The bombing of Nagasaki killed eighty thousand people and was just as destructive and important as the bombing of Hiroshima. However, most of the textbook I analyzed gave significantly more attention to the bombing whether it be through word count or questions. In this section I will analyze How the atomic bombing of Nagasaki is portrayed as less important than Hiroshima, How the bombings are portrayed as a single event and how the complex decision to drop the bomb on nagasaki after dropping it on Hiroshima is portrayed. The Textbook American Pageant which is used in AP courses will be referred to as Textbook one for the rest of this essay. In textbook one a whole paragraph is used to analyze the effects of Hiroshima. In total around 8 sentences and one picture. The textbooks coverage on Nagasaki, “ on august ninth (aviators) dropped a second bomb on the city. The explosion took a horrible toll with eighty thousands dead or missing.” Only two sentences and zero pictures are devoted to the atomic bombing on Nagasaki. Although the textbook describes Nagasaki as “horrible” when there is significantly less details about this bombing compared to Hiroshima it seems to pale in comparison. While the death statistics are broken down in the Hiroshima portion to immediate death and death by radiation. In the Nagasaki paragraph the total death statistic is the only thing given. The picture given in the text of the effect of Hiroshima shows a completely obliterated city. This leaves an immediate impact on the reader. No such pictures are devoted to Nagasaki which makes it seem less important. In the textbook “ Creating America” which will be referred to as “textbook two” Nagasaki is also portrayed as less important. Three sentences and one picture are devoted to Hiroshima while only one sentence is devoted to Nagasaki. It lists the effects as killing 40000 neglecting the other thousands that died due to after effects. Textbook 2 gives graphic details of the effects of Hiroshima. It says it turned Japan into a “wasteland” and leveled the city. It’s description of Nagasaki, “On august ninth America dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki killing another 40,000.” pretty bland right. The textbook details the name of the plane that flew the bomb over Hiroshima, Enola Gay”. The textbook does not list the name of the plane that flew over Nagasaki, “Bockscar” The books underlines Hiroshima and lists it under important terms however Nagasaki does not receive this same treatment. “The Americans” which will be known as “textbook 3” gives the two events unequal coverage also. The textbook also only lists the plane that dropped the bomb over Hiroshima. The text gives two photos both of Hiroshima. The textbook also only gives the eyewitness perspective of a Hiroshima witness. Finally the textbook only talks about the radiation effects of one of the bombs. The textbooks also portray the bombings as a single even. In textbook one the chapter of passage that mentions the bomb is titled, “ The Atomic Bombings”. This title groups together both of the bombings as a single event instead of as different. The passage in which the morality of the bombs is justified and argued is entitled “The Atomic Bombs Were They Justified.” This passage also groups the bombings together instead of discussing the morality of each of the two decisions to drop the bomb. In Textbook two the title of the passage is, “Atomic Weapons And War.” This obviously portrays this as a singular event. At the bottom of the page it tells students to think about the bomb’s destructive power. Notice it says Bomb’s instead of Bombs’ this is the singular version instead of plural It does not specify which bomb is being discussed so this is referring to the bombing in the singular which is literally portraying it as only one event. The danger in in grouping two related events together is that it minimizes the importances and takes away the history from both of them. For example it would be completely wrong to group Japanese internment and the Holocaust together although they both are in relation to with removal of people with a certain ethnicity because they both have a different important history and after effects. The same is true of grouping Nagasaki and Hiroshima together. The textbooks also often neglect to discuss the Morality of dropping the bomb over Nagasaki. In textbook 2 the decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki is not mentioned once in the text. In the think about section it tells you to think about the effects of the bomb’s and the cost of an invasion. However this as previously mentioned groups the bombs together as a singular bomb. Because more space in the text is devoted to Hiroshima this answer seems to encourage the student to write about that instead of Nagasaki. Because there is no question to the morality of dropping the bomb on Nagasaki it leads it too look like an unimportant event and something that had to be done. It leads the reader to believe there is no moral dilemma. In textbook 1 the morality is discussed in a section which is called “the atomic bombs were they justified.” It starts out by saying no episode of the world war two era has evoked sharper controversy than the atomic bombing of japan.” This already groups the two together. The rest of the passage continues to group the two together without explicitly discussing the morality of the decision to drop the bomb. The text quotes Gar Alperovitz as saying that president Truman rejected all alternatives of dropping the bomb. This quote groups them together instead of talking about the morality of each bombing. There are many other examples in this passage of the author grouping the morality of the bombs together instead of covering the morality of each bombing. Grouping the bombs together portrays the message that the discussion to drop the bombs were the same for each bombing and that the same thought process went into drooping each bomb. It also implies the decision to drop both bombs was made at the same time which it wasn't. In textbook 3 there is a point counterpoint section related to dropping the bomb. In this section it groups the bombs together by referring to the bombing only singular. In the section for the bomb there were arguments listed while the section against had the arguments in quotes which leads to them seeming less important If they were to portray the moral question individually it would reflect Nagasaki as a different event and the decision to drop this bomb equally as complex and important.