I was fascinated by the discussion the students had in class today when asked to defend the perspective of whether or not the U.S. was justified in entering World War II, whether or not we were justified in doing what we did at home and abroad during the war, and whether or not we were justified in ending the 2nd World War the way we did.
I found it particularly interesting that you all made the types of arguments that could've been made 50+ years ago when all of this was going on. To recap, some of you felt we were unjustified in entering the war because we had "taunted" the Japanese prior to their attack on Pearl Harbor. Some felt that we may have been justified in going into the war but were unjustified in mistreating Japanese Americans, while others felt it was a necessary evil to "minimize" the threat of betrayal upon our country. Still others felt that it was almost as bad as the mistreatment of Jews during the German Holocaust, though you expressly thought it could not be compared in terms of the levels of cruelty.
It was a great start to a wonderful debate...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The argument that Manny and Bianca was strong to the point that it made me believe I was so wrong in believing we were justified in the actions we took during the World War 2... we should do that more often but now guys... its way better if we all participate.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, Arely. While I'll take most of the responsibility because I should have facilitated the discussion better, I think others have strong opinions too and should feel free to speak up.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this discussion and the way the class responded to it, since we are so concentrated in what those in the middle are discussing, we are actually learning... but i still believe the dropping of the bomb was not justified.. haha.. peeroo... its kind of difficult to fight against a group in which manny and bianca are together... yet not impossible...
ReplyDeleteBased on the document "Decision not to intervene at Dien Bien Phu", by Dwight D. Eisenhower, I believe that the "precautions", the president is taking make total sense. The president is willing to offer and provide the French with the help needed, but in return they, the french,have to internationalize the war and to provide Laos Cambodia and Vietnam with freedom, if they were to defeat the communist. I fall for this presidents idea, because if you support or sponsor something or someone you are obviously going to want to know what it is that will happen or the use they will give to the money, or equipment you are providing, plus, in return you have to be paid back or benefited from the support you have offered, if not what good does wasting money, that your country might benefit from furthermore. that would be point less.
ReplyDeletePerla, the reading is extremely appropriate as we begin to discuss the Cold War and more specifically our involvement in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, the original leader was not initially Communist but as it becomes clear that his Communist ideals are taking hold of the Vietnamese government, we decide to back France in its occupation there, but we really did it only from a morale standpoint. Eisenhower was afraid to get too involved because we had just gotten over the Korean War. As you learn more about Vietnam, I want you to think about whether or not we should have gotten involved earlier and kept from fighting a longer, more drawn-out war later. Remember, 54 thousand Americans died in Korea and Eisenhower wasn't willing to put us into another Asian war. The question is, was it worth it once we find out how many more lives are lost in Vietnam?
ReplyDelete