It is written.

I recently had a very interesting conversation with a friend regarding our views on History-- a subject that I have been studying for a good 9 years now. As much as I love the subject, I would have to say that what we study about in textbooks are very much skewed and biased (then again one would argue that absolutely NOTHING is unbiased in this world). Well in short, as we all know, History is written by its victors.

Well it's simple, really. The world works on a basis of Darwinism, which basically talks about the survival of the fittest. The stronger survive and the weaker, well, die. Similarly, in the course of global politics and power play, the stronger nations triumph and basically get whatever they want when it comes to treaty terms and conditions; while those who are weaker and eventually lose will have to reluctantly accept the victor's T&C. This, we all know.

But of course, then, are we too quick to believe that which we read in History textbooks or even Social Studies textbooks? Are the British and Americans really the "good guys" and the Germans and Japanese the "bad guys"? Weren't the Russians part of the Allies too? Why aren't they portrayed as the "good guys" as well? Did the allies not kills hundreds of thousands of lives, civilian or not, just like the Axis Powers did?

Communism ideals work on the basis of egalitarianism and the utopian view of Communism would be that everyone works for everyone and that power and wealth would be distributed evenly-- so why is it that Communism is seen as an evil force? And yet, Capitalist America is portrayed as the 'freedom fighting, liberalising driving force that will set you free", the American symbol of the Eagle that soars way up high above us.

While I can't deny that the Holocaust is definitely downright and purely morally wrong, I can't also agree that the Atomic bomb was necessary. Is this, then, a question of whose lives are worth more? Does this mean that Japanese lives were not worth as much as the, say, Americans at Pearl Harbour? Definitely not.

Just something that I've thought about for quite a few years since I was 16-- when in History lesson we were taught the controversies surrounding the nuclear use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945:

1. Nuclear use was not necessary because the Japanese were already fighting a losing battle-- the Japanese were fast exhausting their resources in the Pacific and lost a lot of men due to their Kamikaze tactics. It was soon enough that they would be too weak to continue the fight and eventual surrender would ensue (One could argue, though, that they have a no-surrender mentality, but given the lack of manpower and resources they would probably be left with no choice just as they did surrender eventually)

2. The dropping of the atomic bombs were just an opportunity for the Americans to showcase their nuclear power and advances in weapon technology to Russia. There were huge tensions between the Capitalist and Communist blocs that were arising as WWII was coming to an end (the alliance between Russia and America to defeat the Axis Powers was definitely just a marriage of convenience) and America wanted to psychologically threaten the Soviet Union in terms of showing what they were capable of, attempting to put off the Communists from trying to infiltrate or influence and 'poison' even more governments and countries.

I've never then agreed with how the Japanese were portrayed to be evil. Yes they had atrocities towards the people. And yes, they had a insatiable hunger and thirst for power that led to them wanting to take over Asia and eventually the world, but hey, wasn't this the case for European Imperialism as well? The Western powers, Britain, Germany, Italy and France--they were all fighting for territories. And lets not go into colonialism. They did provide education. Western education. Just as the Japanese DID provide education in Singapore schools as well.

As for killings, lives were lost when the Western powers were fighting for their territories in Africa as well. Why is imperialism and colonialism justified when that was also what the Japanese were trying to do? Does it mean that White people can rule but not us Asians?

All this is a product of what is written by those who won the fight, be it WWI/II, or the Cold War. I know that there isn't a solution to this because everything has been written. But well, I suppose we should, in future, not be quick to dispel the Japanese or the other 'bad guys' in History to be purely evil, and at the same time realise that well, whatever in the books may be factual and accurate, but we cannot purely be biased in our views towards what has happened in the course of History that will affect our political discourses. This could have further implications and ramifications as well especially since there is religious tension due to terrorist bombings as well as the Iraq War. We shouldn't be quick to separate and distinguish who is good and evil in this fight as there are atrocities on both ends.