claims about rising global temperatures. (...)

The programme ended with Packham saying that he now believed radical protest to be “the ethically responsible thing to do”. He offered no insight into what his next move might be; he didn’t seem very enthusiastic about Hallam’s suggestion that Packham martyr himself for the cause by doing something serious enough to go to prison. (...)

 

 

[rmgill]

27 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Who is pushing anything on anyone here?

Here as in on Tank Net? Well, we have several that keep saying that none of this is happening. But it is happening and it's justified. And later that we should have been fine with it all along. Seems to be a pattern. 


But in a larger sense, the left is pushing fascism and violence as a means of supporting indoctrination. I mean seriously, if there was nothing happening, why do we have violent leftist groups with a fascist agenda (everything under the state, nothing outside of the state) pushing FOR and violently opposing those who don't want their children molested among other things? 
 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by rmgill

[BansheeOne]

Okay, let's move those goal posts back to the case under discussion. Who is pushing anything on anyone by using the graphic novel edition of Anne Frank's diary in eighth-grade classes? Near as I can tell, the excitement is mostly about this short passage from the original, in which Anne, after reading an article about blushing, mentions an attraction to her own sex, again a typical phase for many teenagers; also about some others where she talks about getting her period, which she welcomes as a sign of becoming a woman;  and two corresponding pages in the graphic novel. If anything, those are toned down a little.

[Stuart Galbraith]

22 hours ago, rmgill said:

Still not clear on why that is. That was a contingency plan. 

Was the UK an enemy during that time? 

 

enemy

 

ĕn′ə-mē

noun

1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes another; a foe.
2. One who opposes or is hostile to an idea or cause.
3. Something destructive or injurious in its effects.

Then you clearly dont the story behind it being formed.

The story is, Roosvelt wanted access by the US to British imperial markets. We were shutting you guys and all those bothersome Europeans out. Roosvelt wanted some of that action to help recover from the depression. We wanted to hold onto it to do the same. In the end we capitulated, gave America access, and there wasnt a war. But that isnt to say there wasnt a grave threat of one occurring.

There was a rather good documentary made about this about 12 years ago, that I would struggle to link for you now. But here is an express article about it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html

Just because Democracies rarely fight each other, doesnt mean that they cannot. It just means we are rather better equipped to negotiate our problems away rather than fight over them.But It isnt fated to always be that way.

 

[seahawk]

13 hours ago, rmgill said:

Maybe its age appropriate and the sexual content needs to be moderated? 
 

Its not the same as conflating it with the story of Anne Franke itself being unsuitable, which quite frankly might be easily interpreted by the choice of the headline. Ie the headline is mendacious. 

 

 

Anything supporting queer lifestyle needs to be banned from American schools.

[rmgill]

Stuart, so we were enemies? 

Edited September 21, 2023 by rmgill

[rmgill]

34 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Okay, let's move those goal posts back to the case under discussion. Who is pushing anything on anyone by using the graphic novel edition of Anne Frank's diary in eighth-grade classes? Near as I can tell, the excitement is mostly about this short passage from the original, in which Anne, after reading an article about blushing, mentions an attraction to her own sex, again a typical phase for many teenagers; also about some others where she talks about getting her period, which she welcomes as a sign of becoming a woman;  and two corresponding pages in the graphic novel. If anything, those are toned down a little.

Ok. Go over to your neighbor’s house. Read that to a group of their children. Go read that aloud in the street. Or at church. 
 

You do grasp that perhaps that may not be appropriate for discussion in some school settings? Especially if the school hasn’t gained consent from the parents for that particular discussion of homo eroticism concepts yet? 

Edited September 21, 2023 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

This post seems strangely appropriate  here.

https://reddit.com/r/comics/s/fbOlbsZiq2

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Ok. Go over to your neighbor’s house. Read that to a group of their children. Go read that aloud in the street. Or at church. 
 

You do grasp that perhaps that may not be appropriate for discussion in some school settings? Especially if the school hasn’t gained consent from the parents for that particular discussion of homo eroticism concepts yet? 

No, I don't grasp that in any way, because even back in the early 80s, we were aware that homo- and bisexuality existed when asked by our teacher in the first class dealing with human sexuality, circa third grade in elementary school; and by eighth grade we were exploring our own sexuality, more theoretically for some, more practically for others, sometimes including a crush on a friend of the same sex (I sure had one at 15, and was damn jealous when he in turn got his first girlfriend), like any normal teenager, including Anne Frank.

If any parents are kidding themselves that their kids don't know about or are not experiencing these things, and should or even can be be shielded from them, they are very likely sorely mistaken. And if two pages out of 150 in a graphic novel depicting such normalcy in a teenager 80 years ago who fell victim to the Holocaust causes outrage from such parents, I'd say it's no wonder they're bringing up increasingly life-incompetent protected snowflakes who never really grow up, never assume responsibility for themselves, can't handle opposing opinions or inconvenient facts, and form a society in which shouting matches seem to have replaced dialogue, and not getting laid seems a sufficient excuse to shoot up your school, workplace, or a convenient shopping mall to get the attention you deserve.

[Murph]

21 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

Most would say Roosevelt wanted to get into the war with nazi Germany not Japan. 

This.  He had to lie to Congress to get Lend-Lease passed, and Lie, Lie, Lie about not wanting to get into a war.  Although people like George Marshall and others saw it coming and tried to get the country ready.  Roosevelt was in love with Socialism since he saw it "working" in Europe (i.e Italy and Germany).  

[Murph]

11 hours ago, futon said:

If Roosevelt did not want war with Japan, and had wanted to steer clear of it, it would still be possible to have that position while refusing to sell oil. 

But some points show that was not so. Rooservelt, against the opinion of the Chief of Navy who lost his job as a result, relocated the Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii. Rooservelt wanted that to be a sign to Japan. Rooservelt wanted the setup of the AVG fighter squadron and was already arriving in IndoChina just as PH happened. Rooservelt made the survival of the Nationalists Chinese a priority and thus tied the oil embargo to it. US government surveys throughout 1941 included a question like "Would you support the US going to war to stop Japan from becoming bigger?", it was something like that, if I gather it right, there were two or three instances the question came, spaced out, the latest one before the PH attack, somewhere like in Oct/Nov. The earlier one(s) was like May and maybe an earlier one in Feb or something. The early ones were like 30-40% yes. The latest already had a high 70% yes. So the country was already conditioned and ready to go for war vs Japan. The shock of the PH attack must surely not have been the "we were at peace with that country, wtf" sort of thinking but rather shock that the attack at PH had been carried out and quite successfully so by yellow monkeies and so a full blown challenge to answer. Many years later, the interpretation somehow morphed into a sort of complete unprovoked shock, probably because only propsganda narrative and Tokyo Tribunal narrative was probagated. Those 1941 surveys are very indicative war with Japan was all so possible and ready for it.

Yes, Rooserelt also saw the surival of GB is absolutely necessary and for that part, it was good policy. Asia was different than Europe. Saying that is not an argument for plain black/white Japan-good/China-bad. It's just way more complex, mixed, and grey then that. People conditioned to think or pretend to think everything in black/white are ill-fit for that topic.

Yes.  Agreed.

[Murph]

I just finished a trilogy by John C. McManus on the US Army.  Excellent read.  I have always thought it hypocritical of the West to have the vapors over Japan colonizing Manchuria when they were colonizing everything they could steal.  

[R011]

12 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

A question is, working by what metric? 

Roosevelt and the Progs appeared to have a performance metric that the % of the national economy under central gov't control was the important performance metric. 

The industrial output required to fight two wars seems to have sent the Clue Fairy to the White House; its more effective to defeat enemies via GDP, vs regulatory compliance. 

Things were apparently getting better.  Government was doing Something. Employment was slightly up from the depths it had sunk to in 1932.  Developments like the TVA were underway and did have some success.  Most Importantly, the majority of Americans thought it was working as they kept giving the Democrats big majorities in 1932, '34, '36, '38, and '40.

There are certainly other opinions on whether the New Deal was not a significant reason why FDR wanted to stop the Nazis and their other rogue state friends.

[R011]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

I just finished a trilogy by John C. McManus on the US Army.  Excellent read.  I have always thought it hypocritical of the West to have the vapors over Japan colonizing Manchuria when they were colonizing everything they could steal.  

By 1930, the US had already decided to give the Philippines independence.  India had considerable self-rule, was getting more, and Indian independence was inevitable.  It was not going to be opposed by force.  China as a free market for all powers, rather than one just closed to all but Japan, was in America's interests and that of other powers like the UK.  There had also been a major change in international attitudes and law as a result of the Great War.  wars of conquest were now matters of international concern, not just of the pwoers directly involved.

[Ivanhoe]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

This.  He had to lie to Congress to get Lend-Lease passed, and Lie, Lie, Lie about not wanting to get into a war.  Although people like George Marshall and others saw it coming and tried to get the country ready.  Roosevelt was in love with Socialism since he saw it "working" in Europe (i.e Italy and Germany).  

Yes, keep in mind that FDR was a poster boy of the Progressive movement, and the Progressive movement of the 1920s and 1930s believed that the USSR was where things were probably going. 

No problem with Germany until Stalin declared Germany the enemy, after which Washington needed to bump Germany to the top of the threat stack. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

59 minutes ago, R011 said:

By 1930, the US had already decided to give the Philippines independence.  India had considerable self-rule, was getting more, and Indian independence was inevitable.  It was not going to be opposed by force.  China as a free market for all powers, rather than one just closed to all but Japan, was in America's interests and that of other powers like the UK.  There had also been a major change in international attitudes and law as a result of the Great War.  wars of conquest were now matters of international concern, not just of the pwoers directly involved.

I was reading a biography about Clement Attlee, and in the mid 130s he was on a delegation to India to discuss increased autonomy. The ideal solution would nominal independence like a Canada or Australia. The stumbling point was they realised it would cause incredible bloodshed, as of course happened in 1947 and partition. So the did what politicians usually do with a difficult  problem. They dithered.

Meanwhile here was Japan and Germany rocking up and wanting colonies, whilst we were trying to figure out how to back gracefully out. It was potty.

[Murph]

41 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Yes, keep in mind that FDR was a poster boy of the Progressive movement, and the Progressive movement of the 1920s and 1930s believed that the USSR was where things were probably going. 

No problem with Germany until Stalin declared Germany the enemy, after which Washington needed to bump Germany to the top of the threat stack. 

Yes exactly, look at all the Soviet/Communist spies in the Roosevelt administration.  

[R011]

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

No problem with Germany until Stalin declared Germany the enemy, after which Washington needed to bump Germany to the top of the threat stack. 

Flat out wrong.  This was a major difference between the Roosevelt Administration and Democrat anti-fascists and the Soviets from teh signing of te Molotoov-Ribbentrop pact until barbarossa.  The Sovites were consodered sa mych a roigue nation and nazi ally as japan until Hitler publicaly turned against them.  The Teo Ocean Navy Act, expansion of the Army, the draft, Bases for Destroyers, repeal of the Neutrality Acts, sanctions, Lend-Lease, naval and intelligence cooperation all came before June 1941.

[17thfabn]

6 hours ago, Murph said:

I just finished a trilogy by John C. McManus on the US Army.  Excellent read. 

I'm about 2/3rds of the way through the same book. I started a thread on the book in the Military History sub form. So far no responses. Come on over their and contribute!

[futon]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

By 1930, the US had already decided to give the Philippines independence.  India had considerable self-rule, was getting more, and Indian independence was inevitable.  It was not going to be opposed by force.  China as a free market for all powers, rather than one just closed to all but Japan, was in America's interests and that of other powers like the UK.  There had also been a major change in international attitudes and law as a result of the Great War.  wars of conquest were now matters of international concern, not just of the pwoers directly involved.

Well, I sort of hate getting defensive each and every step of the way, but the US and UK kept their interests in Shanghai after it was occupied by the Japanese. The Wang Regime was setup by 1940 and the US And UK interests in Shanghai remained intact. It was only removed when the Pacific War literally started. It was intended that the Nationalists Chinese based in Chongqing would merge into the Wang Regime as still the Nationalists Chinese. The Wang Regime getting international recognition would have open access. Access though was still by means or extraordinary rights. In 1943, Japan promised an end of extrodinary rights in China. To keep in step, the US then promised to give up extraordinary rights in China, a few days after Japan announced it. 

[NickM]

8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Yes, keep in mind that FDR was a poster boy of the Progressive movement, and the Progressive movement of the 1920s and 1930s believed that the USSR was where things were probably going. 

No problem with Germany until Stalin declared Germany the enemy, after which Washington needed to bump Germany to the top of the threat stack. 

To quote Steven Berkoff from 'War and Rememberances" : That bloodthirsty, cowardly cripple Roosevelt and his drunken lapdog Churchill.

[seahawk]

17 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

No, I don't grasp that in any way, because even back in the early 80s, we were aware that homo- and bisexuality existed when asked by our teacher in the first class dealing with human sexuality, circa third grade in elementary school; and by eighth grade we were exploring our own sexuality, more theoretically for some, more practically for others, sometimes including a crush on a friend of the same sex (I sure had one at 15, and was damn jealous when he in turn got his first girlfriend), like any normal teenager, including Anne Frank.

If any parents are kidding themselves that their kids don't know about or are not experiencing these things, and should or even can be be shielded from them, they are very likely sorely mistaken. And if two pages out of 150 in a graphic novel depicting such normalcy in a teenager 80 years ago who fell victim to the Holocaust causes outrage from such parents, I'd say it's no wonder they're bringing up increasingly life-incompetent protected snowflakes who never really grow up, never assume responsibility for themselves, can't handle opposing opinions or inconvenient facts, and form a society in which shouting matches seem to have replaced dialogue, and not getting laid seems a sufficient excuse to shoot up your school, workplace, or a convenient shopping mall to get the attention you deserve.

Still that decision shpuld be made by the parents not the school or state. Any literature containing queer lifestyle is dangerous to American children.

[Murph]

16 hours ago, futon said:

Well, I sort of hate getting defensive each and every step of the way, but the US and UK kept their interests in Shanghai after it was occupied by the Japanese. The Wang Regime was setup by 1940 and the US And UK interests in Shanghai remained intact. It was only removed when the Pacific War literally started. It was intended that the Nationalists Chinese based in Chongqing would merge into the Wang Regime as still the Nationalists Chinese. The Wang Regime getting international recognition would have open access. Access though was still by means or extraordinary rights. In 1943, Japan promised an end of extrodinary rights in China. To keep in step, the US then promised to give up extraordinary rights in China, a few days after Japan announced it. 

Again, you are correct.