What do you think about the Enola Gay controversy? Which side are you leaning more towards to?
It didn't bring much credit to any side of the debate. It was one of the opening shots in the "Culture Wars" in American politics and much more about politics than history. The Smithsonian, who planned an exhibit that covered a lot of ground and included contentions that were controversial, particularly the contention that a US invasion of Kyushu would have cost only 56,000 American lives, should have known better. The original exhibit sought to put the atomic bombings in context, but a rather narrow context, focusing on 1945, rather than a broader picture of the war. The curators of the exhibit knew they were courting criticism from some quarter whatever they did but did not put in enough work building support for the exhibit among the historians who advised the curators or the wider community of historians, particularly the Organization of American Historians.The Smithsonian should have realized that the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and the atomic bombings at the height of the "Greatest Generation" historical boom required a great deal of tact, and a general airing of contentions that were far from a settled consensus, would attract criticism. On the other side, the American Legion, the Air Force Association and certain politicians in Congress came off as philistines. Their objections to the Smithsonian exhibit - some of which were well grounded - boiled down to those who lived through the time owned the history and had veto power over any dissenting historical opinion, which, of course, got the back up of a lot of historians who blasted back about censorship.The one good thing about the whole flap was it did inspire reexamination of the atomic bombings and American historiography on the subject is more balanced and nuanced after it than before it. If you are looking for an even-handed account of the controversy, I recommend Michael J. Hogan's essay The Enola Gay Controversy: History, Memory, and the Politics of Presentation in the collection Hiroshima in History and Memory. All the book's essays touch on the controversy in one manner or another.
Why don't liberals understand the only way to stop bullies to physically fight back, and make them feel pain instead of being a coward and "ignore and walk away"?
Yeah. Liberal here.A) quit asking rhetorical questions. Nobody thinks it’s clever, it’s not allowed here. Nobody comes here for your opinion, take that shit to reddit. If you want information, this is the place. If you want to spray your opinion like feces all over this forum, expect someone to say something about it.B) to answer your question, you’re clearly a young person, because the entire psychological community along with pretty much anyone with any long observational experience with people know that it’s complete and utter bullshit. Striking the bully only intensifies the bullying behavior. Bully behavior is nothing to do with the bully, and is everything to do with the bully’s surroundings. Dominating over his (or her) peers is how a bully grasps for a modicum of control in a life that is falling apart and spiraling out of control on them. Striking them is just another thing that goes wrong in their lives. You want to hurt a bully? Tell them you pity them and ignore them. Defend yourself, don’t let yourself be a punching bag, but don’t match violence with violence. That doesn’t help anybody.The idea that it does help is an antiquated, simplistic view of a very complex situation that you would otherwise have absolutely no business interfering in.