Fuck revisionist history

[Broomstick]

Did he explore the option of a lawsuit against those who did it?

How could he possibly sue someone for doing what the law required them to do?

Besides which - by the time he knew the people who had performed the procedure were dead of old age anyhow.

[Molyneux]

Did he explore the option of a lawsuit against those who did it?

How could he possibly sue someone for doing what the law required them to do?

Besides which - by the time he knew the people who had performed the procedure were dead of old age anyhow.

I'd think the government would be liable, then. And for a pretty damn large sum, considering just how nasty a thing they did.

[Broomstick]

Did he explore the option of a lawsuit against those who did it?

How could he possibly sue someone for doing what the law required them to do?

Besides which - by the time he knew the people who had performed the procedure were dead of old age anyhow.

I'd think the government would be liable, then. And for a pretty damn large sum, considering just how nasty a thing they did.

You still don't get it - at the time it wasn't considered nasty, it was considered the right thing to do. This was not hidden, or criminal, or shady - hell, there are people today who think that sort of thing is the right thing to do, who believe that the defective (however you define that) should not reproduce and should have the choice of reproduction taken from them. This was not the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment where ill people were left to become more ill.

And there's not a chance in hell the government would open itself up to such a lawsuit - because then the floodgates would be open. This didn't affect just one or two people, it affected a LOT of people.

There is no recourse for the people sterilized under these laws. None. There never will be. Live long enough you'll realize that some forms of injustice are never righted.

I've seen on this board where people have argued that this group or that group should not reproduce, where one should have to apply for a license to reproduce, where there are concerns over the genetic health of humanity... well, when you discuss those matters remember what a hash was made of it in the 20th Century. After all - who decides who has children, and what are the criteria used? Historically this has been determined by shaky science at best, and frequently through politics or prejudice.

[Molyneux]

How could he possibly sue someone for doing what the law required them to do?

Besides which - by the time he knew the people who had performed the procedure were dead of old age anyhow.

I'd think the government would be liable, then. And for a pretty damn large sum, considering just how nasty a thing they did.

You still don't get it - at the time it wasn't considered nasty, it was considered the right thing to do. This was not hidden, or criminal, or shady - hell, there are people today who think that sort of thing is the right thing to do, who believe that the defective (however you define that) should not reproduce and should have the choice of reproduction taken from them. This was not the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment where ill people were left to become more ill.

And there's not a chance in hell the government would open itself up to such a lawsuit - because then the floodgates would be open. This didn't affect just one or two people, it affected a LOT of people.

There is no recourse for the people sterilized under these laws. None. There never will be. Live long enough you'll realize that some forms of injustice are never righted.

I've seen on this board where people have argued that this group or that group should not reproduce, where one should have to apply for a license to reproduce, where there are concerns over the genetic health of humanity... well, when you discuss those matters remember what a hash was made of it in the 20th Century. After all - who decides who has children, and what are the criteria used? Historically this has been determined by shaky science at best, and frequently through politics or prejudice.

Seems to me like something the ACLU, at the least, might want to get involved in...

[Broomstick]

In 1927 compulsory sterilization laws were considered by the US Supreme Courts, which upheld the legitimacy of such 8:1. See the court case Buck vs. Bell.

The laws were repealed by the states, not overturned by the courts.

[Molyneux]

In 1927 compulsory sterilization laws were considered by the US Supreme Courts, which upheld the legitimacy of such 8:1. See the court case Buck vs. Bell.

The laws were repealed by the states, not overturned by the courts.

Fairly horrifying...I can't help but think that even the current Supreme Court would pause at reaffirming that, but I'm not exactly a legal scholar.

[Ubiquitous]

Wouldn't the OP example about Australia be an example of post-revisionism rather than revisionism? My studies on the subject lead me to believe that the position was originally defended by right wing historians, then attacked by left-wing historians, only to be counter-attacked by some contemporaries in a post-revisionist viewpoint?

[Adrian Laguna]

To expand on that a bit, most history for common consumption shows Wilson in an overwhelmingly positive light. The only thing bad about him you'll hear in a high school history class regards his naive but well-intentioned efforts in the utter failure that was postwar Europe. To read about Wilson's bigotry and extralegal bullfuckery (on a scale G.W. Bush could only dream of), you pretty much have to do your own research. He was arguably one of the most maleficent presidents the USA ever had, yet he's regarded as merely mediocre at worst.

Toward the end of his second term the American people actually hated his guts. The history books tend to mention that, but conveniently leave out why they disliked him so much, instead implying it was because the American people weren't ready for Wilson's enlightened geo-political ideas. Reality was, they had good reason to hate him, for starters the guy was a duplicitous, two-faced, backstabbing bastard. It is because of this that I can't help but think that in decades to come the same thing will happen with Bush. Oh sure, his approval rating is below 30% now, but just wait twenty years and watch it come back up.

[Darth Raptor]

It is because of this that I can't help but think that in decades to come the same thing will happen with Bush. Oh sure, his approval rating is below 30% now, but just wait twenty years and watch it come back up.

I have no doubt that's what Bush is really banking on with his "history will be the judge" rhetoric. Fortunately, it will be a lot more difficult for him to get the Wilson treatment simply because there will be so much archival data lying around chronicling his truly Epic amounts of Fail. I personally believe that as time goes on even more of his crimes and failures will become known and he'll be almost universally reviled.

[Ma Deuce]

For Canada, I'd like to add blocking Jewish refugees from Germany entering the country before and during WWII, so that only 5,000 managed to make it here, by far the lowest of any Western nation. Even after the war, when the issue again came up in parliament and it was asked how many would be allowed to immigrate, one of Mackenzie King's ministers stood up and famously said "None is too many!"

Again though this is part of another case of how the popularity of fascist movements in the Western allied countries before WWII is glossed over in popular history, and Canada is no exception, as a little digging reveals the pervasiveness of fascist movements and "Swastika Clubs" in the country in the '30s (unfortunately this shouldn't be surprising, given how the revived Ku Klux Klan was able to find fertile ground here in the '20s). A good place to start researching those groups (at least in the case of Canada) would be to look up one Adrien Arcand, who was connected to most of them.

Earlier still, you have the Chinese laborers that were used in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who were treated as completely expendable and were paid the lowest wages, yet assigned the most dangerous work (it's said there's a dead Chinese worker for every mile of track on the CP mainline)

[ray245]

God..and I thought our country denial of some stuff was bad.

[Broomstick]

Every country has its dirty secrets, nobody's hands are clean.

[Darth Wong]

That was the lesson of the "Ship of the Damned", which went around to virtually every western nation asking to let its Jewish refugees stay. Every western nation turned them away. The US even called out the Coast Guard and threatened to sink the ship if it didn't leave. They eventually went back, and many of the ship's passengers ended up dying in Nazi concentration camps.

One western ambassador said after the war "Pity it took someone like Hitler to finally do something about the Jews."

[Guardsman Bass]

My personal favorite unpleasant aspect in the US history were Sundown Towns, as described in the book Sundown Towns (by the same guy who wrote Lies My Teacher Told Me). It's the kind of thing that would be considered "ethnic cleansing" were it to happen today, considering the scale.

[darthbob88]

My personal favorite unpleasant aspect in the US history were Sundown Towns, as described in the book Sundown Towns (by the same guy who wrote Lies My Teacher Told Me). It's the kind of thing that would be considered "ethnic cleansing" were it to happen today, considering the scale.

"Nigger, Don't Let The Sun Set On YOU In Hawthorne" By God, I'm proud to be an American.

One of my favorite little discriminations was the poll tax. It did not discriminate against blacks, just those people who could not pay a small tax before they voted. Didn't make any difference that they were mostly non-white, all that mattered was that they couldn't pay the tax. Between this and the literacy tests, I would be very surprised if anybody who wasn't white got to vote before the 60's.

[Broomstick]

The poll tax and literacy requirements also eliminated a lot of poor, uneducated white people - who were regarded as only marginally better than blacks. Ditto for anyone else not part of the old establishment. They were aimed primarily at blacks, but the side effect of disenfranchising undesirable whites was only seen as a benefit.

[andrewgpaul]

Seems to me like something the ACLU, at the least, might want to get involved in...

They already did:

Poe vs Lyncburg Training School and Hospital. Sorry about the Wikipedia link, but I'm sure you could dig up the original transcript.

What bugs me is all the guff spouted about how native Americans, or sub-Saharan tribes or whatever, lived utopian lives in harmony with nature before the evil white folk killed or enslaved them. I'm not trying to denigrate the slave trade, or the conquest of the native Americans by the US, but I think it's reasonable to bear in mind that pretty much everyone has been unpleasant to their neighbours over the centuries. North America's native large herbivores didn't go extinct by themselves, after all.

[Ryan Thunder]

See, I don't get it. Of course we have skeletons in the closet. Everybody has their atrocities. Why bother focusing on them?

They teach us this sort of stuff in Grade 10 History here in Canada, and unless I'm remembering wrong, it's a mandatory course.

I don't recall anything being different from what you've presented here.

Do other countries try to gloss over this stuff? Or did I just have a very up-front teacher?

[Darth Wong]

See, I don't get it. Of course we have skeletons in the closet. Everybody has their atrocities. Why bother focusing on them?

Because a lot of history classes do the opposite, and pretend they never existed. Even today, you have a lot of people who are so massively ignorant that they think social conditions for all Americans were actually better in the 1950s, that the American Civil War was not about slavery, that the Crusades were not about religion, that Christopher Columbus was a noble figure, and that early American society actually resembled all the high-minded principles described in the government's originating documents (which is a lot like saying that the employees in a large company actually live by the company's mission statement).

They teach us this sort of stuff in Grade 10 History here in Canada, and unless I'm remembering wrong, it's a mandatory course.

I don't recall anything being different from what you've presented here.

Do other countries try to gloss over this stuff? Or did I just have a very up-front teacher?

There's quite a bit of variation from teacher to teacher, but some schools, regions, and even entire countries have a tendency to gloss over stuff. Germany used to teach its children almost nothing about the Nazis, although that improved over time. Japan still teaches its children that nothing of consequence happened at Nanking. America still teaches its children that American citizens have always had guaranteed human rights as per the Constitution, when that has basically never been the case: there are always minorities for whom the law finds an excuse to make exceptions, and in the past those exceptions have been absolutely monstrous in nature.

[Lambda 00]

There's quite a bit of variation from teacher to teacher, but some schools, regions, and even entire countries have a tendency to gloss over stuff.

Also the time periods have something to do with it
Moreover, the level of freedom of information in a country is inverse to the ability to gloss over...If I am correct (which I probably am not [?])

[Guardsman Bass]

The poll tax and literacy requirements also eliminated a lot of poor, uneducated white people - who were regarded as only marginally better than blacks. Ditto for anyone else not part of the old establishment. They were aimed primarily at blacks, but the side effect of disenfranchising undesirable whites was only seen as a benefit.

No surprise there - the elite in the Deep South treated poor whites badly as well (although not as badly as blacks). I remember reading somewhere that when the plantation owners had a task that was too treacherous to use their precious human property on (like draining a rather nasty swamp), they'd hire poor-ass Irishmen whose lives were worth jack shit to do it, because nobody really gave a shit if they got sick, injured, or dead in the process.

[Patrick Degan]

The poll tax and literacy requirements also eliminated a lot of poor, uneducated white people - who were regarded as only marginally better than blacks. Ditto for anyone else not part of the old establishment. They were aimed primarily at blacks, but the side effect of disenfranchising undesirable whites was only seen as a benefit.

No surprise there - the elite in the Deep South treated poor whites badly as well (although not as badly as blacks). I remember reading somewhere that when the plantation owners had a task that was too treacherous to use their precious human property on (like draining a rather nasty swamp), they'd hire poor-ass Irishmen whose lives were worth jack shit to do it, because nobody really gave a shit if they got sick, injured, or dead in the process.

Oh yes. The history of the New Basin Canal in New Orleans testifies to this.

[PainRack]

The portrayal of the PAP alliance with the communists as a victory of sorts, resulting in the defeat of the communist party. This as opposed to the true history of them linking up so that they could gain the power of the Chinese chauvinist community, defeating the SPP and Labour Front power base from the Straits and British community, then turning on the Communists so as to gain the power base of the British, Straits community and international politicians.

A surprising lack of coverage of the 1959 election and its issue, other than the PAP victory. Not surprising, since an indepth review of the election will show that the PAP campaigned on several issues, such as freedom of political expression, the repressive policies of Lim Yew Hock as well as the political instep policies that cater to the local elites as opposed to the general community(Albeit, protrayed in Merdeka terms as opposed to economic/political issues)

Last but not least, no one has apparently commented on the illogic of the PAP political position. They campaigned and protrayed themselves as a socialist democratic party, thus justifying their immense power and control so as to make life better. However, LKY, prior to the 90s also preached on what could only be term rugged individualism, justifying the economic liberalisation of Singapore and lack of direct support for the common people, other than in healthcare and education.

[ray245]

The portrayal of the PAP alliance with the communists as a victory of sorts, resulting in the defeat of the communist party. This as opposed to the true history of them linking up so that they could gain the power of the Chinese chauvinist community, defeating the SPP and Labour Front power base from the Straits and British community, then turning on the Communists so as to gain the power base of the British, Straits community and international politicians.

From what I understand, recent social studies textbook has mentioned about the PAP actions...

Last but not least, no one has apparently commented on the illogic of the PAP political position. They campaigned and protrayed themselves as a socialist democratic party, thus justifying their immense power and control so as to make life better. However, LKY, prior to the 90s also preached on what could only be term rugged individualism, justifying the economic liberalisation of Singapore and lack of direct support for the common people, other than in healthcare and education.

Since when does the PAP needs a political position? It's not like any other party can challenge them anyway..