The Derek Chauvin Trial

There is nothing even remotely accurate about critical race theory or the 1619 Project. It's just the usual progressives spouting the usual lies.

When progressives indoctrinate children to believe fake history, that can be quite harmful. It is much worse than mere symbolism.

Teaching about history is not symbolism. I just meant they are doing what they are doing to flatter and avoid making systemic change. I love that racists will be reminded of emancipation.

Critical race theory is a perspective - as most history tends to be (Not necessarily the events, but certainly the why). Why is almost always up for debate, and perspectives that challenge the written 'why' are a good thing - for as the saying goes "History is written by the victors"

And each government (and often the media) tends to want a particular slant on history to be the official history. I bet China / Russia teach a very different History to the US. I bet Palestine teaches a very different history to Israel. Etc.

And what is left out is often more important that what is included - to properly understanding events.

Falsehoods are not perspectives.

"Why" is almost always a perspective (Outside of maths and science)

Why we dropped justice bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a question of fact:

We did so because Japan was still refusing to surrender, and we hoped that dropping justice bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would further the cause of making Japan surrender.

And quite possibly because:
- they wanted to test it on a city, rather than a desert or sea environment
- they wanted to see the effects of radiation on people who experienced it close up (they did similar with pacific islanders - so there is no reason to think they didn't consider this)
- and it wasn't Americans they were dropping it on; and
- it displayed their power not just to the Japanese, but to the whole world
- etc
They of course would have recorded only the most publicly palatable of reasons as 'History'.

Even so, that is a pretty simplistic example from history, and does largely sit within the exception part of 'almost all'

No. The reason why we use weapons against enemies that we are at war with is because doing so will help us to win the war.

No one deliberately exposed Pacific islanders to radiation.

Uh huh. Like people are simplistic creatures with simplistic motives.

You do know about the tests on pacific islands, with your country leaving people there exposed, and conducting regular tests on them to see how they were being affected?

If you don't, do some research.

I am very familiar with our nuclear program. No Pacific islanders were intentionally exposed to radiation.

You obviously aren't familiar then

I am very familiar with all aspects of our nuclear program.

Keep in mind that leftist delusions have nothing to do with reality. When I say that I am familiar with our nuclear program, I mean the program as it exists in the real world.

Saying you are familiar doesn't change that you aren't familiar with this ugly episode in your country's history. The long term effects on local populations are documented in film...but it is unlikely to have been shown to your own country.

And if they were prepared as little as 70 years ago to treat poor black people as less then human...

Again. I am only familiar with reality.

Leftist delusion does not apply.



I am well aware of those films. They do not show any deliberate exposure of people to radiation.

They show people being helped after they were accidentally exposed to radiation.



Don't be silly. We helped the people who were accidentally exposed.

It's barely different from the British tests at Maralinga - where they deliberately exposed servicemen to radiation from Atomic Tests. Scientists wanted to know how it affected people.

They understood fallout, they understood wind conditions. They understood the risks (it was just a question of degree). There isn't anything accidental about it. They didn't have sufficient hard data on how it affected people and wanted it.

You can't provide any evidence this isn't the case.

...ie. it is a perspective of history.

Accidental exposure of people is quite different from deliberate exposure of people.



Wrong. It was entirely accidental.



Your "guilty until proven innocent" game is really ugly. If I didn't have evidence of our innocence, it would not change the reality of our innocence.

But as it happens, I can provide evidence that it was the case. It is a well known fact of history that they dramatically miscalculated the yield of Castle Bravo. They were planning for a 6 megaton yield and they got 15 megatons.



No. Leftist delusion is never a valid perspective.

https://www.atomicheritage.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Atoll

The fallout continued to spread across the inhabited islands of the Rongelap, Rongerik, and Utrik Atolls. The inhabitants of Rongelap and Rongerik Atolls were evacuated by servicemen two days after the detonation, but the residents of the more distant Utrik Atoll were not evacuated for three days.[22][23] Many of them soon began to show symptoms of acute radiation syndrome. They returned to the islands three years later but were forced to relocate again when they were found to be unsafe.[24]

Local populations affected Edit
The Rongelap Atoll was coated with up to .8 in (2.0 cm) of snow-like irradiated calcium debris and ash over the entire island. Virtually all the inhabitants experienced severe radiation sickness, including itchiness, sore skin, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. Their symptoms also included burning eyes and swelling of the neck, arms, and legs.[25][26] They were forced to abandon the islands three days after the tests, leaving behind all their belongings. The U.S. government relocated them to Kwajalein for medical treatment.[26][27][28]

Six days after the Castle Bravo test, the government set up a secret project to study the medical effects of the weapon on the residents of the Marshall Islands.[29] The United States was subsequently accused of using the inhabitants as medical research subjects without obtaining their consent to study the effects of nuclear exposure.[25] Until that time, the Atomic Energy Commission had given little thought to the potential impact of widespread fallout contamination and health and ecological impacts beyond the formally designated boundary of the test site.

Japanese fishermen contaminated

Ninety minutes after the detonation, 23 crew members of the Japanese fishing boat the Daigo Fukuryū Maru ("Lucky Dragon No. 5")[30] were contaminated by the snow-like irradiated debris and ash. They had no idea what the explosion was and no understanding of the debris that rained down like snow, but they all soon became ill with the effects of acute radiation sickness. One fisherman died about six months later while under doctor supervision; his cause of death was ruled a pre-existing liver cirrhosis compounded by a hepatitis C infection.[31][better source needed] The majority of medical experts believe that the crew members were infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions during part of their acute radiation syndrome treatment.[32]

Edward Teller was one of the driving minds behind the development of the hydrogen bomb and an architect of the Marshall Island tests. After the mass media painted the fisherman's death as an anti-nuclear call to arms, Teller notoriously commented, "It's unreasonable to make such a big deal over the death of a fisherman."[33]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing_at_Bikini_Atoll

It's a shame that Ike never let Dr. Teller test Gnomon.

Ike really was a menace to society the way he always stood in the way of progress.

https://theconversation.com/75-years-after-nuclear-testing-in-the-pacific-began-the-fallout-continues-to-wreak-havoc-158208