Tag Archives: history

Planning and Spatiality: The Spatial Creation of Urban Landscapes

As you may have noticed, I haven’t posted much over the Summer. This is due to the fact that I have been working on a research paper about the geneaology of urban planning and securitization, smooth and straited spatial constructions, and more as well as a case study (looking at my hometown) of urban planning being utilized to create quasi-gated communities. After all this time, I have finished the paper and revised it to the point that I am happy. Below this is the abstract and embeded below that is the paper in its entirety. I hope you all enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it and I would love to hear your comments. I give you Planning and Spatiality!

In this brief paper, I attempt to start filling the holes in critical geographic theory by providing a genealogy of urban planning and critical infrastructure discourse, tracing historical manifestations of theoretical modes of spatiality, applying the understanding of the modes of spatiality by problematizing the seemingly innocuous planning and layout of my hometown, and finally, providing options for resistance to domination.

http://www.petersaysstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Planning-and-Spatiality.pdf

Re: The Greatest Killer

This is a response to the author of The Greatest Killer which is located on Victims Against Crime which is located here. What is said is essentially that secular states have killed the most people. The way I will refute this is I will copy a quote from the article and put it like so: //Quote goes here// and I will proceed to refute it OR I will simply state what is being said.

After reading just a few paragraphs in the first insane claim rears it’s ugly head. This claim is that “survival of the fittest has devalued human life”. This is just not true. The claim, survival of the fittest, is just a way of explaining how, when shoved in primative situations, organisms would survive. It makes no claim regarding human life. The author then claims that if there is no God there is no objective morality. This is also not true, even if one believes in an objective moral standard evolution provides an extremely easy explanation which is as follows: In tribal settings where food is scarce and just getting food is extremely difficult, working with people increases your chances of survival whereas working alone or killing people lowers your chance. Thus one can see that the evolutionary standpoint provides a nice explanation for the objective morality that is “given by god”.
Moving on:

Here the author is just quoting people who are “defining humans”. I see no need to waste time adding anything on this except that claim that this is just stupid. People don’t believe humans are “an accidental twig”.
The author says the following: When atheism takes hold of a society, moral relativism is inevitable.” Moral relativism already exists! Just look at what is deemed acceptable regarding murder in American and in waring African nations. They are different. Would you like a more, close to home example? Take abortion. Some Christians accept abortion and other do not. There, moral relativism. Now, the author tries to argue that the rise of atheism has lead to the rise of many Communist dictators. He goes more in depth into this later and I will refute it then. 

Next the author tries to make the claim that wars were not the biggest threat to human life. What I have to say to this is, ORLY? If one JUST looks at WWI and WWII the combined casualties are over 80 million people. Even if we take all the assertions made in The Black Book of Communism which is referenced in the post, they are about equal. And I only mentioned two wars. So one cannot claim that wars have not been serious threats to life. But let’s see what happens when we add the Korean and Vietnam Wars. There were roughly 4 million casualties in Korea and there were over 300,000 American casualties alone. Thus one can see that war is a huge threat to life. But let’s continue:

 

Continue reading

Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

“Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Who’s words are these you may ask. As Robert Freeman says, “Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or of a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an American-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States.”1


There has been no military action that has been met with as much criticism than the decision to drop two atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the course of this post I will be debunking the reasons given from dropping the bombs as well as showing why it was inherently a bad idea.


The main reason that was given for the neccesitiy of the bombing was the belief that Japan would not surrender. This may have been true for the troops themselves but this was certainly not the position held by the government. Japans Commanders of War, the Big Six, had been discussing peace agreements with the Soviet Union for months whilst still saying they would fight to the death.2 The Japanese had been defeated already with the destruction of their navy and the loss of the sea around Japan, the fact that we controlled the air above Japan and the fact that we had been firebombing some of their major cities. They had no means of getting supplies into the country thus it is safe to say they were already defeated. Their army was decimated. Many top military commanders regarded the Japanese position as “hopeless”1 as well as saying [they] “…were already defeated and ready to surrender”.1 


The next claim that is made in favor of the bombings is the ludicrous notion that they “saved American lives by preventing a land invasion”. If one does not delve deeper into this it may sound convincing but after one looks at the facts here it is easy to see that this is false. First off, the Japanese had already lost most of their army on the islands around Japan and they were, as shown above, essentially defeated. In fact, the USSBS (US Strategic Bombing Survey) said, “Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.”3 “The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands.”1 This combined with the fact that Japan had been trying to surrender-conditional surrender*-meant that there was absolutely no need for the atomic weapons. 





The first and most obvious reason why the atomic bombings were bad is because they killed over 200,000 innocent civilians as well as leaving thousands more wounded. Next off, the liver cancer rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the highest in the world!4 This is over 60 years later! The rate of other types of cancer has also been greatly increased. Cancer rates have increased from 217 to 301 out of 100,000 in males and 176 to 197 out of 100,000 in females.4 (This is during a year) The highest cancer rate in males in the US is 163 out of 100,000 and for females, 113 out of 100,000, a massive difference!5


The next and probably the most important reason to us is the fact that the atomic bombings really started the Cold War. Even before the bombings the US and the USSR had great distrust that was magnified by the fact that we showed our dominance by developing a weapon that could destroy an entire town first. Once the USSR saw that we had this technology they felt threatened and thus the Cold War began.


So in conclusion, one can see that many top military generals were against the bombings as well as the fact that as new information has come to light we see that the bombings served no strategic military purpose and were only used to assert America’s dominance. 


~~Peter


————————————————————————————————————-


*As stated above Japan wanted a conditional surrender whereas the US had a policy of unconditional surrender. We knew they would surrender conditionally yet our policy dictated we ignore that. the truth is not that Japan ignored our “pleas” for surrender but quite the contrary. We knew they wanted to surrender yet we said no. 




1: Freeman, R. (2006, August 26). Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?. Common Dreams . Retrieved May 14, 2011, from www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm


2: 1945., & Pacific, t. J. (n.d.). Surrender of Japan – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan


3: Hiroshima: Quotes. (n.d.).Hiroshima: Was It Necessary? The Atomic Bombing of Japan. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm


4: Cancer incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan,… [Eur J Cancer. 1994] – PubMed result. (n.d.). National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7917541


5: Cancer Incidence in the United States (SEER), 1987-91. (n.d.).nci.nih.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates12.html