Bad guys in books never win.

[Randag]

Well, since the thread was pretty dead anyway, I don't mind if it veers of topic a bit.

However, I believe the point Agravaine was trying to make was that there was no side in WWII that could be considered wholly good, considering the acts they committed against the enemy. Agravaine was not saying the Japanese were good, or bad - just that the US was not completely a force of good.

Cairn, while I do understand the point you're trying to make, and yes... things such as the atrocities from the past wars should not be forgotten, and while history may try to distort or manipulate the truth, we must remember novels and real life do not tend to correlate. Real events are never so clear cut, so it's more difficult to "pick a side", especially when you may have ties to either one. Stories are easy in comparison.

-Ran

[Agravaine]

Let's check out those three options....

Fair enough. I don't have the personal resources to debate a lot of these as in-depth as I'd like, although I think a number of prominent historians like Jonathan Schell would disagree with you. But my main point was that other, more moral choices existed, and you grant that, so it's all good.

My intent was to show the other side was less than the "noble" foe we conquered. Somehow, in the last decade or so, it seems people have been siding with the loser. It is almost an attitude of "why did we pick on them" type of thing.

Don't forget the part where all good liberals hate America.

Worse is how history becomes distorted. All one has to consider are the number of people that seriously believe the holocost never happened. In my parent's generation, many had personal knowledge. In mine, it was vividly recalled. In the next, a fading memory. And in this one? Many question it. By the time current high schoolers have grandchildren, there will be enough wondering that history may well cease mentioning it.

I seem to recall Primo Levi making a similar point in The Drowned and the Saved about the passage of time and historical/personal detachment from the Holocaust. But I think it's utterly absurd to posit that history will completely "forget" the Holocaust within two generations.

Perhaps we should go back to that point before this degenerates into another flame war.

If you want! I was quite enjoying the conversation though.

Also, everything Randag said.

[LordTBT]

If the books are North Korean, I think North Korea wins every time. Kim Jong Il is setting a worldwide fashion trend, didn't you know? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2773520

[Tiberuvsky]

Really interesting, when we set this discussion in the context of this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educa ... texas.html

[Thrush the Bard]

But I think it's utterly absurd to posit that history will completely "forget" the Holocaust within two generations.

In High School, we read Elie Weisel's book Night. It is a first hand account of the holocaust. I also agree we should not forget the past. As George Santayana said, "Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

Books such as Flags of our Fathers and The Greatest Generation give perspective on the past. I recommend those two to all of you who are interested in WWII! Additionally, Flags of our Fathers goes into detail about what happened to American POWs - so reader be warned. It is intensely graphic.

Returning to the original topic in mind,

Real events are never so clear cut, so it's more difficult to "pick a side", especially when you may have ties to either one. Stories are easy in comparison.

So, where did the notion of a clear-cut good versus evil theme first come into literature? I remember a literature teacher once said that stories reflect society. Imagine, if you will, for a moment two societies who are not morally above one another, yet are fighting like two brothers. Perhaps, in time, one civilization entombed their past in high-brow detail to glorify and give meaning to an otherwise sad tale. Yet I have nothing in reality to connect this to, so I am shooting in the dark!

[Daquira]

Societies always tend to present their side as right, and the other side as wrong. In ancient literature this often extended not only to calling them /wrong,/ but painting them as complete moral other, and often as monsters.

First known piece of literature ever: Epic of Gilgamesh. The great hero Gilgamesh kills the evil wicked monster Humbaba (who happens to control the very valuable trade asset of the cedars of Lebanon. Go figure.) Odyssey--Odysseus running killing various 'monsters' because they are, basically, not-Greek. Yet in the stories it's always the hero who is right.

As to two societies fighting and considering themselves equal... I don't think it could happen. People need some way to justify the fact that they are /killing/ these other people. If they considered the people they were killing to be completely morally and practically equal to them... then there would have to be some seeeerious mind-bendiness going on. Probably in a psychopathic/sociopathic/whatever sort of way. Again, the lovely concept of othering. People shouldn't kill other people. Except for Y, because they are evil/insane/going to kill me/Communist/the wrong color/etc. Even though some times the reason is, it's okay to kill Y because they have shiny things that I want. You always want to pretend that they are bad to justify what you are doing. Otherwise YOU might be a bad person.

Well, that wandered a bit. But so, in a historical perspective, people have always wanted to be right and have always identified with the right side versus the evil side. They simply transferred this into all of their literature.

But yeah. Things are never really that simple. They just liked to think it sometimes was.

*wanders off*

[LordTBT]

Really interesting, when we set this discussion in the context of this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educa ... texas.html

What's even more interesting is how the NYT and just about every other media outlet I can find is guilty of doing exactly what the Texas Board of Education is now doing - selectively remembering history, and not telling the whole story.

Under the leadership of Democrat Governor Ann Richards in the early 1990s, the TBE adopted new history textbook guidelines - and it turns out that what they published was riddled with errors, mistakes, and historical inaccuracies. Which one could argue is even worse than not including certain material.

http://www.textbookleague.org/32tex.htm

What it boils down to is which political party has control of the guidelines. That's who decides.

[Tiberuvsky]

"What's even more interesting is how the NYT and just about every other media outlet I can find is guilty of doing exactly what the Texas Board of Education is
now doing - selectively remembering history, and not telling the whole story."

I would put it down to the continued pundit-ization of modern journalism, myself.

Still, if you read through your article, you see they ended with 150 errors -- not distinguished between copy and fact -- as determined by a conservative consultant company. Why are they using a company with a professed bias? Are these "errors" really differences in citation or formatting styles (Use vs non-use of an Oxford comma, for instance)? Are their factual errors actually, you know, factual, or is that company the ones looking back with red-tinted glasses (considering one of the strongest conservative voices out there -- Palin -- thought Reagen was against nuclear non-proliferation, well... I /teasingly/ wonder about their view of their own history)?

[LordTBT]

Still, if you read through your article, you see they ended with 150 errors -- not distinguished between copy and fact -- as determined by a conservative consultant company. Why are they using a company with a professed bias? Are these "errors" really differences in citation or formatting styles (Use vs non-use of an Oxford comma, for instance)? Are their factual errors actually, you know, factual, or is that company the ones looking back with red-tinted glasses (considering one of the strongest conservative voices out there -- Palin -- thought Reagen was against nuclear non-proliferation, well... I /teasingly/ wonder about their view of their own history)?

Not sure if you read the article correctly, there were approximately 5,552 errors, combined copy and fact.

I can't find anything on the Educational Research Analysts website that suggests they are "right wing," in fact everything I find suggests they are perfectly neutral. Here's their review of history textbooks in 2002 (Republican Rick Perry is Governor), which they claim was "worse than before" (1991). They state that they found 231 factual errors in 1991, and 249 in 2002.

http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.ht ... _11_02.htm

[Tiberuvsky]

1) From the about page on the ERA site:

"We are a conservative Christian organization that reviews public school textbooks submitted for adoption in Texas. Our reviews have national relevance because Texas state-adopts textbooks and buys so many that publishers write them to Texas standards and sell them across the country."

2) On the number of errors:

"By the time of the Board's March meeting, the error-count for the Glencoe book was about 1,200. The combined count for all ten books was 5,552, with the three Scott, Foresman books accounting for more than 2,400 of them. The Board was contemplating fines totaling $647,100, including $271,900 to be paid by Glencoe and $192,900 to be paid by Scott, Foresman.

And so on, with more checking, more certification by the TEA, more fining by the Board.

In the end, at the Board's July meeting, all the books were adopted. The Board's vote was 10 to 1; the negative vote was cast by Jane Nelson.

At this writing, the final tallies have not been made, but the books still seem to carry some 150 errors that were identified but somehow eluded correction." (emphasis mine)

In other words. There were that many errors. The errors were gradually reduced. There are 150 -- according to the ERA.

[LordTBT]

1) From the about page on the ERA site:

"We are a conservative Christian organization that reviews public school textbooks submitted for adoption in Texas. Our reviews have national relevance because Texas state-adopts textbooks and buys so many that publishers write them to Texas standards and sell them across the country."

Indeed, this would indicate a professed bias. I missed this page and only saw the FAQ, which did not indicate this.

However, their even harsher criticism of a TBE criticism under the leadership of a Republican vs TBE criticism under leadership of a Democrat would demonstrate fairness.

In other words. There were that many errors. The errors were gradually reduced. There are 150 -- according to the ERA.

That was as of the early 1990s. The books aren't used now.

[Aranta]

Wow. My simple comment of "what about WWII?" started all of this. I knew terrouge was famous for arguments, but wow. Seriously.

[Cairn]

Daquria: In real life Bad Guys win, not seemingly occasionally, but nearly always

Eh, what about World War Two?

You do have to admit, that line just begged for a knee-jerk reaction. Saying the side that won WWII were the "real life Bad Guys" does not sit well with those who were in that war or those with parents that did. Even more amusing is how the comment came just days after Japan finally admitted their soldiers forced Korean women into prostitution during WWII.