Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on April 26, 2013, 08:29:16 pm
-
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/04/24/2013042401169.html
Abe Denies Japan Invaded Asian Neighbors
In a further lurch to the far right, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers on Tuesday that he does not believe Japan's occupation of other Asian countries during World War II can be considered "invasions."
Abe claimed there are no set international or academic definitions of the word. "It depends on the point of view of individual countries," he said, referring to a statement in 1995 by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, which apologized to all Asian victims of Japanese aggression and from which rightwingers are scrambling to distance themselves.
Japan occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945 and invaded China and several Southeast Asian nations during an aggressive expansion to create what was billed as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Experts here slammed Abe's remarks. Ko Sang-tu at Yonsei University said, "That is simply absurd. It's like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't really an invasion. If a German chancellor had said the same thing, he or she would have had to resign."
Abe told lawmakers on Monday that he does not feel bound by the Murayama statement. The global press was alarmed, with the New York Times saying he sought to whitewash his country's World War II atrocities, while the Economist warned that the right-leaning Japanese Cabinet is a bad sign for the region.
Abe said Japan's pacifist constitution was put together by what he called "occupying forces," referring to the victorious U.S. at the end of the war.
The constitution, which stipulates the country's desire for peace and pledges a policy of non-aggression, effectively "entrusted the lives and safety of the public to the goodwill of other countries," he claimed.
This suggests he is throwing his weight behind moves from the far right to revise the constitution so the Japanese military can launch pre-emptive strikes abroad.
On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and other Japanese politicians visited Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, which houses the remains of Japan's war dead including convicted war criminals. On Tuesday, 168 members of the Diet followed suit, the biggest number of lawmakers since 1989.
The Japanese media were critical of the stunt. The Asahi Shimbun urged cabinet members to exercise "restraint" in speech as well as action, while the Mainichi Shimbun warned Japan's "national interests are at risk" if such strain is put on cooperation with China and South Korea in trying to rein in North Korea.
When I first arrived in China I very quickly noticed that the Chinese hate the Japanese. At first I thought it a little silly to still hate them over a war that ended more than 60 years ago but it's pretty obvious that the Japanese are trying really hard to keep the hatred alive.
-
I'm not entirely certain that "far-right" would correctly describe that action, although Imperial Japan was certainly far-right.[/nitpick]
Can you link to the original article?
-
In one sense, it's our fault... or specifically, that of McArthur. He let them keep the imperial dynasty in the hope of maintaining stability and averting a military occupation government as far as I understand.
-
I'm not entirely certain that "far-right" would correctly describe that action, although Imperial Japan was certainly far-right.[/nitpick]
I don't know, what political label would you give someone who claimed the Holocaust didn't happen? And I think they're saying it's far-right cause he's moving to agreeing with the Japanese far-right on this issue.
Can you link to the original article?
I thought I had. Link added.
-
Abe claimed there are no set international or academic definitions of the word. "It depends on the point of view of individual countries," he said, referring to a statement in 1995 by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, which apologized to all Asian victims of Japanese aggression and from which rightwingers are scrambling to distance themselves.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/461/903/3a9.png
I can't believe this **** is still going on. FFS! The sooner Japan admits they ****** up, the sooner they can get this **** over with. This is as bad as Turkey denying the Armenian genocide and making it illegal to acknowledge.
-
I'm not entirely certain that "far-right" would correctly describe that action, although Imperial Japan was certainly far-right.[/nitpick]
I don't know, what political label would you give someone who claimed the Holocaust didn't happen? And I think they're saying it's far-right cause he's moving to agreeing with the Japanese far-right on this issue.
I see your point. Defending the far-right and arguably fascist (fits that ideology better than any other common one) WWII Imperial Japan could be considered far-right in and of itself.
EDIT: It certainly has the uber nationalistic component of extreme rightism.
-
This is all just sad. Abe is an asshole. And Japan, FFS what are you doing, leaving this guy free to do this kind of ****?
Japan still needs to work out its role in WW2. They probably still feel like the victims of the war, and oppressed by the victors. Perhaps that's why this political vision of Japan's lack of actual fault in the war is somewhat acceptable to the japanese.
It's also peculiar if you compare it with Germany. When the generation that was born after the war learned about the Holocaust and the nazi crimes, it was a generational rebeld epiphany against their fathers. They really did outgrow themselves. Not Japan it seems.
-
Abe said Japan's pacifist constitution was put together by what he called "occupying forces," referring to the victorious U.S. at the end of the war.
The constitution, which stipulates the country's desire for peace and pledges a policy of non-aggression, effectively "entrusted the lives and safety of the public to the goodwill of other countries," he claimed.
Apollo says Japan forfeited the right to rule itself when it went on an imperialist rampage and brutally gang raped the citizens of Nanjing to death.
That might not be the elected officials fault, though--from what I understand, the military stole power from them.
-
In other news, Japan pisses off China right when China starts to get serious about fixing the NK issue. Great job!
-
In other news, Japan pisses off China right when China starts to get serious about fixing the NK issue. Great job!
Oh and that too.
-
Well China and Japan have been involved in a little argument over the Dianyu islands for a little while already. I think this is deliberately meant to piss off China.
-
The real question is how do the Japanese people feel about this? Are they rolling their eyes, or do they agree with it?
-
I think this is deliberately meant to piss off China.
How is that a good idea under any circumstances, though? I mean, at what point does 'let's piss off a nuclear power (that already hates us) for no gain on our end' sound like the right course of action?
The only way this makes any sense is if Japan has been secretly manufacturing working mobile suits (combined with their brain-wave cat-ear technology) for the purposes of conquering the world!
-
Japan still needs to work out its role in WW2.
In a sense, they have, and that's the problem. To be born in Asia, prior to WW2, was to be born chattel. It was sometimes implicit, and sometimes literal, but for every Asian country save Japan it was universally true. To be Asian was to be considered inferior. But Japan was in a position to do something about that. World War 2 in the Pacific, in a very real way, happened because Japan was seizing the opportunity to strike at those who had oppressed the region for generations.
Japan cast itself as liberator from white imperialism. It is the only war goal that Japan can be said to have actually achieved. By their victories in World War 2 they irrevocably destroyed the legitimacy of the colonial powers in Asia and freed an entire continent from western imperialism. To the Japanese mindset, which often values the integrity of the act more than the outcome of it, that cloak of purpose is what truly matters. This is at the heart of their inability examine their own actions during WW2 with anything like the seriousness their victims typically feel is necessary.
-
I think this is deliberately meant to piss off China.
How is that a good idea under any circumstances, though? I mean, at what point does 'let's piss off a nuclear power (that already hates us) for no gain on our end' sound like the right course of action?
This isn't any different than Kimmy sputtering and chest thumping from North Korea, except with Uncle Sam and his aircraft carriers, rather than China being stuck backing up their bull****.
****. Someone should get Abey and Kimmy together on Skype. They could screech and bluster at each other until they stroked out. Record and broadcast it in primetime, make billions.
-
Being an inconsiderate prick isn't exactly the same as promising to bathe two nations in radioactive fire.
-
I'm not entirely certain that "far-right" would correctly describe that action, although Imperial Japan was certainly far-right.[/nitpick]
I don't know, what political label would you give someone who claimed the Holocaust didn't happen?
none whatsoever. denying the holocaust, or any other bit of history, is not a political stance.
-
Being an inconsiderate prick isn't exactly the same as promising to bathe two nations in radioactive fire.
Ok. 'Any' is a bad choice, but I still think they publicize the **** they do for the same reason, it pisses off their 'enemies', and they know they can get away with it without consequences more severe than a stern talking to by an ambassador.
-
Japan still needs to work out its role in WW2.
In a sense, they have, and that's the problem. To be born in Asia, prior to WW2, was to be born chattel. It was sometimes implicit, and sometimes literal, but for every Asian country save Japan it was universally true. To be Asian was to be considered inferior. But Japan was in a position to do something about that. World War 2 in the Pacific, in a very real way, happened because Japan was seizing the opportunity to strike at those who had oppressed the region for generations.
Japan cast itself as liberator from white imperialism. It is the only war goal that Japan can be said to have actually achieved. By their victories in World War 2 they irrevocably destroyed the legitimacy of the colonial powers in Asia and freed an entire continent from western imperialism. To the Japanese mindset, which often values the integrity of the act more than the outcome of it, that cloak of purpose is what truly matters. This is at the heart of their inability examine their own actions during WW2 with anything like the seriousness their victims typically feel is necessary.
Now that was enlightening, thanks.
-
Oh you, Japan.
-
Japan still needs to work out its role in WW2.
In a sense, they have, and that's the problem. To be born in Asia, prior to WW2, was to be born chattel. It was sometimes implicit, and sometimes literal, but for every Asian country save Japan it was universally true. To be Asian was to be considered inferior. But Japan was in a position to do something about that. World War 2 in the Pacific, in a very real way, happened because Japan was seizing the opportunity to strike at those who had oppressed the region for generations.
Japan cast itself as liberator from white imperialism. It is the only war goal that Japan can be said to have actually achieved. By their victories in World War 2 they irrevocably destroyed the legitimacy of the colonial powers in Asia and freed an entire continent from western imperialism. To the Japanese mindset, which often values the integrity of the act more than the outcome of it, that cloak of purpose is what truly matters. This is at the heart of their inability examine their own actions during WW2 with anything like the seriousness their victims typically feel is necessary.
That's the post of the year, no question. How did you come to that conclusion though?
-
I agree, that's the first time I've heard that (pretty interesting) argument made, and it sounds reasonable. However, it seems more like propaganda working too well, to the point of affecting the country's modern day leaders.
A couple points:
You can't say that you're freeing people from imperialism if you're just going to occupy them immediately after ousting the previous occupiers. It also doesn't help if you treat the occupied people vastly worst than before. However, the national mentality regarding all this makes perfect sense if you consider what would have been reported on back home during WWII. Japan wins many battles all over Asia, ousting Allied and White influence. Japan is helping develop the region by building a significant amount of infrastructure including railways, power plants, housing, etc. (There's a joke in China that says that any building still standing since 50 years ago is guaranteed to be of Japanese construction; their building standards were of very high quality, especially compared to crappy Chinese standards). Japan is spreading culture and enlightenment to an inferior people, who are benefiting from our intervention. What nobody hears about are the war crimes, mass civilian murder during occupation (people promised wages and housing to work on various projects, later killed without pay to save on expenses), human experimentation (unit 731), forced prostitution (comfort women), torture, slavery, etc.
Now consider that Japan's censorship was (is?) pretty effective regarding WWII history if you look at their curriculum. People growing up there likely didn't know much about many of the war crimes that occurred, and to some extent might think that the rest of Asia is slandering them. At least, they don't believe enough of it to remove shrines celebrating war criminals, or abstain from saying stuff that pisses off the rest of Asia.
-
*sigh*
The problem with the way World War 2 ended is that many people - not all of them Japanese - feel that Japan was a victim based on the fact that it was subjected to atomic bombs not once, but twice.
What said people - and many Japanese - forget is that Japan was in many ways a savage aggressor that treated invaded peoples, enemy combatants, and POWs with unconscionable savagery which is well-documented in the historical record, though not often spoken of or (as I understand it) taught in Japanese schools. These statements are designed to pander to that lack of education. While the rest of the world, and most notably Asia, readily condemns Japan for its actions and would like to move on, Japan has historically refused to recognize its actions and continues to maintain a victim mentality based on how WW2 concluded, rather than how it was actually conducted.
Whereas Germany in many ways embraced, apologized for, and continues to be ashamed of the Nazi plague, Japan has a long way to go.
-
That's the post of the year, no question. How did you come to that conclusion though?
World War 2 in the Pacific is a hobby of mine. We live in an period where it's become feasible to have people from both sides of the Pacific with an active interest in the subject discuss it. It's also true that at this point in the time the National Archives or other sources of documents available to Western historians are nearly played out while at the same time a lot of Japanese sources, from veteran interviews to documentation that remained in Japan, have yet to be tapped.
Historians are aware of this. And the Internet makes it possible to reach these sources and translate them, with the help of sympathetic Japanese. I've just lurked around the edges of the community involved in this, but the Japanese participants tend to echo certain refrains when something like this comes up in conversation. Most of them don't appear to buy into it, but they're guys on a messageboard devoted to the Imperial Japanese Navy and have more interest in and education on the subject than the average Japanese.
-
Who started the war ?
That's not only a question in Japan.
Some people believe that Thatcher started the Falkland War and that Bush senior started the First Gulf War in 1990.
Because invading a foreign territory isn't a casus belli unless you push new born babies out of incubators. ;)
So depending on your political agenda it's sensible to be flexible with such questions.
Abe want to build up the Japanese military, and with North Korea an China as neighbours he has rational reasons for it.
Redefining the Japanese Occupation of Korea and China seems to be necessary for Abe to overcome internal Japanese resistance against a stronger military, even if this provokes other Asian Nations.
A greater politician would try to reach that objective without such manoeuvres, but Abe seem to lack the diplomatic skills for it.
-
I like this channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJapanChannelDcom
It's an Australian (I think) guy living in Japan, who uploads an immense amount of videos on Japan.
One thing I've seen him say is the Japanese attitude to problems are to pretend they don't exist. It seems to be a cultural thing. Problems are just edited out of conversation. Japanese don't talk about their problems. Probably has something to do with the high suicide rate. They'll talk about nice stuff and sweep everything else under the carpet. Unfortunately I can't give any relevant examples, I can't remember the videos, it would be needle in a haystack stuff, he has over a thousand videos.
-
Redefining the Japanese Occupation of Korea and China seems to be necessary for Abe to overcome internal Japanese resistance against a stronger military, even if this provokes other Asian Nations.
I thought some international agreement stipulates that losers of WWII cannot have military strength over a certain amount? IIRC that's why JP lacks an "army" and instead has a "self-defense force"?
-
That's actually part of their Constitution if I recall correctly. How external that is can be debated with regards to MacArthur, but IIRC there's actually a fair bit of current resistance to amending that out.
-
The problem with the way World War 2 ended is that many people - not all of them Japanese - feel that Japan was a victim based on the fact that it was subjected to atomic bombs not once, but twice.
True. War crimes, atrocites and the matter of guilt are a soft spot not only for Japan. Atrocities by the enemy are often used to relativise own crimes, and the same mechanic seems to produce biased views even in discussions decades after the actual war. What a silly logic - an atrocity doesen't become any less condemnable by referring to another atrocity! And still, i've encountered this kind of argumentation quite often in the past. In my eyes, that's just an attempt to relativise guilt and - in the worst cases - to victimise a guilty party. A common problem of nationalism, i guess.
-
I thought some international agreement stipulates that losers of WWII cannot have military strength over a certain amount? IIRC that's why JP lacks an "army" and instead has a "self-defense force"?
While arguably not internal in origin, much like Austria's neutrality clauses there is a great deal of domestic support for it.
-
Well I'm not familiar enough with the politics of Japan to know this for certain but it seems to me like Abe is playing a pretty dangerous game. Having opened the door with this statement, what is he going to do if someone flat out asks him if the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour was justified?
Cause I'm sure the American public won't mind hearing how Pearl Harbour wasn't just militarily but also morally acceptable. :p
-
Considering a vocal and fruity portion got up in arms because Obama bowed to the Emperor(though as a Kendo practitioner I can attest to it being a horribly executed bow) then yeah 'murica would be less than thrilled.
-
When I first arrived in China I very quickly noticed that the Chinese hate the Japanese. At first I thought it a little silly to still hate them over a war that ended more than 60 years ago but it's pretty obvious that the Japanese are trying really hard to keep the hatred alive.
Japanese, Chinese and Koreans all hate each other. And they are all doing an equal amount of dumb provocations to each other to keep that hatred alive.
Japan still needs to work out its role in WW2.
In a sense, they have, and that's the problem. To be born in Asia, prior to WW2, was to be born chattel. It was sometimes implicit, and sometimes literal, but for every Asian country save Japan it was universally true. To be Asian was to be considered inferior. But Japan was in a position to do something about that. World War 2 in the Pacific, in a very real way, happened because Japan was seizing the opportunity to strike at those who had oppressed the region for generations.
Japan cast itself as liberator from white imperialism. It is the only war goal that Japan can be said to have actually achieved. By their victories in World War 2 they irrevocably destroyed the legitimacy of the colonial powers in Asia and freed an entire continent from western imperialism. To the Japanese mindset, which often values the integrity of the act more than the outcome of it, that cloak of purpose is what truly matters. This is at the heart of their inability examine their own actions during WW2 with anything like the seriousness their victims typically feel is necessary.
Good post
-
Where on Earth did you get the idea that the Chinese hate the Koreans from?
-
He could've been referring to South Koreans.
-
Where on Earth did you get the idea that the Chinese hate the Koreans from?
somewhere like this i guess? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Korean_sentiment_in_China)
-
Where on Earth did you get the idea that the Chinese hate the Koreans from?
You do realize there's enough historical animosity between Korea and China, usually about Korea's stubborn refusal to be conquered and sometimes striking back, to make most European country feuds look tame?
-
Japanese, Chinese and Koreans all hate each other. And they are all doing an equal amount of dumb provocations to each other to keep that hatred alive.
Much of the anger towards Japan has been towards their inability to take full ownership of what the country did in WWII, at least to the extent that Germany took ownership of Nazi Germany. I doubt many of the provocations done by Koreans (Speaking as a Korean-American, I can't speak for Chinese) towards the Japanese would not be as frequent if Japan didn't downplay the documented abuses they've done.
-
Much of the anger towards Japan has been towards their inability to take full ownership of what the country did in WWII, at least to the extent that Germany took ownership of Nazi Germany. I doubt many of the provocations done by Koreans (Speaking as a Korean-American, I can't speak for Chinese) towards the Japanese would not be as frequent if Japan didn't downplay the documented abuses they've done.
Silly Koreans. Why can't you just admit that Glorious Nippon only had your best interest in mind when they invaded you over and over again?
Where on Earth did you get the idea that the Chinese hate the Koreans from?
I dunno man, I read the internet and stuff. It has things written on the subject about it.
-
I live in China, watch Chinese news and talk to the Chinese and have heard very little about it. Some how I doubt they dislike the Koreans anywhere near the level they dislike the Japanese.
Even the wikipedia link basically shows that it's the actions of a very vocal minority.
However, despite the internet debate, China's view of Korea is generally fine.One survey reports "good relations" reached 50.2% of the respondents, the "general" up to 40.8% while "an anti-Korean sentiment" of the small proportion of respondents was only 4.4 to 6.1%
I'm sure you could find similar figures in many national rivalries.
-
China is a big country inhabited by many chinese
I live in the Netherlands, watch Dutch news and talk to Dutch people, this doesn't make me an expert on Dutch-German relations by default. Because the portion of people I could possible talk to in my surroundings doesn't exactly make up a large percentage of the total population.
I'd also take Chinese news with a fairly large grain of salt.
-
Hong Kong has cultural ties to Japan in terms of popularity of Japanese food and entertainment (anime is popular especially), but anti-Japanese sentiment exists too, not to the same extent as there appears to me to be on the mainland.
-
China is a big country inhabited by many chinese
I live in the Netherlands, watch Dutch news and talk to Dutch people, this doesn't make me an expert on Dutch-German relations by default. Because the portion of people I could possible talk to in my surroundings doesn't exactly make up a large percentage of the total population.
I'd also take Chinese news with a fairly large grain of salt.
Yes but if this hatred isn't on the net, isn't in the mass media, and isn't expressed by the population of any of the many provinces I've been to and talk to, the question that has to be asked is “Where is it then?" You'd have thought that having lived in the country for 4 years, I might have heard it once if it's as widespread as people are claiming.
When the wikipedia article lists a football rivalry as the main issue, it's probably not as big an issue as they have with the Japanese.
-
Hong Kong has cultural ties to Japan in terms of popularity of Japanese food and entertainment (anime is popular especially), but anti-Japanese sentiment exists too, not to the same extent as there appears to me to be on the mainland.
my father loves sushi bars and reads manwa from Japan since he was a kid.
-
And.....
Japanese soldiers needed to rape women (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22519384).
The guy has all the tact of throwing a brick through a window. :rolleyes:
-
And.....
Japanese soldiers needed to rape women (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22519384).
The guy has all the tact of throwing a brick through a window. :rolleyes:
In fairness, it looks like this guy is from the Japanese equivalent of One Nation or the BNP - right wing reactionary populists. That said, I'm not getting the impression that he's super far out from the Japanese mainstream either - they've got more than 10% of the lower house seats in Japan...
-
Hong Kong has cultural ties to Japan in terms of popularity of Japanese food and entertainment (anime is popular especially), but anti-Japanese sentiment exists too, not to the same extent as there appears to me to be on the mainland.
I'd like to point out that, even beyond China and it's Special Administrative Regions, few people are happy that the Japanese "liberated" them from their colonial masters. When we are taught bits and pieces of Singapore history in primary school, the main focus is on the amount of suffering the civilian population went through during the Japanese Occupation. In addition, many of the senior citizens here still dislike the Japanese for what they did during the war.
Most of the younger generation (me included) are fence-sitters who, despite being taught the above and reading up on our own history (which frequently highlights this), still bear no animosity for Japan and its people. I guess it does make a difference between reading it up in a book and experiencing it first-hand.
-
In fairness, it looks like this guy is from the Japanese equivalent of One Nation or the BNP - right wing reactionary populists. That said, I'm not getting the impression that he's super far out from the Japanese mainstream either - they've got more than 10% of the lower house seats in Japan...
Japan's demographics warping its politics there.
-
And.....
Japanese soldiers needed to rape women (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22519384).
The guy has all the tact of throwing a brick through a window. :rolleyes:
...and this is what results when you let an aggressor who treated enemy combatants, invaded civilian populations, and pretty much anyone but their own citizens with absolute barbarity think they are the victim.
Like I said earlier, this is the legacy of the atom bombs - a modern democracy that thinks of itself as a victim that has done nothing wrong despite engaging in some of the most heinous acts of war documented in modern history.
-
And.....
Japanese soldiers needed to rape women (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22519384).
The guy has all the tact of throwing a brick through a window. :rolleyes:
...and this is what results when you let an aggressor who treated enemy combatants, invaded civilian populations, and pretty much anyone but their own citizens with absolute barbarity think they are the victim.
Like I said earlier, this is the legacy of the atom bombs - a modern democracy that thinks of itself as a victim that has done nothing wrong despite engaging in some of the most heinous acts of war documented in modern history.
These are the significant words from the article to me:
"On Tuesday, Japanese ministers tried to distance themselves from his remarks."
"Mr Hashimoto is the co-founder of the nationalist Japanese Restoration Party, which has a small presence in parliament and is not part of the government."
"He was the youngest governor in Japanese history before becoming mayor of Osaka, and last year said Japan needed "a dictatorship"."
Every country has people like this. Don't let this guy tar your opinion of a whole nation.
-
I found this link from the link above. It's an interesting read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068
"What Japanese history lessons leave out"
-
yup, many people that I know in my parents generation are bitter about the history taught in Japanese schools, and WW2 Japanese behaviour in general. Then again I had (until she recently passed away) a Sandakan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandakan_Death_Marches) widow in my extended family, so perhaps that's not a good population sample to be drawing conclusions from.
-
Every country has people like this. Don't let this guy tar your opinion of a whole nation.
Except that in most other countries, someone saying **** like that would be forced to apologise or step down. In Japan even their country's leader can hold similar opinions and get away with it.
-
What's truly notable is how hyper-sensitive Japanese culture is to anything resembling public shame or scandal, to the point where actors and singers get flat-out dumped from labels just for having an affair. The fact that people can make statements like these without any repercussions at all suggests pretty strongly that most people are fine with this view, at least amongst the older generations.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't American politicians often say horrible things and nothing happens to them? There's just some hand wringing and complaining on the internet and that's it?
-
What's truly notable is how hyper-sensitive Japanese culture is to anything resembling public shame or scandal, to the point where actors and singers get flat-out dumped from labels just for having an affair.
That sort of thing happens from time to time in the U.S., IIRC.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't American politicians often say horrible things and nothing happens to them? There's just some hand wringing and complaining on the internet and that's it?
No. They get made fun of on The Daily Show, as well. :P
-
Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise.
It might be some two-faced apology which no one believes, but it's pretty rare this kind of crap is allowed to actually stand. Hell, Obama had to apologise for saying a woman was attractive a while back.
-
Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise.
It might be some two-faced apology which no one believes, but it's pretty rare this kind of crap is allowed to actually stand. Hell, Obama had to apologise for saying a woman was attractive a while back.
I don't know about apologies, but I wasn't even thinking apologies, apologies are nothing.
Now, here's a video I once found, I ended up finding it when someone basically said rape is a gift from God and I started digging around. Took me a while to find it again. He has a short list of things some people said. I don't know if they all had to apologise or what, or whether you think they should apologise. I'll let you judge for yourself. I've put it to the relevant part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm7K926BYzc#t=3m20s
-
I don't know about apologies, but I wasn't even thinking apologies, apologies are nothing.
So you've basically missed the entire point I was making. i.e that you're not allowed to say that stuff on the record and not be forced into humiliating backtracking if you want to keep your job.
More importantly, your comment was that we shouldn't judge a country on the words of one politician (Correct) but that you ignore the fact that it is acceptable to judge a country on the fact that they completely fail to react in a negative fashion to the words of that politician. That's quite a huge distinction to miss. You can point to American politicians saying stupid ****, but your own link points to people calling them out on that.
-
I don't know about apologies, but I wasn't even thinking apologies, apologies are nothing.
So you've basically missed the entire point I was making. i.e that you're not allowed to say that stuff on the record and not be forced into humiliating backtracking if you want to keep your job.
More importantly, your comment was that we shouldn't judge a country on the words of one politician (Correct) but that you ignore the fact that it is acceptable to judge a country on the fact that they completely fail to react in a negative fashion to the words of that politician. That's quite a huge distinction to miss. You can point to American politicians saying stupid ****, but your own link points to people calling them out on that.
Did all these people have to apolgise? I don't know.
I don't speak Japanese. So I don't know if I could find a Japanese person somewhere complaining on the internet about this guy. But I'd be willing to bet they are there. And don't forget the article I posted, which shows general public Japanese are simply ignorant of the facts rather than agreeing with them. And the Japanese also seem to have a mentality to just ignore problems and hope they go away. I wish I knew where the video with that guy talking about that was.
-
Ignorant or complicit, the reaction the rest of us should have is the same, make enough of a stink about it that they don't get away with it.
Not hiding behind stupid truisms like that you can't judge a country by one man and using that as an excuse to ignore this sort of bull****.
-
Ignorant or complicit, the reaction the rest of us should have is the same, make enough of a stink about it that they don't get away with it.
Not hiding behind stupid truisms like that you can't judge a country by one man and using that as an excuse to ignore this sort of bull****.
Coming from Chinese/Koreans, it probably feels like they're out to get them. Japanese is an obscure language to the West. But I'm sure they'd be more likely to listen to a neutral explain a few things to them.
I honestly think you're being too harsh on the Japanese. They're a very civilised people. And the current generation shouldn't have to feel any guilt about what their ancestors did. Same for Germans. Today's Japan is unrecognisable from WW2 Japan. I think the truism is valid. It's one guy. And the Japanese weren't getting behind him. I don't like the censorship, but could you blame the Japanese for just wanting to put it in the past and move forward?
-
I blame them for wanting to pretend it didn't happen, or worse, wanting to act like it was a good thing. Yes, I very much blame them for that.
Why don't we have Obama say that what the settlers did to the Native Americans was necessary? Or have David Cameron defend the British invasion of India as a great idea? I mean the fact that that stuff happened outside of living memory should make it okay, right? There won't be anyone upset about those comments, right?
The "It's just one man" comments get silly when
1) I've already linked to two men saying stupid ****.
2) One of them is the ****ing leader of the country.
Oh and stop inventing stuff about the Japanese not being behind those comments. You've already admitted you don't know one way or the other.
-
I blame them for wanting to pretend it didn't happen, or worse, wanting to act like it was a good thing. Yes, I very much blame them for that.
Why don't we have Obama say that what the settlers did to the Native Americans was necessary? Or have David Cameron defend the British invasion of India as a great idea? I mean the fact that that stuff happened outside of living memory should make it okay, right? There won't be anyone upset about those comments, right?
The "It's just one man" comments get silly when
1) I've already linked to two men saying stupid ****.
2) One of them is the ****ing leader of the country.
Oh and stop inventing stuff about the Japanese not being behind those comments. You've already admitted you don't know one way or the other.
On another note, at least they're not going to revise the old apology:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/japan-apologies-military-conduct-asia
I still disagree with the idea of, even if it is the top man, letting that be an assumption that they speak for the people in general. David Cameron doesn't speak for me. I didn't even vote for him, but if I did, he still wouldn't. He's there to do a job, his opinions on World history are not mine.
If I was going to vote, and one of the candidates had some dodgy views about events which happened 70 years ago, but were otherwise the best candidate for the job, I'd vote for them. I'm voting for them to run the country now, not 70 years ago.
I'm not defending it, it's wrong. But you should imo be attacking just the man, not the people. He was speaking only for himself with these remarks, not Japan, I know that. Go after Shinzo Abe, not Japan.
If he gets to do anything more impactful than just run his mouth on his own views, whether actual policy changes, or trying to truly speak as if the whole of Japan is behind him, without being opposed, then we can start bringing the whole of Japan into this.
-
Mah, I give up. Believe whatever you want.
I'm just going to post this.
http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/13/why_japanese_apologies_for_wwii_rin.php
-
Mah, I give up. Believe whatever you want.
I'm just going to post this.
http://shanghaiist.com/2012/12/13/why_japanese_apologies_for_wwii_rin.php
I read your link. If anything, to me it says there is a lot of suspicion and ignorance on both sides.
Oh well, I guess we're just going to have to take Wings of Dawn and make the Japanese see it, along with some of the best eye-candy available, so we can lure some English-speaking Japanese to this site, then we can ask them :D
Peace.
-
lorric, i am truly amazed at how quickly and effectively you were able to purge all insight or nuance from the discussion. outstanding work
-
lorric, i am truly amazed at how quickly and effectively you were able to purge all insight or nuance from the discussion. outstanding work
Is that so...
-
I read your link. If anything, to me it says there is a lot of suspicion and ignorance on both sides.
And who said there wasn't?
-
I read your link. If anything, to me it says there is a lot of suspicion and ignorance on both sides.
And who said there wasn't?
No one. That was just what the link made me think.
-
You do realize there's enough historical animosity between Korea and China, usually about Korea's stubborn refusal to be conquered and sometimes striking back, to make most European country feuds look tame?
Now I let this one slide at the time because I haven't studied much Chinese history (I'm waiting till I can read it in Chinese) but I asked a friend today who has studied it a bit and we were both confused as to exactly when the Chinese invaded Korea. I know the Mongols and Manchu did it, but then both of them also invaded China.
-
Here's a NSFW link which has absolutely no neutrality on the subject so blablabla don't put too much stock into it: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2013/05/14/hashimoto-i-told-the-us-military-to-use-more-prostitutes/
What I'm linking this for are the translated quotes from japanese internet posters:
They did surprise even the nest of right-wing loons which is Japan’s largest online forum, however:
“Isn’t this guy a moron? He seems to just want to stand out by any means necessary.”
“What is he on? How could you think to say something like this in public?”
“Hashimoto seems to be unable to control his own urges so these comments are not surprising.”
“This coming from a guy whose adultery got exposed.”
“America’s army doesn’t want to do any Japs!”
“I thought most brothels refused to serve foreigners in any case.”
“Right, most of them ban white and black men anyway. And their girls hate whites. How sad, even if a white has money he can’t even get a woman in a brothel.”
“A hot white guy can just sit there silent and the girls will come to him so it hardly matters.”
“I can’t believe how rude this guy is. Like he views American soldiers as animals… most of them are just simple young lads.”
“What a shameless fool. What is he thinking? Where else can you find a politician asking members of a foreign military to make better use of his own nation’s prostitutes?”
Yes, small sample size etc
But at least it gives Karajorma an idea that the average (right winged?) Japanese person does not exactly seem to approve of this man and his visions.
I also like how this has been going since 1950
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
-
Lorric, it is broadly documented that the majority of Japanese are completely ignorant of the atrocities committed by their country and fellow citizens throughout the Second World War, an ignorance that manifests itself as the stupidity in certain political statements.
That politician is a symptom of a vast societal ignorance about a period in that country's history which its political leadership generally would like to be completely forgotten, in large part due to the fact that Japanese royalty - and the emperor himself, at the time - had a large hand in the decision-making and cultural leadership that let it all happen.
So no, Japan as a whole does not get a pass on "one guy's comments."
-
But Japan as a whole isn't trying to dig up skeletons. If they just want to forget about it, then they'll cause no problems.
Why bother the average Japanese? They had no part in WW2. Why should it be a stone around their necks? The sins of the father are not the sins of the son.
Funnily enough, I googled that last sentence on a whim and got this...
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/why-japan-is-still-not-sorry-enough/
It's quite interesting.
-
There's an old saying. "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". I do not know if you ever heard of it.
Let me illustrate. Why should my generation (I was born in 1981) get educated on the horrors of Nazi Germany? It's not like us, or our parents, had anything to do with it, right? Surely there can be no harm in ignoring all that long-gone nonsense and just get on with it, right?
What you just said there, Lorric? It's wrong. Completely, utterly, inexcusably wrong. Allowing extremists to reinterpret past atrocities as being good for all concerned never ends well. These notions need to be squashed, and squashed hard, and to do that, you need a broad base of people who are educated about what really happened. I am astonished that you, guardian of morality that you would like to be, think that letting these people off is a good idea.
-
There's an old saying. "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". I do not know if you ever heard of it.
Let me illustrate. Why should my generation (I was born in 1981) get educated on the horrors of Nazi Germany? It's not like us, or our parents, had anything to do with it, right? Surely there can be no harm in ignoring all that long-gone nonsense and just get on with it, right?
What you just said there, Lorric? It's wrong. Completely, utterly, inexcusably wrong. Allowing extremists to reinterpret past atrocities as being good for all concerned never ends well. These notions need to be squashed, and squashed hard, and to do that, you need a broad base of people who are educated about what really happened. I am astonished that you, guardian of morality that you would like to be, think that letting these people off is a good idea.
I am a big believer in "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". History was my favourite subject at school.
And I have already stated the extremists are wrong. I'm not comfortable with tarring all the Japanese with this brush however. I am certainly in favour of the Japanese being educated on the past. My problem is saying all (or most) of the Japanese are bad or share the PM's view just because he decided to run his mouth.
-
Please reconcile that statement and this one:
But Japan as a whole isn't trying to dig up skeletons. If they just want to forget about it, then they'll cause no problems.
There's quite a disconnect here.
-
Please reconcile that statement and this one:
But Japan as a whole isn't trying to dig up skeletons. If they just want to forget about it, then they'll cause no problems.
There's quite a disconnect here.
I trust Japanese society not to make those mistakes. It's completely changed.
-
And I trust german society not to turn Nazi any time soon, but I do so only because I know that there's wide awareness of why doing so would be a terrible idea.
"Just forgetting about it" allows idiots to gain much larger audiences. "Just forgetting about it" implies that no lesson will be learned from it. "Just forgetting about it" IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS NOT KNOWING HISTORY.
-
:wtf:
I'm sorry but quietly sweeping it under the rug only works when enough people remember its under there. Once those people are gone you're left with a population with an inconvenient hole in their grasp of history. Therein lies the potential for folks to swing back to beliefs they otherwise would know are a problem.
-
And I trust german society not to turn Nazi any time soon, but I do so only because I know that there's wide awareness of why doing so would be a terrible idea.
"Just forgetting about it" allows idiots to gain much larger audiences. "Just forgetting about it" implies that no lesson will be learned from it. "Just forgetting about it" IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS NOT KNOWING HISTORY.
I never meant forget in such a strongly literal sense. Even the Japanese don't do that, at least there is some awareness, even if it is unsatisfactory.
I'm just thinking more as in moving forward, putting the past behind them, and moving on as an advanced, hard-working, and most importantly, peaceful society.
Nobody stops the Japanese from learning this stuff. The information is open to anyone who wishes to seek that information out. And I'm sure some will. If anyone tries to take Japan down that path, those people will be there to rise against it. And the World will be there to help, as the World certainly won't want a new Japan like WW2 Japan.
-
Please reconcile that statement and this one:
But Japan as a whole isn't trying to dig up skeletons. If they just want to forget about it, then they'll cause no problems.
There's quite a disconnect here.
I trust Japanese society not to make those mistakes. It's completely changed.
except it evidently hasn't, because it still has a systemic resistance to condemning the actions of wwii-era japan
-
I do not know much about Quaker industrial growth in post Revolutionary Philadelphia. There is plenty of information available on it, but it doesn't much have a direct bearing in my life and doesn't much interest me. It wasn't particularly covered in school so why should I bother?
Of course that growth, especially embodied in the person of Joshua Humphreys was pivotal to the birth of the US Navy. Without his expertise and know how the six frigates that would prove pivotal in the nascent years of the Navy would not exist forever altering history. I bet the number of people who know that fun fact outside of history buffs and people tied to the US Navy is infinitesimally small.
And your advocating that an entire country expect its population to learn on its own time about one of the most pivotal events in its history.
-
Is it relevant to today's Japan? If it becomes relevant people will look. We live in the information age now. You don't have to go down to the library and spend hours leafing through books to find what you seek. Just log in, hit a few buttons, and away you go on a wondrous journey of discovery.
For now it's just politicians flapping their gums. If it becomes more than hot air, people will look.
-
It takes a few seconds to look up a few facts.
It takes actual study to understand how they're relevant. In Germany, the history of the Third Reich is a major topic throughout the last 3 or 5 years of education. It is only through this sort of prolonged study that understanding can grow.
-
I'm sure its relevant every time they cut the budget for the JSDF or debate the value of US bases in Okinawa and mainland Japan. In fact the shadow of WW2 looms over much of the subsequent history of the entire Pacific/Asian sphere for the past sixty years. It would be like cutting slavery out of US history and then trying to figure out what segregation was all about or why affirmative action exists.
-
It occurs to me that I live next to a history student who knows basically nothing about the history of her own country; the general problem of people lacking basic knowledge is not a uniquely Japanese thing.
-
I'm not good at writing in English, and I'm not in a mood to discuss about politics. However, as a Japanese I think it's necessary to state what my opinion is.
I will never support our nation's prime minister and the mayor of my city.
I have a Korean friend. I met him when I was a 14 years old. I moved into the city from small town near mountains. He helped me a lot to settle into a new life. He was kind to everyone and everybody liked him.
As far as I know, there was no recognizable animosity toward neighboring nations in the end of the last century. I remember one of the comic books about history in my school, described many Japanese atrocities during WW2.
However, it's true there is a growing hostility toward China and Korea, especially among young people.
Japan is losing its economical power and regional leadership in east Asia. Chinese Navy are threatening our territory and Korean companies are strong at competitions in the global market.
Many young people in Japan are angry at this situation.
Most people support Abe and Hashimoto because they are trying to revitalize business activities. However, I believe underlying hostility makes them less sensitive to those politician's remarks.
Of course there are many people who likes Korean and Chinese in Japan. If you visit Kansai(Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara) area, I'll show you around China town and Korean town.
-
It occurs to me that I live next to a history student who knows basically nothing about the history of her own country; the general problem of people lacking basic knowledge is not a uniquely Japanese thing.
Oh it certainly isn't. It's a common flaw in most education systems that they highlight the good of their particular society and whitewash the bad. The negative lessons are often the most important and its a dangerous precedent, which is why it baffles me that Lorric seems so gun ho on this.
This isn't a Japanese centric issue, the US system does a wonderful job of glazing over the destruction of American Indians. I wouldn't surprise me if European nations don't spend a lot of time on all the skeletons in their closets either.
-
I'm not good at writing in English, and I'm not in a mood to discuss about politics. However, as a Japanese I think it's necessary to state what my opinion is.
I will never support our nation's prime minister and the mayor of my city.
I have a Korean friend. I met him when I was a 14 years old. I moved into the city from small town near mountains. He helped me a lot to settle into a new life. He was kind to everyone and everybody liked him.
As far as I know, there was no recognizable animosity toward neighboring nations in the end of the last century. I remember one of the comic books about history in my school, described many Japanese atrocities during WW2.
However, it's true there is a growing hostility toward China and Korea, especially among young people.
Japan is losing its economical power and regional leadership in east Asia. Chinese Navy are threatening our territory and Korean companies are strong at competitions in the global market.
Many young people in Japan are angry at this situation.
Most people support Abe and Hashimoto because they are trying to revitalize business activities. However, I believe underlying hostility makes them less sensitive to those politician's remarks.
Of course there are many people who likes Korean and Chinese in Japan. If you visit Kansai(Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara) area, I'll show you around China town and Korean town.
Quoting for good post
-
It takes a few seconds to look up a few facts.
It takes actual study to understand how they're relevant. In Germany, the history of the Third Reich is a major topic throughout the last 3 or 5 years of education. It is only through this sort of prolonged study that understanding can grow.
I've always found it strange how a great deal of time was devoted to World War 2 in my British education. Easily more than any other historical period. But almost nothing about Japan's involvement. It was all about Europe. Though this could have just been my school's decision, of course. Does Japan feature in the German education in any detail?
I would put education on WW2 at the top of any historical educational schooling program. It has so much to teach us about humanity.
I'm sure its relevant every time they cut the budget for the JSDF or debate the value of US bases in Okinawa and mainland Japan. In fact the shadow of WW2 looms over much of the subsequent history of the entire Pacific/Asian sphere for the past sixty years. It would be like cutting slavery out of US history and then trying to figure out what segregation was all about or why affirmative action exists.
Hmmm. This is making me think in a new direction that while I don't know what areas of history Japanese teachers choose to teach, or what importance/benefit they will bring to the Japanese student of today, I would guess there would be something/s that could be cut to accomodate more teaching on WW2 to greater benefit to the Japanese.
It occurs to me that I live next to a history student who knows basically nothing about the history of her own country; the general problem of people lacking basic knowledge is not a uniquely Japanese thing.
What country do you live in, if you don't mind my asking?
I'm not good at writing in English, and I'm not in a mood to discuss about politics. However, as a Japanese I think it's necessary to state what my opinion is.
I will never support our nation's prime minister and the mayor of my city.
I have a Korean friend. I met him when I was a 14 years old. I moved into the city from small town near mountains. He helped me a lot to settle into a new life. He was kind to everyone and everybody liked him.
As far as I know, there was no recognizable animosity toward neighboring nations in the end of the last century. I remember one of the comic books about history in my school, described many Japanese atrocities during WW2.
However, it's true there is a growing hostility toward China and Korea, especially among young people.
Japan is losing its economical power and regional leadership in east Asia. Chinese Navy are threatening our territory and Korean companies are strong at competitions in the global market.
Many young people in Japan are angry at this situation.
Most people support Abe and Hashimoto because they are trying to revitalize business activities. However, I believe underlying hostility makes them less sensitive to those politician's remarks.
Of course there are many people who likes Korean and Chinese in Japan. If you visit Kansai(Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nara) area, I'll show you around China town and Korean town.
Hello. Thanks for posting.
Oh it certainly isn't. It's a common flaw in most education systems that they highlight the good of their particular society and whitewash the bad. The negative lessons are often the most important and its a dangerous precedent, which is why it baffles me that Lorric seems so gun ho on this.
This isn't a Japanese centric issue, the US system does a wonderful job of glazing over the destruction of American Indians. I wouldn't surprise me if European nations don't spend a lot of time on all the skeletons in their closets either.
I did get taught about many things that took place in Medieval times at school, including some of the skeletons rattling around in England's closet. The Crusades in particular the teaching was very much that we were the uncivilised and backward society in that conflict.
-
What country do you live in, if you don't mind my asking?
the same one as you
-
What country do you live in, if you don't mind my asking?
the same one as you
Oh, that's interesting :D
I guess I got lucky with my history class. My history teacher was my favourite teacher.
-
I've always found it strange how a great deal of time was devoted to World War 2 in my British education. Easily more than any other historical period. But almost nothing about Japan's involvement. It was all about Europe. Though this could have just been my school's decision, of course. Does Japan feature in the German education in any detail?
Of course not. There's no reason to go over japanese atrocities in great detail when german atrocities are available. The object of the lesson is not to give a comprehensive overview of what happened in WW2, but to make absolutely clear why we cannot allow any of it to be repeated.
-
Is it relevant to today's Japan?
The Japanese constitution and governmental structure are a direct result of the Second World War.
Japan's troubles with foreign policy are a direct result of the Second World War.
Japan was right on the brink of national suicide at the end of the Second World War. Their destruction as an independent polity, being divided into North and South Japan like Korea, the destruction of Japanese as a culture and even an ethnicity, all of that was very much possible.
The way World War 2 was conducted and the way it was ended are central factors to the existence of modern Japan in a way that very few events in history ever have been for any nation. Probably the only comparable formative experience, one in which the existence of not only the government but the nation and even the people were threatened, would be the Russian experience of the same war. If you have to ask if it's relevant, you aren't educated enough to be participating in this discussion.
-
I've always found it strange how a great deal of time was devoted to World War 2 in my British education. Easily more than any other historical period. But almost nothing about Japan's involvement. It was all about Europe. Though this could have just been my school's decision, of course. Does Japan feature in the German education in any detail?
Of course not. There's no reason to go over japanese atrocities in great detail when german atrocities are available. The object of the lesson is not to give a comprehensive overview of what happened in WW2, but to make absolutely clear why we cannot allow any of it to be repeated.
Yes, good point. Seems sound.
Is it relevant to today's Japan?
The Japanese constitution and governmental structure are a direct result of the Second World War.
Japan's troubles with foreign policy are a direct result of the Second World War.
Japan was right on the brink of national suicide at the end of the Second World War. Their destruction as an independent polity, being divided into North and South Japan like Korea, the destruction of Japanese as a culture and even an ethnicity, all of that was very much possible.
The way World War 2 was conducted and the way it was ended are central factors to the existence of modern Japan in a way that very few events in history ever have been for any nation. Probably the only comparable formative experience, one in which the existence of not only the government but the nation and even the people were threatened, would be the Russian experience of the same war. If you have to ask if it's relevant, you aren't educated enough to be participating in this discussion.
These things though are exactly why I said it. Big changes have already been stamped on Japan to ensure such things never take place again. We have a new totally different Japan today.
-
For someone who says that History was his favourite subject in school, your understanding of the reason why we study history is remarkably lacking.
We study history to give context to the present and to have a framework for the future. Someone who knows history will always be able to have a greater, more nuanced appreciation of the present than someone who doesn't have that understanding.
In this case, understanding the realities of WW2 in Asia is necessary to understand the realities of asian politics today. A person without that context will never be able to understand the reactions of people who do know about it. A country that does not understand this principle is very, very certain to do something incredibly foolish. It's like the colonial powers in Africa shaping countries by drawing lines on a map, which is directly responsible for the sorry state Africa (an entire ****ing continent worth of people!) has been in since the end of colonialism.
-
We study history to give context to the present and to have a framework for the future. Someone who knows history will always be able to have a greater, more nuanced appreciation of the present than someone who doesn't have that understanding.
This ^
The world around you is a product of what has happened leading up to it. You can't hope to understand or shape it without this knowledge.
-
For someone who says that History was his favourite subject in school, your understanding of the reason why we study history is remarkably lacking.
We study history to give context to the present and to have a framework for the future. Someone who knows history will always be able to have a greater, more nuanced appreciation of the present than someone who doesn't have that understanding.
In this case, understanding the realities of WW2 in Asia is necessary to understand the realities of asian politics today. A person without that context will never be able to understand the reactions of people who do know about it. A country that does not understand this principle is very, very certain to do something incredibly foolish. It's like the colonial powers in Africa shaping countries by drawing lines on a map, which is directly responsible for the sorry state Africa (an entire ****ing continent worth of people!) has been in since the end of colonialism.
You're only half right. I know we study the past to not repeat it's mistakes, and learn from the wisdom of those that came before.
For the WW2 teachings at school, I never questioned why they were teaching it to us. I just drank it in. It's a big part of my country's history and that was enough of a reason for me I thought as to why they were teaching it to us. Most of the stuff was my country's history. I also never considered the idea that it was to teach not just Germans but everyone not to repeat those mistakes. I took in the information, but I didn't think of that. It has still accomplished that purpose no matter what I thought of the reasons why I was being shown what I was being shown.
-
Oh it certainly isn't. It's a common flaw in most education systems that they highlight the good of their particular society and whitewash the bad. The negative lessons are often the most important and its a dangerous precedent, which is why it baffles me that Lorric seems so gun ho on this.
This isn't a Japanese centric issue, the US system does a wonderful job of glazing over the destruction of American Indians. I wouldn't surprise me if European nations don't spend a lot of time on all the skeletons in their closets either.
I intended to post something the like a few pages ago, i but was actually too lazy and i thought it might derail the thread. I think that's a major point, you'll find these tendencies just about everywhere, regardless of nationality. Accurate history education including a good deal of self-reflection concerning misdeeds of the own nation are surely important to avoid such one-sided perspectives, but i don't think this kind of thinking is based mainly on biased history lessons, i guess it roots much deeper (unfortunately).
I live in Germany, and for quite obvious reasons neglecting our own atrocities in history wouldn't be easy, and therefore this matter is thankfully discussed rigorously in our schools and the public. But i think similar tendencies are still quite prominent among some people here, hidden under a layer of public guilt we've grown up with, so i don't think it's mainly a problem of history education. Of course, we can't actually deny the atrocities in our nations (well, some do, but let's not talk about extremists), so we need to do it the other way around by
highlighting other nations' misdeeds. This behaviour is of course not only restricted to Germans, and i can only speak of my own experiences.
I had to think of this as MP-Ryan noted that many people feel of WW2 japanese as victims cause of the kind the war ended, through the use of the atomic bombings, and that the US and -as far as know- a major part of the US public never evaluated those bombings as actual war crimes; a perfect opportunity to point at others if it comes to sensible questions like guilt, and thereby distracting from 'own' misdeeds.
If it comes to matters like warcrimes, guilt, atrocities and the like -anything that touches the reputation or prestige of a nation- many people seem to feel the urge to 'defend' their nation, whether through denying own misdeeds or by referring (and thereby distracting from / or relativising the own acts) to the former enemies' misdeeds.
The main problem is nationalism itself i guess, the weird concept of 'national pride' and the feeling that nationality is somehow connected to personal prestigiousness. Japan is absolutely not alone with this.
-
I've always found it strange how a great deal of time was devoted to World War 2 in my British education. Easily more than any other historical period. But almost nothing about Japan's involvement. It was all about Europe. Though this could have just been my school's decision, of course. Does Japan feature in the German education in any detail?
Of course not. There's no reason to go over japanese atrocities in great detail when german atrocities are available. The object of the lesson is not to give a comprehensive overview of what happened in WW2, but to make absolutely clear why we cannot allow any of it to be repeated.
I think it's important for people to understand just how horribly ****ed up WWII Japan was. The Rape of Nanjing can probably match the Holocaust for sheer barbarism, although it didn't kill nearly as many people.
Aside from that, I agree with most of your points. We shouldn't feel personably responsible for the past atrocities of our governments and citizens, but we should remember them clearly and with great disdain.
-
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/04/24/2013042401169.html
Abe Denies Japan Invaded Asian Neighbors
In a further lurch to the far right, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers on Tuesday that he does not believe Japan's occupation of other Asian countries during World War II can be considered "invasions."
Abe claimed there are no set international or academic definitions of the word. "It depends on the point of view of individual countries," he said, referring to a statement in 1995 by then-Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, which apologized to all Asian victims of Japanese aggression and from which rightwingers are scrambling to distance themselves.
Japan occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945 and invaded China and several Southeast Asian nations during an aggressive expansion to create what was billed as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Experts here slammed Abe's remarks. Ko Sang-tu at Yonsei University said, "That is simply absurd. It's like saying Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't really an invasion. If a German chancellor had said the same thing, he or she would have had to resign."
Abe told lawmakers on Monday that he does not feel bound by the Murayama statement. The global press was alarmed, with the New York Times saying he sought to whitewash his country's World War II atrocities, while the Economist warned that the right-leaning Japanese Cabinet is a bad sign for the region.
Abe said Japan's pacifist constitution was put together by what he called "occupying forces," referring to the victorious U.S. at the end of the war.
The constitution, which stipulates the country's desire for peace and pledges a policy of non-aggression, effectively "entrusted the lives and safety of the public to the goodwill of other countries," he claimed.
This suggests he is throwing his weight behind moves from the far right to revise the constitution so the Japanese military can launch pre-emptive strikes abroad.
On Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and other Japanese politicians visited Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, which houses the remains of Japan's war dead including convicted war criminals. On Tuesday, 168 members of the Diet followed suit, the biggest number of lawmakers since 1989.
The Japanese media were critical of the stunt. The Asahi Shimbun urged cabinet members to exercise "restraint" in speech as well as action, while the Mainichi Shimbun warned Japan's "national interests are at risk" if such strain is put on cooperation with China and South Korea in trying to rein in North Korea.
When I first arrived in China I very quickly noticed that the Chinese hate the Japanese. At first I thought it a little silly to still hate them over a war that ended more than 60 years ago but it's pretty obvious that the Japanese are trying really hard to keep the hatred alive.
I've brought back Karajorma's OP, because things have strayed some distance from my original attempt to remove all of Japan from the firing line. At this point, I think it would be interesting to have a little poll since so many people have been drawn in lately. Who thinks all of Japan is as bad as Abe and who thinks all of Japan shouldn't be brought into it just because Abe ran his mouth?
Obviously I vote that we should only be coming down on Abe, and not Japan as a whole.
-
I've brought back Karajorma's OP, because things have strayed some distance from my original attempt to remove all of Japan from the firing line. At this point, I think it would be interesting to have a little poll since so many people have been drawn in lately. Who thinks all of Japan is as bad as Abe and who thinks all of Japan shouldn't be brought into it just because Abe ran his mouth?
Obviously I vote that we should only be coming down on Abe, and not Japan as a whole.
You are still hilariously missing the point.
If it was just their current prime minister, this thread wouldn't exist. The issue has existed far longer than the current guy has been in office.
-
Indeed. Lorric seems unable to see past that point. He wants to lay the blame entirely at the feet of Abe. Which is ridiculous when you realise that this man is an elected politician in a democratic country. The issues go far deeper than one stupid man.
These things though are exactly why I said it. Big changes have already been stamped on Japan to ensure such things never take place again. We have a new totally different Japan today.
How did you manage to completely miss the point that Abe is trying to reverse those changes? It's pretty obvious he wishes he could take back the apology over comfort women. It's pretty obvious he wants to strengthen Japan's military while at the same time not feeling that they did anything wrong in the past. It's pretty obvious that he's interested in provoking China and hoping that America will defend him if he goes too far.
This is an incredibly dangerous path to take. And while many Japanese people don't agree with him, the simple fact remains that the majority do, or else he wouldn't be in charge.
-
I must sleep now. But I have much to think about. I am not as sure of myself now.
-
Then maybe all of this was worth it.
-
... this man is an elected politician in a democratic country
...
... And while many Japanese people don't agree with him, the simple fact remains that the majority do, or else he wouldn't be in charge.
These comment made me look up the Japanese electoral system, and wow, the LDP has been in power (excluding ~4 years) since 1955. In the 2012 elections they won an absolute majority of seats & a majority of votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_%28Japan%29
(as an aside, what is it with conservative parties calling themselves "Liberal"?)
-
There is no guarantee that party names will follow the American or European conventions.
-
I was also under the impression that American naming systems tend to be the opposite of what many countries follow. I may be wrong.
-
true, but these guys (http://www.liberal.org.au/) don't have that excuse! :)
-
I was also under the impression that American naming systems tend to be the opposite of what many countries follow. I may be wrong.
Unfortunately, the terms 'socialism,' 'communism,' 'capitalism,' 'fascism,' 'liberal,' 'libertarian,' and 'conservative' have been so far removed from their original meaning and context in their use within the United States and so loaded by political parties that a typical/average American's perception of what these words actually mean is worthless outside of the United States.
Also, actual 'conservativism' is a branch of classical liberalism, which is why conservative parties can legitimately refer to themselves as Liberals. Typically this manifests as fiscally conservative and socially liberal/libertarian. Most of the Canadian 'Liberals' sit under these politics.
-
thank you for that, you've helped correct a glaring hole in my education!
-
I was also under the impression that American naming systems tend to be the opposite of what many countries follow. I may be wrong.
Unfortunately, the terms 'socialism,' 'communism,' 'capitalism,' 'fascism,' 'liberal,' 'libertarian,' and 'conservative' have been so far removed from their original meaning and context in their use within the United States and so loaded by political parties that a typical/average American's perception of what these words actually mean is worthless outside of the United States.
Also, actual 'conservativism' is a branch of classical liberalism, which is why conservative parties can legitimately refer to themselves as Liberals. Typically this manifests as fiscally conservative and socially liberal/libertarian. Most of the Canadian 'Liberals' sit under these politics.
Indeed. American definitions are basically:
Socialist/Far-left: Any welfare capitalist to the left of the Republicans. Generally used in an insulting manner.
Communist: Same as above except more insulting (and paranoid). It should be noted that communism is actually a form of anarchy, and thus even the extreme state socialists it has traditionally been applied to don't qualify (Stalin was not leading a transition to anarchy).
Capitalism: Whatever form and degree of welfare capitalism the Republicans happen to support.
Liberal: Someone who supports more government control of the economy (and other stuff outside of gay marriage, abortion, religion, and sometimes drug use) than the Republicans.
Conservative: Someone who supports less government control of the economy (and more control of people's personal lives) than the Democrats.
Libertarian: Someone with more socially liberal viewpoints than the Republicans and as much or more rightist views (outside of foreign intervention) than the Republicans.
Fascist/Far-right: The former is not often used. The latter is sometimes used to smear welfare capitalists to the right of the Democratic Party, as well as religious fundies.
When both parties support the same basic economic and political system, definitions will become warped as they use insulting rhetoric to make their opponents look more extreme than they actually are.
-
Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise.
It might be some two-faced apology which no one believes, but it's pretty rare this kind of crap is allowed to actually stand. Hell, Obama had to apologise for saying a woman was attractive a while back.
Rick santorum flat out said that 5% of elderly deaths occuring in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia (voluntary euthanasia doesn't even approach this number, and so far there has only been one case where the procedures may not have been followed correctly). He never apologized.
-
I think that's more due to the fact that no one at all gives a **** what Rick Santorum says. :p
-
I think that's more due to the fact that no one at all gives a **** what Rick Santorum says. :p
Like Michelle Bachmann, he mainly remains in office because of voter apathy towards Congress, rather than because he's being really convincing to some subset of lunatics.
Pretty much the same reason we keep reelecting Duncan Hunter. He hasn't burned the place down or had a significant negative impact on the district, and nobody really listens to anything he says, so most people just go to the polls, look at the thing, and go "I know neither of these people but the incumbent hasn't damaged anything I can tell" and go with the devil they know.
-
Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise.
It might be some two-faced apology which no one believes, but it's pretty rare this kind of crap is allowed to actually stand. Hell, Obama had to apologise for saying a woman was attractive a while back.
Rick santorum flat out said that 5% of elderly deaths occuring in the Netherlands are due to involuntary euthanasia (voluntary euthanasia doesn't even approach this number, and so far there has only been one case where the procedures may not have been followed correctly). He never apologized.
I was thinking of exactly that a few days ago but I couldn't recall in the slighest what that guy was called and I couldn't really be arsed to look it up just for the sake of telling Kara that he was wrong.
I think that's more due to the fact that no one at all gives a **** what Rick Santorum says. :p
"On June 6, 2011 Santorum announced his run for the Republican nomination in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Upon announcing his campaign suspension on April 10, 2012, he had won 11 primaries and caucuses and received nearly 4 million votes. Santorum officially endorsed Mitt Romney on May 7, 2012.[7]"
Apparantly nearly 4 million voters do (that's nearly one fourth of the population of the netherlands right there). That's a lot of people apparantly giving a ****.
-
That's 1% of the population here. :P
Also notice he didn't win the election. Not to mention the last go round for congress and senate a bunch of ass clowns made stupid comments regarding to women and rape, they got drummed out of office.
-
That's 1% of the population here. :P
Nuh uh! It's at least 1.25% of the population! :p
Also notice he didn't win the election. Not to mention the last go round for congress and senate a bunch of ass clowns made stupid comments regarding to women and rape, they got drummed out of office.
Of course I'm not saying that its remotely on the same scale etc. Was just pointing out that it does happen (since karajorma made this confident claim that its completely unheard of in america).
-
Apparantly nearly 4 million voters do (that's nearly one fourth of the population of the netherlands right there). That's a lot of people apparantly giving a ****.
Here's the problem.
Nobody knows dick about their local representatives because they ultimately don't really matter so the news doesn't really report on their antics. Their senators probably matter, although whether they get any kind of news coverage is up in the air. (Back in Virginia we gave a damn, here in California it's just assumed Barbara Boxer Is, Was, And Forever Shall Be so she's not reported on.)
I'm stuck with Mayor Lunatic right now because his career of making an ass of himself in Congress flew under the radar because he didn't matter. Because the House of Representives is full of the C-team politicians who were shuffled off where they couldn't hurt anybody, like Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
-
I see
-
I think the other difference with the Santorum comment is that the US and the Netherlands don't have any real shared animosity in living memory, so I'd assume your average Dutch citizen would look at that statement and respond with, "LOL, 'murikans." Obviously the situation between Japan and China/Korea is another story, and one far more likely to prompt, "Okay, what the ****."
-
I think the other difference with the Santorum comment is that the US and the Netherlands don't have any real shared animosity in living memory, so I'd assume your average Dutch citizen would look at that statement and respond with, "LOL, 'murikans." Obviously the situation between Japan and China/Korea is another story, and one far more likely to prompt, "Okay, what the ****."
Yeah that was exactly the reaction I had.
The point wasn't that it is in any way on the same level of severity as the dumb statements done by japanese prime ministers. Just that Karajorma said "Name one occasion where they haven't been forced to apologise. " Joshua did and then Karajorma laughs it off as "Nobody cares about that guy" even though he gathered millions of votes during a presidental candidate election. At least admit that you've been proven wrong Kara :p
Anyway, while I completely agree how immature and dumb the Japanese are regarding this subject, I'm not completely comfortable with the sheer amount of hostility there is in this thread directed to the whole of Japan because of a prime minister's acting like a douche.
-
the prime minister's trying to erase the memory of atrocities that happened 60 years ago and this is part of a general trend in the political culture
in a democracy the voters are responsible for the the public statements of their elected leaders, yes
-
We already established that.
-
Oh I wasn't certain you couldn't find a case. Hell, I'm sure you could find others. But notice I didn't say it never happens, I said it was pretty rare. I was certain that if you found a case, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I made the point that anybody making hugely offensive comments would be forced to apologise for them. Santorum's comment offended who exactly? You pretty much admit that you weren't offended. And agree that the Dutch weren't offended either. Who exactly demanded that he apologise? The comments I posted about are so bad that even the US started demanding the mayor take them back (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22564349). While the Rick Santorum case, well the results speak (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Santorum%20dutch&search_form=in-page-search-form) for (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Santorum%20holland&search_form=in-page-search-form) themselves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Santorum%20euthanasia&search_form=in-page-search-form).
This seems entirely too much like a "Let's see if I can finally prove Karajorma wrong about something" series of posts rather than trying to make any point related to what I was talking about.
-
This seems entirely too much like a "Let's see if I can finally prove Karajorma wrong about something" series of posts rather than trying to make any point related to what I was talking about.
Tough being King Louie of the jungle. :P
-
Anyway, while I completely agree how immature and dumb the Japanese are regarding this subject, I'm not completely comfortable with the sheer amount of hostility there is in this thread directed to the whole of Japan because of a prime minister's acting like a douche.
Who is being hostile towards Japan?
Sure I've said they're to blame for electing that twat but I've said much the same thing about the British and American population for their stupid electoral decisions.
-
Voting for a politician is kind of like buying a games compilation, you usually only get it for one or two parts of the total content, and suddenly discover you've also inherited a load of crap into the bargain ;)
-
More like the second you install it, you get a bunch of DRM and browser toolbars you never wanted. :p
-
Typical Karajorma post #18923
Not even gonna bother with it.
-
Errr.. you just did...
-
Anyway, while I completely agree how immature and dumb the Japanese are regarding this subject, I'm not completely comfortable with the sheer amount of hostility there is in this thread directed to the whole of Japan because of a prime minister's acting like a douche.
Who is being hostile towards Japan?
Sure I've said they're to blame for electing that twat but I've said much the same thing about the British and American population for their stupid electoral decisions.
It has seemed that way to me too, that you are hostile towards all Japanese. If you only blame them for electing him, which is trivial, then I have no problem. Although I think you see it as more than trivial. But you've given me the impression you think all (or most) Japanese are bad people.
Voting for a politician is kind of like buying a games compilation, you usually only get it for one or two parts of the total content, and suddenly discover you've also inherited a load of crap into the bargain ;)
I like this. I've been trying to think of something like this. You have to take the rough with the smooth. I think the Japanese won't care about some ranting about something that happened 70 years ago if they think he's the best man for the job of guiding the country through a global recession.
Which is an interesting point, I don't know what the central reasons for Abe's election were. I know nothing about Japanese politics. For all I know, the other person/people could simply be blithering idiots.
Typical Karajorma post #18923
Not even gonna bother with it.
What do you have against Karajorma? I'm not taking sides, but am curious.
-
Typical Karajorma post #18923
Not even gonna bother with it.
What do you have against Karajorma? I'm not taking sides, but am curious.
This line of questioning is off-topic. If you want to know, try to take it to PMs. Do not reply to this.
-
It has seemed that way to me too, that you are hostile towards all Japanese. If you only blame them for electing him, which is trivial, then I have no problem. Although I think you see it as more than trivial. But you've given me the impression you think all (or most) Japanese are bad people.
I strongly believe that countries should be held responsible for the people they elect. There's far too much of the "I voted for the least ****ty party I thought might win" followed by "Why is the government so ****?"
How's about actually electing someone good in the first place?
And that's not an issue which only affects the Japanese, but pretty much every democratic nation.
I like this. I've been trying to think of something like this. You have to take the rough with the smooth. I think the Japanese won't care about some ranting about something that happened 70 years ago if they think he's the best man for the job of guiding the country through a global recession.
So, would you vote for someone who is a fervent holocaust denier if you agreed with the rest of his policies then?
I tend to believe that there are some views so out of line with any kind of sensible thinking that even if I seem to agree with the rest of the guy's policies, I suspect I'm being tricked.
-
It has seemed that way to me too, that you are hostile towards all Japanese. If you only blame them for electing him, which is trivial, then I have no problem. Although I think you see it as more than trivial. But you've given me the impression you think all (or most) Japanese are bad people.
I strongly believe that countries should be held responsible for the people they elect. There's far too much of the "I voted for the least ****ty party I thought might win" followed by "Why is the government so ****?"
How's about actually electing someone good in the first place?
And that's not an issue which only affects the Japanese, but pretty much every democratic nation.
I like this. I've been trying to think of something like this. You have to take the rough with the smooth. I think the Japanese won't care about some ranting about something that happened 70 years ago if they think he's the best man for the job of guiding the country through a global recession.
So, would you vote for someone who is a fervent holocaust denier if you agreed with the rest of his policies then?
I tend to believe that there are some views so out of line with any kind of sensible thinking that even if I seem to agree with the rest of the guy's policies, I suspect I'm being tricked.
I've never thought anyone worthy of a vote. Nor anyone particularly less bad than the competition. I've only ever voted once, and I voted for the one I thought would win, to block a particularly bad candidate for my local MP from winning. How can you vote for a good candidate if there isn't one? I would vote for someone if I thought they were the best though, even if I thought they had no chance of winning, they would have earned my vote, and I wouldn't deny them it.
It's a good point, but yes, I'd vote for the Holocaust denier. If everything else they were saying was perfect sense, it could be okay. Someone could have just got to them with some conspiracy stuff. All it might take is some dismantling of the garbage they'd been fed to set them right.
Or they might never speak of it. Some people have skeletons rattling around in their closets, but we only know because the opposition unearthed them, and otherwise they are not spoken of.
But even if they did insist on airing their views, it would be sickeningly embarrassing, but nothing more, if the candidate otherwise did a good job of running the country. At the end of the day they're there to do a job, and you want the best person for that job. And if they were the best person for the job, then they should be in the job.
-
Words fail me to describe how utterly horrifying, utterly unprincipled and stupidly dangerous that view is.
-
Words fail me to describe how utterly horrifying, utterly unprincipled and stupidly dangerous that view is.
It just seems logical to me. Someone who is going to make people uncomfortable from time to time when they open their mouth vs. an inferior candidate who will make people's lives worse with the decisions they will make.
And we wouldn't have to just sit and take it either. Once the person was in power, it could (and I'm sure would) be made clear that that viewpoint has no place in today's World.
-
My god, do you even think about these things before you write them? Do you ever take the time to come up with a consistent set of morals and ideals for yourself?
On one hand, you say we should not allow people making utterly stupid claims to remain in office. Now you're saying that we should educate these people after they've been elected? That we should elect them despite them being utterly abhorrent just because they've said a few nice things we agree with?
Do you even understand why that is the wrong thing to do? Do you, a self-proclaimed student of history, know what you are saying here? Do you have any idea AT ALL how political movements like the Nazis came to be in power? Partly because of intimidation, yes. Partly due to the rest of the political scene being too disorganized. But mostly because of people who thought like you do. People who believed that all this antisemitism wasn't all that serious. People who believed that the NSDAP would do the right thing when in power. People who ignored parts of the ideology because the other parts sounded so good.
Is that what you want? Is it so ****ing easy to manipulate you?
-
My god, do you even think about these things before you write them? Do you ever take the time to come up with a consistent set of morals and ideals for yourself?
On one hand, you say we should not allow people making utterly stupid claims to remain in office. Now you're saying that we should educate these people after they've been elected? That we should elect them despite them being utterly abhorrent just because they've said a few nice things we agree with?
Do you even understand why that is the wrong thing to do? Do you, a self-proclaimed student of history, know what you are saying here? Do you have any idea AT ALL how political movements like the Nazis came to be in power? Partly because of intimidation, yes. Partly due to the rest of the political scene being too disorganized. But mostly because of people who thought like you do. People who believed that all this antisemitism wasn't all that serious. People who believed that the NSDAP would do the right thing when in power. People who ignored parts of the ideology because the other parts sounded so good.
Is that what you want? Is it so ****ing easy to manipulate you?
When did I say "we should not allow people making utterly stupid claims to remain in office"? Not in this thread.
Holocaust denial, no one would ever take such a thing seriously. The Holocaust is a cast iron fact, the evidence it happened is overwhelming. Attempting to make the masses believe it never happened would be laughable.
Hitler from what I understand largely got people on his side due to his ability as a speaker. He could just say things and make people believe it. That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore. The people in power are no longer the only ones who can reach a global audience. Anyone can do it. And the past is on our side. Everyone knows about the nazis. The nazis still exist today, but they're a joke.
The only thing specfied here was denial of the Holocaust. You don't have to be a nazi or a Jew-hater to believe the Holocaust never happened.
-
I tried to formulate a response to that bunch of ... questionable statements, but I failed. I can't formulate arguments that can get through to someone like you.
-
I tried to formulate a response to that bunch of ... questionable statements, but I failed. I can't formulate arguments that can get through to someone like you.
Someone like me? I don't think you know me very well. Although you're learning I think, you've made some wrong assumptions about me in the past.
-
Going by your past posts, you are either very young, or very naive, or both. You exhibit a marked tendency to not think about what you post. I have no good way of talking to someone like that without resorting to language I'd rather not use, because you've also remarked in the past that you do not react well to people flat out stating that you are wrong.
So I am not going to try.
-
Going by your past posts, you are either very young, or very naive, or both. You exhibit a marked tendency to not think about what you post. I have no good way of talking to someone like that without resorting to language I'd rather not use, because you've also remarked in the past that you do not react well to people flat out stating that you are wrong.
So I am not going to try.
I guess if you're not in a good mood we shouldn't talk about this then. If I get going, it might not end well. If I get going I'll want to keep going. Maybe another time.
-
Hitler from what I understand largely got people on his side due to his ability as a speaker. He could just say things and make people believe it. That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore. The people in power are no longer the only ones who can reach a global audience. Anyone can do it. And the past is on our side. Everyone knows about the nazis. The nazis still exist today, but they're a joke.
A major part of Hitlers success was his exploition of peoples' fears, prejudices and wishes, something still absolutely common and easy to abuse in modern society. It's an easy way to get public appeal. That's just one factor of his success, but this particular one functions today just as well as it did 80 years ago, and all the ages before. The digital age and the fact that every idiot can spread his view of the world doesen't change this. We don't have to just take someones word, that's right, the digital age gives us plenty of options to recherche things or to obtain different, opposing opinions on a topic to build a own, differentiated view, but unfortunately many people just don't do this. Maybe because it is very easy and comfortable to believe in simple and appealing explanations, like blaming others for whatever (now how common is that? You can see it everywhere).
-
Hitler from what I understand largely got people on his side due to his ability as a speaker. He could just say things and make people believe it. That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore. The people in power are no longer the only ones who can reach a global audience. Anyone can do it. And the past is on our side. Everyone knows about the nazis. The nazis still exist today, but they're a joke.
A major part of Hitlers success was his exploition of peoples' fears, prejudices and wishes, something still absolutely common and easy to abuse in modern society. It's an easy way to get public appeal. That's just one factor of his success, but this particular one functions today just as well as it did 80 years ago, and all the ages before. The digital age and the fact that every idiot can spread his view of the world doesen't change this. We don't have to just take someones word, that's right, the digital age gives us plenty of options to recherche things or to obtain different, opposing opinions on a topic to build a own, differentiated view, but unfortunately many people just don't do this. Maybe because it is very easy and comfortable to believe in simple and appealing explanations, like blaming others for whatever (now how common is that? You can see it everywhere).
I can certainly agree with this. Especially that last line. I liked your post at the end of pg5 as well.
-
That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore.
*snort*
Ever paid attention to an election in a democracy? Know how many people do their own research? Here's a hint - the proportion is so tiny that it makes zero difference to an election outcome. People are inherently inclined to believe those in power, and furthermore the beliefs of those in power are reflective of the citizenry that put them there. I could point to a half-dozen countries off the top of my head where some element of the citizenry have education and access to the Internet, and irrational and hateful beliefs still permeate their elected representatives (a couple of these are democracies on the African continent), and the citizens that put them there.
There's also the issue of selective instruction. Japan is one example of a country that skips over entire periods of its history because it is embarrassing, which in turn allows bull**** like that which started this thread to arise because people are not educated - and indeed, show no signs of educating themselves on the subject.
You are demonstrating a spectacular level of naiveté for someone who has purportedly studied history. You continually fail to grasp that politicians do not come up with or espouse ideas in a vacuum - they are derived from the people that give them political support. In the case of these Japanese politicians, there are obviously enough people who put up with these things that they feel comfortable making outrageous and historically-inaccurate remarks.
-
just because it's necessary to study history to learn the lessons of the past doesn't mean it's sufficient
-
There's also the issue of selective instruction. Japan is one example of a country that skips over entire periods of its history because it is embarrassing, which in turn allows bull**** like that which started this thread to arise because people are not educated - and indeed, show no signs of educating themselves on the subject.
What really makes me wonder aren't people who follow some sort of idea or opinion based on a lack of historical knowledge, but the ones who are actually supposed to have that knowledge, and still believe in something which completely neglects this knowledge. Denial of historical facts or historical relativisation isn't limited to people who simply"don't know better", educational wise. I'd count someone who is Prime minister among those people, although rank is no guarantor for a good education. Nikogori reported a little bit about japanese history lessons concerning this matter in this thread, and it didn't sound like japanese atrocities where disguised in school either. While education is important and the lack of it can really boost "wrong" or relativising views in public opinion, i think it is neither the main reason behind such statements, nor the way to avoid them (by improving said education).
It's like a guy in a local anti-neonazi group said once to me: "The real problem aren't the common uneducated thug-like neonazis you'll encounter on the street, the real problem are the people behind it - the guys who are actual lawyers, politicans and authors, the guys with the brains."
-
That won't fly today, we don't have to just take someone's word anymore.
*snort*
Ever paid attention to an election in a democracy? Know how many people do their own research? Here's a hint - the proportion is so tiny that it makes zero difference to an election outcome. People are inherently inclined to believe those in power, and furthermore the beliefs of those in power are reflective of the citizenry that put them there. I could point to a half-dozen countries off the top of my head where some element of the citizenry have education and access to the Internet, and irrational and hateful beliefs still permeate their elected representatives (a couple of these are democracies on the African continent), and the citizens that put them there.
There's also the issue of selective instruction. Japan is one example of a country that skips over entire periods of its history because it is embarrassing, which in turn allows bull**** like that which started this thread to arise because people are not educated - and indeed, show no signs of educating themselves on the subject.
You are demonstrating a spectacular level of naiveté for someone who has purportedly studied history. You continually fail to grasp that politicians do not come up with or espouse ideas in a vacuum - they are derived from the people that give them political support. In the case of these Japanese politicians, there are obviously enough people who put up with these things that they feel comfortable making outrageous and historically-inaccurate remarks.
Oh, politics... there is little in this World that I am more disillusioned with.
Perhaps I am giving people too much credit. Is there any way to find out how many people do their own research? A link to a poll or something? I’m not sure how to google such a thing. I would really like to know. I’m probably letting my experiences with people I have brought the subject up with get in the way too. More on that soon. I do know some people vote in a… less than educated way, shall we say, but I would have thought more people would research, even if just a little. Are you sure about those in power? The impression I get is most people don’t believe politicians at all, they think they’re liars and scum. They are not trusted. I never like to let the views of politicians influence my views of the people of a country, but I can see how some people would. Also, in general people I have talked to when the subject has come up (which is rare, I don’t like politics, so it usually only ever comes up around an election) take voting seriously. Yet at the same time usually end up taking my view in the end that no one is worth a vote. The people I refer to there are in my country. A friend of mine a few months ago spoke of his first vote. He lives in the US, and it was Obama vs. McCain. He had been very excited at finally getting to vote and had gone to great lengths to research the two men. He had started out wanting to see every debate, to grab every piece of information he possibly could. And much like me the experience sapped away his enthusiasm, he went from being extremely passionate about being able to vote to feeling next to nothing. Which is making me really very sad just thinking back to it. And they say the young don’t care. There’s a reason for that, they don’t have a reason to care. I know the type of person my friend is, and I know he would have given it everything to choose correctly. If only politics could get you excited. Like my friend, I had all this passion about voting the first time. Gone. The vote is important to me. It’s the single most influential thing I can do. But I wonder if there’s anywhere in the World where you can experience being torn over who to vote for, not because you can’t decide who’ll do the least damage, but because you can’t decide who’ll do the most good. Damage limitation is always the mentality I have when it’s time to think about a vote, not who’s the best, even though it’s one and the same, it’s the negative feeling.
Wouldn’t you need a strong element of the people, like a first World country, to have access to the internet and education? Surely just an element isn’t enough?
I haven’t studied history in any way that would mean I can show off some fancy qualification, but it is something which genuinely interests me. Politics though? Politics turn me off. I don’t think there was any study at school either into Hitler’s actual rise into power, only what he did once he actually took it. I don’t like politics. It certainly stands to reason I could be naïve about the subject. I probably am. I pay little attention to politics when there isn’t a vote to be made. Only on the impact decisions these politicians make will have. Wouldn’t it be nice if people just put up their own beliefs? Step up to the crowd and talk about your own beliefs and ideas and goals. Everyone does it and the most compatible for the people wins the most votes. Imagine if two fantastic examples of humanity were what you had to choose from to become the most powerful person on the planet, the president of the United States. Imagine if voting was exciting. Listening to great people talk and determining which of them is the best. Yes, I know all that is a fanciful dream, before someone tells me I’m naïve again, thank you. Politicians won’t think like me. If it was me, hypothetically (because it would never happen) going into politics, my beliefs and policies would be entirely my own. I would simply step up and speak of them, and let the people decide if they were compatible with their own and vote.
Politicians turn me off. I can see in their eyes and hear in their voices, they have little or no passion, no conviction. Why am I going to listen to you if you aren’t speaking with passion or conviction? However, I don’t think the UK election system is as bad as the US one by a long shot. I’ve no idea what it’s like in Canada (you are Canadian, are you not, MP-Ryan?)
So you’ve managed to swing us back to the original topic talking about Japanese politicians. But could they really drum up any support from this kind of talk? I find it hard to believe that such a thing would be relevant to running a country and aid in an election victory. I could imagine it being an issue when it comes up that makes people just think “Oh, it’s just politicians talking about that old thing again.” and carry on with what they’re doing. I just can’t see how it could possibly swing someone to vote. I’d love to know what was central to his campaign victory.
I’m sorry this post hasn’t been more coherent. But thank you for what you said, it has made me think, even if my thoughts have wandered around somewhat. My brain hurts. I might be done for the day :)
-
But could they really drum up any support from this kind of talk? I find it hard to believe that such a thing would be relevant to running a country and aid in an election victory.
Why do you find it hard to believe? For me, it's the most common thing in the world. Elections aren't about effective or reasonable programs, at least not in my experience. Elections are about popular programs or statements. By the way, i don't even think people like Abe make these statements out of pure calculation, i guess many believe in them for the very same reasons these statements are popular in public. And nationalistic statements and views, even if they are unreasonable, can be very popular to many people i guess. The reasons for this are complicated, but i'd dare to say it works in every country.
-
But could they really drum up any support from this kind of talk? I find it hard to believe that such a thing would be relevant to running a country and aid in an election victory.
Why do you find it hard to believe? For me, it's the most common thing in the world. Elections aren't about effective or reasonable programs, at least not in my experience. Elections are about popular programs or statements. By the way, i don't even think people like Abe make these statements out of pure calculation, i guess many believe in them for the very same reasons these statements are popular in public. And nationalistic statements and views, even if they are unreasonable, can be very popular to many people i guess. The reasons for this are complicated, but i'd dare to say it works in every country.
Because I can't see why it would move someone to vote for Abe.
The rest of what you said is interesting though, I often can't understand why certain topics end up being discussed in an election cycle. But then, I can't understand why people follow the activities of celebrities the way they do either. But with some of these other things, I do at least know that they are important to some people, and I also know that the topics about running a country would connect with a smaller % of the voters, as many wouldn't understand what was being talked about. But I can't for the life of me imagine how Abe's stirring could make people think it was something to base your vote upon, or even be relevant to the decision.
"For me, it's the most common thing in the world."
Can you elaborate on that statement please? I want to know exactly what you mean.
-
If you can't see why telling people "We should be proud of what we did in WWII rather than ashamed" might win you votes, you have no business talking about politics.
As for why you shouldn't elect someone who espouses a hugely hateful policy, look up the "Big Lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie)" concept in propaganda.
-
Because I can't see why it would move someone to vote for Abe.
The rest of what you said is interesting though, I often can't understand why certain topics end up being discussed in an election cycle. But then, I can't understand why people follow the activities of celebrities the way they do either. But with some of these other things, I do at least know that they are important to some people, and I also know that the topics about running a country would connect with a smaller % of the voters, as many wouldn't understand what was being talked about. But I can't for the life of me imagine how Abe's stirring could make people think it was something to base your vote upon, or even be relevant to the decision.
That's a bit like asking why populism is popular, but i'll try to explain what i mean. Well, people do not make all their decisions only and completely based on neutral facts, even if it would be the wisest way to do it. They do make decisions based on what appeals to them personally. And again, i think nationalistic statements are something which appeals to quite a bunch of people, because many people have a strong emotional connection to their nationality. Just take this term of "national pride" - actually, pride is or should be something connected to a personal achievement, an accomplishment or performance connected to yourself, not to someone or something complety out of your area of influence, but still, people are "proud" of things they had no any influence in. And in the reverse, they feel downgraded by something "bad" in their nations' history.
And the very same mechanic works here. By challenging something like this - the matter of national guilt - you can reach many people who feel this way, because it increases and improves their own, personal feelings. And if you can manage to make people feel better, they will like you - and, in the case of an election, favor you.
People are controlled and guided by their feelings, it takes quite an effort to control this and to let your rational mind do the deciding instead of your emotions. We like to think of ourselves as pretty intellectual beeings, but after all we aren't, at least not if we do not intentionally try constantly.
In the end, it's a question of how you view mankind and people. If you really think all or even the majority of people base their decisions and actions on rational thoughts rather than emotions, you're right, Abe's stirring would be completely irrelevant to the decision in an election. But if you think that people act mainly out of emotional and not very reasonable reasons, it is totally relevant. Personally, i'd say our history supports the latter view of mankind beeing the true one.
"For me, it's the most common thing in the world." Can you elaborate on that statement please? I want to know exactly what you mean.
That just means it is what i've experienced very, very often so far, immediately among the people i know and in general public.
-
If you can't see why telling people "We should be proud of what we did in WWII rather than ashamed" might win you votes, you have no business talking about politics.
As for why you shouldn't elect someone who espouses a hugely hateful policy, look up the "Big Lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie)" concept in propaganda.
First sentence will be covered in Mebber's post.
I assume the 2nd is related to the Holocaust denier. Holocaust denial alone doesn't have to be rooted in hate. I would never elect a true nazi, or any hateful person.
Because I can't see why it would move someone to vote for Abe.
The rest of what you said is interesting though, I often can't understand why certain topics end up being discussed in an election cycle. But then, I can't understand why people follow the activities of celebrities the way they do either. But with some of these other things, I do at least know that they are important to some people, and I also know that the topics about running a country would connect with a smaller % of the voters, as many wouldn't understand what was being talked about. But I can't for the life of me imagine how Abe's stirring could make people think it was something to base your vote upon, or even be relevant to the decision.
That's a bit like asking why populism is popular, but i'll try to explain what i mean. Well, people do not make all their decisions only and completely based on neutral facts, even if it would be the wisest way to do it. They do make decisions based on what appeals to them personally. And again, i think nationalistic statements are something which appeals to quite a bunch of people, because many people have a strong emotional connection to their nationality. Just take this term of "national pride" - actually, pride is or should be something connected to a personal achievement, an accomplishment or performance connected to yourself, not to someone or something complety out of your area of influence, but still, people are "proud" of things they had no any influence in. And in the reverse, they feel downgraded by something "bad" in their nations' history.
And the very same mechanic works here. By challenging something like this - the matter of national guilt - you can reach many people who feel this way, because it increases and improves their own, personal feelings. And if you can manage to make people feel better, they will like you - and, in the case of an election, favor you.
People are controlled and guided by their feelings, it takes quite an effort to control this and to let your rational mind do the deciding instead of your emotions. We like to think of ourselves as pretty intellectual beeings, but after all we aren't, at least not if we do not intentionally try constantly.
In the end, it's a question of how you view mankind and people. If you really think all or even the majority of people base their decisions and actions on rational thoughts rather than emotions, you're right, Abe's stirring would be completely irrelevant to the decision in an election. But if you think that people act mainly out of emotional and not very reasonable reasons, it is totally relevant. Personally, i'd say our history supports the latter view of mankind beeing the true one.
"For me, it's the most common thing in the world." Can you elaborate on that statement please? I want to know exactly what you mean.
That just means it is what i've experienced very, very often so far, immediately among the people i know and in general public.
Yes, I believe you're right. Lately in this thread some things are being said that I do know, but are buried so far down in my mind that I haven't been using them. It's been too long since I have had to.
Not only do I make my decisions based on neutral facts and logic, I always have. It is something that comes natural to me, though I also firmly believe in it. Take for example when I was very young indeed and people tried to explain the concept of racism to me. Over and over again I would reject it, because it was illogical to me. I would put the pieces together correctly, then toss them aside, believing it could not possibly be correct because it was so illogical, believing I had not understood, that I was missing something. It took a really long time for me to understand what racism was.
I do feel national pride if something happens to be proud of. Proud to be a part of. Otherwise, I am aware that I’m only British because I was born here, and it doesn’t make me any better or worse than anyone else. But also, I feel pride in as a nation acknowledging the mistakes of the past. Meeting them head on and ensuring they don’t happen again. I don’t feel proud as if I did something, but proud as you might feel proud of a person who matters to you who accomplished something.
“People are controlled and guided by their feelings, it takes quite an effort to control this and to let your rational mind do the deciding instead of your emotions. We like to think of ourselves as pretty intellectual beings, but after all we aren't, at least not if we do not intentionally try constantly.”
That sounds quite horrible to me. I am not immune to having my emotions distort my views, but for the most part it is quite effortless for me to stay logical and neutral, and I can exert effort against it when emotion gets involved. It makes me think of arguments where I remain rational even under great emotional stress, while others lose it, and I can’t reason with them. That’s something for me to think about too.
I think I’ve never thought of a political campaign being based on emotion, but it’s just so clear that they are now. It’s always seemed the only way to judge such a thing is with facts and logic for something so very important, but it seems so clear to me now it’s not the case. When the American politicians are rolling into towns with their massive entourages, setting up a huge stage and shooting off tons of fireworks, and talking about basically nothing of substance, I’m sat there rolling my eyes just seeing money going up in smoke and thinking why should people who waste money like that be running a country, while the other people are getting their emotions all stirred up and getting a feel-good factor which the politicians are going to benefit from in the elections. While I would think the most efficient way of going about it would be to just speak repeatedly on national TV, politicians are travelling across the country so they can get to the emotions of the people in the towns personally. Emotion is much stronger in person than on a TV. I imagine it’s more important just that they rolled into town, rather than what they actually said when they got there. It’s not about the substance, just whipping up the people. Obama basically won his first term with three little words.
So I guess I can understand now how Abe might be able to use this, with the population that has not been educated enough. I wonder if he actually did use it as part of his campaign and what he said. Surely you still couldn’t justify the “comfort” women.
Yes, I agree with you now. Emotion seems to rule a great many people.
You are helpful. You rarely talk on HLP. I hope you stick around.
-
Lorric, this thread isn't your blog. Can you try to avoid this kind of stream of conscienceness post please?
-
Oh I wasn't certain you couldn't find a case. Hell, I'm sure you could find others. But notice I didn't say it never happens, I said it was pretty rare. I was certain that if you found a case, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I made the point that anybody making hugely offensive comments would be forced to apologise for them. Santorum's comment offended who exactly? You pretty much admit that you weren't offended. And agree that the Dutch weren't offended either. Who exactly demanded that he apologise? The comments I posted about are so bad that even the US started demanding the mayor take them back (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22564349). While the Rick Santorum case, well the results speak (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Santorum%20dutch&search_form=in-page-search-form) for (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Santorum%20holland&search_form=in-page-search-form) themselves (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Santorum%20euthanasia&search_form=in-page-search-form).
This seems entirely too much like a "Let's see if I can finally prove Karajorma wrong about something" series of posts rather than trying to make any point related to what I was talking about.
I actually was pretty bloody offended, as were quite a few of our politicians. However, the dutch cabinet decided not to respond on the issue, citing that they did not want to involve themselves in any way with the US elections.
-
Well there you go. You've given a reason why he wasn't forced to apologise. Not quite the one I was expecting but it still doesn't exactly counter my point really, does it?
If the Dutch had complained about it, do you believe he wouldn't have apologised?
-
Saying those invasions didn't qualify as such is absurd. But I understand that the fact that japan's constitution is still the same that was forced upon them doesn't help them get over the war at all, like germany did. They have every right to make their own constitution.