From Burma to Nagasaki: the man who walked through hell(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
From Burma to Nagasaki: the man who walked through hell
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/26/nagasaki-man-who-walked-through-hell-jan-bras
47 comments
"This particular guard had never beaten him and had always been polite. The guard saluted Bras. Bras looked away, refusing to return the salute.
“Until now, I regret it,” Bras says. “I often think of it.”"
This is also very profound, it's usually things we haven't done which come haunting us through the years.
“Until now, I regret it,” Bras says. “I often think of it.”"
This is also very profound, it's usually things we haven't done which come haunting us through the years.
What struck me is how much better the world is today; aside from the risk of global thermonuclear war, a WW2-scale war is essentially impossible, and even smaller conflicts are becoming less frequent and shorter duration.
And how he responded to all of this -- became a doctor, spent the rest of his life trying to minimize suffering in the world. And still believes dropping the bomb was right.
And how he responded to all of this -- became a doctor, spent the rest of his life trying to minimize suffering in the world. And still believes dropping the bomb was right.
I'm not sure how you can say this with such certainty. We're less than two generations out from the last "world war", we arguably have other countries and regions that would be involved in the next world war, and resources continue to get more scarce without any sign that the globe (and the developed, industrialized countries) have learned to "share"
There are no long-term resource worries in the developed world.
This goes against the folk-wisdom and fear-mongering present in a lot of popular culture, but it isn't true.
In the developed world fertility rates are below unity. Oil, at it's recent peak was competitive with solar. Resources aren't going to run out, the prices are just going to change – some resources will have to be more aggressively recycled, others will have to be replaced. Billionaires are thinking about asteroid mining. Nobody in the developed world is going to start wars over shortages.
There's a huge amount of arable land which is either unused or grown with only the most primitive techniques. Modern agriculture requires a fairly advanced economy, but it is orders of magnitude more productive.
"Resources are scarce" is a very believable lie, and it's easy to misuse statistics to prove it's true.
Remember "peak oil"? It wasn't true before and now nobody really cares that much.
The best car in the world is American and electric. In a few years they'll be selling one suitable for the middle class. We don't _need_ oil for energy, but we're going to use it until the economies of developing technology overtake the increasingly more costly fossil fuels.
In a generation or two people will stop fearing nuclear, and fusion will become economically viable.
This goes against the folk-wisdom and fear-mongering present in a lot of popular culture, but it isn't true.
In the developed world fertility rates are below unity. Oil, at it's recent peak was competitive with solar. Resources aren't going to run out, the prices are just going to change – some resources will have to be more aggressively recycled, others will have to be replaced. Billionaires are thinking about asteroid mining. Nobody in the developed world is going to start wars over shortages.
There's a huge amount of arable land which is either unused or grown with only the most primitive techniques. Modern agriculture requires a fairly advanced economy, but it is orders of magnitude more productive.
"Resources are scarce" is a very believable lie, and it's easy to misuse statistics to prove it's true.
Remember "peak oil"? It wasn't true before and now nobody really cares that much.
The best car in the world is American and electric. In a few years they'll be selling one suitable for the middle class. We don't _need_ oil for energy, but we're going to use it until the economies of developing technology overtake the increasingly more costly fossil fuels.
In a generation or two people will stop fearing nuclear, and fusion will become economically viable.
I'm sure during the Pax Romana a lot of people felt the same, or even after the First world war. After the plagues in the middle ages resources were abundant for everybody, even peasants..
we are no different than then, sure we think nowadays technology seems able to change everything, but before it was the same. Humans have always been innovating and increasing efficiency, yet they have always been fighting.
we are no different than then, sure we think nowadays technology seems able to change everything, but before it was the same. Humans have always been innovating and increasing efficiency, yet they have always been fighting.
I think the change is more that while there are resource worries, solving them through technology (and politics) is the only option.
Modern resource worries would only be made worse through armed conflict over those resources, for basically all parties.
Modern resource worries would only be made worse through armed conflict over those resources, for basically all parties.
Sander van der Leeuw (University of Arizona/Santa Fe Institute) takes the view that we've gotten into our current predicament through technology:
"Most people in both politics and general society think that we need to innovate our way out of the sustainability problems that we're having. What we forget in saying this is that we innovated our way into this problem in the first place."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0101mkOuGE
Transcript/discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3efobv/sander_...
"Most people in both politics and general society think that we need to innovate our way out of the sustainability problems that we're having. What we forget in saying this is that we innovated our way into this problem in the first place."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0101mkOuGE
Transcript/discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3efobv/sander_...
The point I'm trying to make is that these problems are already solved. That is, when the pressure is high enough (and it's been shown that it won't need to be that high) it's clear that there are viable solutions to our resource problems.
There are no long-term resource worries in the developed world.
... and then you wake up.
... and then you wake up.
Name a single resource without a viable long term economical alternative.
Note this is explicitly excluding people living in or watering the desert (or situations where this is an apt metaphor).
Note this is explicitly excluding people living in or watering the desert (or situations where this is an apt metaphor).
Topsoil. Fresh water. CO2 sinks. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Phosphorus. Copper.
Lithium. tantalum, rare earths, indium, helium.
I'm pretty sure the sentiment that a large war has been made impossible, either through technology or politics or both, pre-dates the first World War. Certainly after the first World War, it was thought that war had thus become so horrible that it would never happen like that again.
MAD has worked pretty well so far. It seems almost certain that there would have been a massive third World War by now if nuclear weapons hadn't been invented. But that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, especially since MAD is a lot harder to work with in a multi-polar world (there are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons).
MAD has worked pretty well so far. It seems almost certain that there would have been a massive third World War by now if nuclear weapons hadn't been invented. But that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, especially since MAD is a lot harder to work with in a multi-polar world (there are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons).
There is an current academic debate about this:
https://medium.com/bull-market/violent-warfare-is-on-the-wan...
https://medium.com/bull-market/violent-warfare-is-on-the-wan...
Two contemporary factors that argue for less war making stand out for me. One is technology, already being touched on elsewhere in this thread. Militaries now command destructive power that better approximates what is required to accomplish a goal, enabled by technological improvements (i.e. footage of the JDAM guiding itself through a structure's window during the Gulf conflict).
Another factor is that the age of commercial airliners and the global transport systems has made efficient global migration & trade a reality for decades now. What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings? Perhaps this is now the quintessential limiting factor in making war.
Um, combined with societies becoming more sex-positive, we are edging closer to realizing the mantra Make Love, Not War!
Another factor is that the age of commercial airliners and the global transport systems has made efficient global migration & trade a reality for decades now. What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings? Perhaps this is now the quintessential limiting factor in making war.
Um, combined with societies becoming more sex-positive, we are edging closer to realizing the mantra Make Love, Not War!
> What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings?
You might want to take a look at the data of import / exports for countries in Europe before WWII. Being someone biggest trading partner didn't stop anyone's attacks.
You might want to take a look at the data of import / exports for countries in Europe before WWII. Being someone biggest trading partner didn't stop anyone's attacks.
> What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings?
The bitter truth that Russians have to deal with is that most of the population is so susceptible to being brainwashed, they will gladly turn on their brothers and sisters after a few years of watching state-controlled media.
The bitter truth that Russians have to deal with is that most of the population is so susceptible to being brainwashed, they will gladly turn on their brothers and sisters after a few years of watching state-controlled media.
> What struck me is how much better the world is today
Deterrence is a good thing indeed, as long as one has nukes...
But is the world really better today?
> a WW2-scale war is essentially impossible,
I don't think so. Mankind never learns. It's just a matter of time before we go back to 'savage' mode on a global scale. it's very easy for governments dehumanize people, and propaganda has never been as powerful as today. Once the 'ennemy' is reduced to something less than human, it's easier to make others torture,enslave or kill him. 1,1000 or 10 millions it doesn't matter.
Deterrence is a good thing indeed, as long as one has nukes...
But is the world really better today?
> a WW2-scale war is essentially impossible,
I don't think so. Mankind never learns. It's just a matter of time before we go back to 'savage' mode on a global scale. it's very easy for governments dehumanize people, and propaganda has never been as powerful as today. Once the 'ennemy' is reduced to something less than human, it's easier to make others torture,enslave or kill him. 1,1000 or 10 millions it doesn't matter.
Mankind's natural resting state is peace, not violence. The extreme majority of all humans throughout history have been peaceful, not violent 'savages.' Violence by any given individual person against another is the extreme outlier, not the common.
Historically death from war is the result of a very small percentage of the global population acting violently. It is not the result of a majority of people acting violently.
Simple proof: what percentage of the world population belonged to the side of the aggressors in WW1 or WW2?
You can apply the same premise to any historical scenario. What percentage of Cambodians were involved in the massacres committed by Pol Pot's regime? What percentage of North Koreans are involved in violently repressing their fellow North Koreans? The general answer is obvious: most North Koreans are peaceful, most Cambodians were peaceful, rather than savages.
Yes, the world is getting drastically better.
Living standards are much higher and continue to climb. Child / infant mortality is drastically lower. Our ability to treat, cure, or wipe out diseases is far beyond anything from 50 years ago. Large scale starvation is becoming extremely rare.
War between leading nations hasn't occurred in 70 years, a record likely unmatched in recorded history.
Historically death from war is the result of a very small percentage of the global population acting violently. It is not the result of a majority of people acting violently.
Simple proof: what percentage of the world population belonged to the side of the aggressors in WW1 or WW2?
You can apply the same premise to any historical scenario. What percentage of Cambodians were involved in the massacres committed by Pol Pot's regime? What percentage of North Koreans are involved in violently repressing their fellow North Koreans? The general answer is obvious: most North Koreans are peaceful, most Cambodians were peaceful, rather than savages.
Yes, the world is getting drastically better.
Living standards are much higher and continue to climb. Child / infant mortality is drastically lower. Our ability to treat, cure, or wipe out diseases is far beyond anything from 50 years ago. Large scale starvation is becoming extremely rare.
War between leading nations hasn't occurred in 70 years, a record likely unmatched in recorded history.
> Mankind's natural resting state is peace, not violence. The extreme majority of all humans throughout history have been peaceful, not violent 'savages.' Violence by any given individual person against another is the extreme outlier, not the common.
I wish I believed this but I'm convinced that most people are peaceful or at least non-violent because they have no other option. They do not ever find themselves in a position where they have the power to inflict violence and death on others for personal gain without risk of punishment.
I'm convinced that most people, given the right set of circumstances are capable of the most heinous acts of violence and the only thing stopping them is the power and resources to do so.
I feel like truly 'good' people are the exception, not the general rule.
I wish I believed this but I'm convinced that most people are peaceful or at least non-violent because they have no other option. They do not ever find themselves in a position where they have the power to inflict violence and death on others for personal gain without risk of punishment.
I'm convinced that most people, given the right set of circumstances are capable of the most heinous acts of violence and the only thing stopping them is the power and resources to do so.
I feel like truly 'good' people are the exception, not the general rule.
Agreed, we all must be forever vigilant to the possibility we could be deceived, that the atrocities of the past could happen again. The polyanna-ish attitude of the OP is intolerable in this regard.
I tend to agree the world is much better today.
However, to keep things in perspective I have highlight 3 recent wars/genocides:
1. The Great African War/the African World War (1998-2003): 5.4M deaths (some estimates as high as 20M); 2. Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995): 100,000 deaths; 3. Darfur Genocide (2003-ongoing?): 500,000 deaths and counting, 3 million displaced.
While my examples are no where near the scale of WW2, perhaps hidden in there is a much larger human tragedy. Namely how few people are familiar with the existence of these 3 modern events that took the lives of 6M people in the last 20 years.
However, to keep things in perspective I have highlight 3 recent wars/genocides:
1. The Great African War/the African World War (1998-2003): 5.4M deaths (some estimates as high as 20M); 2. Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995): 100,000 deaths; 3. Darfur Genocide (2003-ongoing?): 500,000 deaths and counting, 3 million displaced.
While my examples are no where near the scale of WW2, perhaps hidden in there is a much larger human tragedy. Namely how few people are familiar with the existence of these 3 modern events that took the lives of 6M people in the last 20 years.
I agree that the amount of lives lost post WW2 have been largely ignored.. You may find this visualisation of deaths in WW2 interesting: https://vimeo.com/128373915
That's a great visualisation. Thanks.
Essentially everybody has heard about 2 and 3, as well as Rowanda, which you left out, but a quick look to wikipedia shows that most of the people who died in 1 died of disease and malnutrition and also that the conflict to place in Congo.
Basically there is a place in the world that is consistently behind the rest - sub saharan Africa - where all your examples, other than the one in Bosnia, came from.
And Bosnia is arguably a very important exception, at least I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.
Basically there is a place in the world that is consistently behind the rest - sub saharan Africa - where all your examples, other than the one in Bosnia, came from.
And Bosnia is arguably a very important exception, at least I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.
What is your point? Do these wars/genocides not matter because they did not take place in the "developed world"? That war time deaths attributable to anything beyond death on the battlefield do not count? Are you saying civil wars don't count, because the US lost as many soldiers in our civil war as all other US wars combined...or is it as you point out that civil wars in the Congo don't count?
If like you say "essentially everybody" has heard of these wars/genocides, then I stand corrected the great human tragedy is not that we are ignorant of what is happening in the world but apparently that we should only concern ourselves with deaths/wars/genocides in the "developed world".
Edit: > I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.
How about the ingeniousness populations in Brazil, 2 of which I am aware are on the brink of extinction in the last 30 years. Yet, despite being a world top 10 economy, you/some may say Brazil is not part of the developed world, or highlight these genocides are not driven by war so much as "progress"; therefore, you may not consider these genocides.
If like you say "essentially everybody" has heard of these wars/genocides, then I stand corrected the great human tragedy is not that we are ignorant of what is happening in the world but apparently that we should only concern ourselves with deaths/wars/genocides in the "developed world".
Edit: > I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.
How about the ingeniousness populations in Brazil, 2 of which I am aware are on the brink of extinction in the last 30 years. Yet, despite being a world top 10 economy, you/some may say Brazil is not part of the developed world, or highlight these genocides are not driven by war so much as "progress"; therefore, you may not consider these genocides.
The Iraq war lasted much longer than WW2, and more Iraqui civilians died than US soldiers in WW2, though granted it's still a small number compared to what Russia and others lost.
That's not accurate.
The Iraqi body count project concluded 174,000 Iraqis died due to the conflict (both the invasion and civil war), between 2003 and 2013 (with between 112,000 and 123,000 being civilians).
The Associated Press reached a similar number, based on the Iraqi Health Ministry.
The reports claiming upwards of a million died aren't even remotely credible, and were all based on extremely small household surveys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
The Iraqi body count project concluded 174,000 Iraqis died due to the conflict (both the invasion and civil war), between 2003 and 2013 (with between 112,000 and 123,000 being civilians).
The Associated Press reached a similar number, based on the Iraqi Health Ministry.
The reports claiming upwards of a million died aren't even remotely credible, and were all based on extremely small household surveys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
That's not accurate.
The Iraq Body Count project only counted cases in which individuals killed were specifically recorded in the media. By their own admission this was intended as a lower bound estimation and likely to exclude a large proportion of deaths.
The only scientific peer-reviewed studies ought to be more accurate and estimate much higher numbers of deaths.
The Iraq Body Count project only counted cases in which individuals killed were specifically recorded in the media. By their own admission this was intended as a lower bound estimation and likely to exclude a large proportion of deaths.
The only scientific peer-reviewed studies ought to be more accurate and estimate much higher numbers of deaths.
a WW2 scale war is absolutely still possible. Back before WWI started, there were many economists that said war between modern countries was basically impossible due to all the economic trade. Not only did WWI happen, but an even worse war happened relatively shortly afterwards.
I didn't interpret anything in the article that led me to think he believes (or believed at the time, even) that bombing Nagasaki was the right thing to do.
I had the same interpretation.
I noted that he still (understandably) doesn't forgive the Japanese, but that could be entirely separate from the decision to use atomic weapons against civilians.
I noted that he still (understandably) doesn't forgive the Japanese, but that could be entirely separate from the decision to use atomic weapons against civilians.
While I gather he has never forgiven Japan, what struck me was despite everything, not all Japanese believed in what they were doing. And still respected those men and offered food. There's good everywhere even in the worst of times.
Oh my goodness. I am reading this at work and I am crying (sorry, boss). Partly because of the story itself, but also because of the realization that Japan (which I happen to be a citizen of) has learned very little since then. Thanks for sharing a great article.
> but also because of the realization that Japan (which I happen to be a citizen of) has learned very little since then.
Could you shed some light on what you're referring to?
Could you shed some light on what you're referring to?
I'm not gp but the tl;dr is: Japanese government has been pushing for a stronger military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons...
Article 9 in Japan's Constitution, added after WWII, essentially forbids Japan to maintain armed forces for the purpose of waging war.
In practice Japan does some armed forces, called Self-Defence Forces, but they're for self-defence only. For example, they cannot join US forces for combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, as other US allies do.
Recently, the Japanese government has been pushing for a change in the laws (or in the interpretation thereof) so that Japan can help its allies under the guise of "collective self-defense".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33532557
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons...
Article 9 in Japan's Constitution, added after WWII, essentially forbids Japan to maintain armed forces for the purpose of waging war.
In practice Japan does some armed forces, called Self-Defence Forces, but they're for self-defence only. For example, they cannot join US forces for combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, as other US allies do.
Recently, the Japanese government has been pushing for a change in the laws (or in the interpretation thereof) so that Japan can help its allies under the guise of "collective self-defense".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33532557
Recent resurgence of the "national pride" thing. The forced reinterpretation of the Constitution. Unreasonable hatred towards neighboring countries (China and Korea in particular). And worst of all, we aren't taught anything about these Japanese atrocities at school. Japan is still enjoying willful ignorance.
> And worst of all, we aren't taught anything about these Japanese atrocities at school.
This bit is probably the hardest part. I have spoken to many people here in Japan who downplay, or justify, or say it is so long ago, or say that Japan has forgiven America, so naturally Korea and China must forgive Japan. "We've apologised, what more do they want? They are all crazy." ad infinitum. Or simply people that deny anything happened or think that I must hate Japan to even mention things like this.
Then you have politicians stirring things up and denying it etc.
What I think anyone really wants is simple plain humble acceptance of what happened. It seems the apology carries so much weight in Japan that that should just be the end of it, and everything should be forgotten.
Except that seems to be a purely uniquely Japanese way of looking at the world, and doesn't really translate to other cultures. Germany and the US don't sweep under the carpet the Atom bomb or the concentration camps, and likewise Japanese people should be taught about Nanking, the POWs, Unit 731 etc.
Just so that the average Japanese citizen doesn't come across on the world stage as wilfully ignorant or incredibly crass and insensitive. Ideally it could lead to more than this and improved relations in the area, but at the very least it would be wonderful for Japanese people to not unintentionally be saying really hurtful things to still living victims of these events.
I really wish they would teach that stuff in incredible detail. _Then_ maybe not talk about it, or sweep it under the carpet or whatever.
This national pride combined with ignorance is such a toxic combination.
Edit:
Just to add to this. What I think is particularly tragic, is how specifically considerate and compassionate the average Japanese person is. It is terrible that on average, such compassionate, considerate people can end up seeming so wilfully ignorant or even hateful. When I don't believe this to be the case.
This bit is probably the hardest part. I have spoken to many people here in Japan who downplay, or justify, or say it is so long ago, or say that Japan has forgiven America, so naturally Korea and China must forgive Japan. "We've apologised, what more do they want? They are all crazy." ad infinitum. Or simply people that deny anything happened or think that I must hate Japan to even mention things like this.
Then you have politicians stirring things up and denying it etc.
What I think anyone really wants is simple plain humble acceptance of what happened. It seems the apology carries so much weight in Japan that that should just be the end of it, and everything should be forgotten.
Except that seems to be a purely uniquely Japanese way of looking at the world, and doesn't really translate to other cultures. Germany and the US don't sweep under the carpet the Atom bomb or the concentration camps, and likewise Japanese people should be taught about Nanking, the POWs, Unit 731 etc.
Just so that the average Japanese citizen doesn't come across on the world stage as wilfully ignorant or incredibly crass and insensitive. Ideally it could lead to more than this and improved relations in the area, but at the very least it would be wonderful for Japanese people to not unintentionally be saying really hurtful things to still living victims of these events.
I really wish they would teach that stuff in incredible detail. _Then_ maybe not talk about it, or sweep it under the carpet or whatever.
This national pride combined with ignorance is such a toxic combination.
Edit:
Just to add to this. What I think is particularly tragic, is how specifically considerate and compassionate the average Japanese person is. It is terrible that on average, such compassionate, considerate people can end up seeming so wilfully ignorant or even hateful. When I don't believe this to be the case.
Japan has apologized repeatedly, paid significant war reparations and signed peace treaties where both South Korea and China essentially agreed to treat the case as closed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...
Also, the vast majority of Japanese school books do cover the war in unflinching detail; however, unlike China and South Korea, Japan approves a whole range of school books, which have widely varying views. There are Communist textbooks, pro-North Korean textbooks and, yes, far-right textbooks. One particular series, which led to riots and violence in 2005, ended up being used by 0.039% of Japan's schools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_cont...
The reason the issue lives on is in very large part because, for political reasons, China and South Korea refuse to let it die. This doesn't excuse the occasional Japanese right-wing nutjob denying anything happened etc, but then again, we don't blame Germany when some random neo-Nazi targets a synagogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...
Also, the vast majority of Japanese school books do cover the war in unflinching detail; however, unlike China and South Korea, Japan approves a whole range of school books, which have widely varying views. There are Communist textbooks, pro-North Korean textbooks and, yes, far-right textbooks. One particular series, which led to riots and violence in 2005, ended up being used by 0.039% of Japan's schools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_cont...
The reason the issue lives on is in very large part because, for political reasons, China and South Korea refuse to let it die. This doesn't excuse the occasional Japanese right-wing nutjob denying anything happened etc, but then again, we don't blame Germany when some random neo-Nazi targets a synagogue.
I'm talking more about the average response of individuals, a government apologizing doesn't mean as much if many citizens and some prominent politicians still deny or downplay it all. I'm talking about the average individual and people's emotional responses, vs government apologies and official stances.
I've yet to meet anyone that has studied in depth at school or remembers it. Most people if they remember or know about it at all, say they studied the "Nanking controversy" as a brief paragraph on one page.
In general people's responses are more of the downplaying or sweeping under the carpet type. I think this plays into worsening the relationship. No quiet contemplation, acceptance of what happened or pause for thought in general.
I've met the son of the rape of a Korean comfort woman forcibly brought to Japan, he grew up as Zainichi in Japan. He's lived a life as an outsider and has to hear people suggest that these things didn't happen. As if he shouldn't exist. So then instead he hears mention of financial reparations and lists of apologies. Which don't really count for much when it sounds like "I said sorry, why do you still care about this issue?"
I just wish people here were more compassionate.
I've yet to meet anyone that has studied in depth at school or remembers it. Most people if they remember or know about it at all, say they studied the "Nanking controversy" as a brief paragraph on one page.
In general people's responses are more of the downplaying or sweeping under the carpet type. I think this plays into worsening the relationship. No quiet contemplation, acceptance of what happened or pause for thought in general.
I've met the son of the rape of a Korean comfort woman forcibly brought to Japan, he grew up as Zainichi in Japan. He's lived a life as an outsider and has to hear people suggest that these things didn't happen. As if he shouldn't exist. So then instead he hears mention of financial reparations and lists of apologies. Which don't really count for much when it sounds like "I said sorry, why do you still care about this issue?"
I just wish people here were more compassionate.
I don't expect German individuals to say sorry for WWII, why should Japanese be held to a different standard?
Neither do I, but I don't expect their prominent politicians to deny the facts, or average German people to discuss the 'controversy' about the concentration camps. Or for people to state that a lot of bad stuff happens in war, so you know people should just forget about the nazis and stop having a problem with it, and anyway it was so long ago, you know?
Some things are just inappropriate to say, it's about sensitivity.
In general there's not really a time limit on at what point it is appropriate to start expecting Jewish people to forget about concentration camps. And in the same way I think that there should some reasonable level of education about the events here. Just so that people know about it and know when not to say hurtful things.
It's something that should be taught and remembered and learned from. And whilst it's also not appropriate to continually labour the point, I also don't think it's at all appropriate that the average Japanese person really knows little to nothing about what happened, to the extent of denying it in some cases. You don't really hear many justifications or downplaying of nazism from average German citizens, but you really do hear downplaying of it all here.
There are so many people in Japan absolutely incredulous that anyone in China or Korea should possibly still have any kind of problem with the war, whilst not being aware of the things that happened.
I cannot imagine hearing anyone from Germany say without ill intent that they still don't understand why the events of the war are such a big issue for people that actually experienced it.
Some things are just inappropriate to say, it's about sensitivity.
In general there's not really a time limit on at what point it is appropriate to start expecting Jewish people to forget about concentration camps. And in the same way I think that there should some reasonable level of education about the events here. Just so that people know about it and know when not to say hurtful things.
It's something that should be taught and remembered and learned from. And whilst it's also not appropriate to continually labour the point, I also don't think it's at all appropriate that the average Japanese person really knows little to nothing about what happened, to the extent of denying it in some cases. You don't really hear many justifications or downplaying of nazism from average German citizens, but you really do hear downplaying of it all here.
There are so many people in Japan absolutely incredulous that anyone in China or Korea should possibly still have any kind of problem with the war, whilst not being aware of the things that happened.
I cannot imagine hearing anyone from Germany say without ill intent that they still don't understand why the events of the war are such a big issue for people that actually experienced it.
> Recent resurgence of the "national pride" thing.
I agree with this.
> The forced reinterpretation of the Constitution.
I agree that this bothers me slightly, but concede that the Japanese government can and should be able to openly modify the constitution. Article 9 isn't and shouldn't be an absolute commandment (assuming that's what you're talking about).
> Unreasonable hatred towards neighboring countries (China and Korea in particular).
Outside of extremist groups, I haven't really seen this at all. It might be more accurate to say that the government, rather than the citizens, are drumming up an opposition to push things through politically.
If anything, it seems like more people from neighboring countries carry a grudge against Japan than vice versa -- without getting into a talk about whether it's justified or should be forgotten by now etc.
> worst of all, we aren't taught anything about these Japanese atrocities at school.
This may vary depending on your curriculum and your age, especially if you're in the ゆとり教育世代. [Edit to add: Just like American adults don't really go around talking about American atrocities in daily life, Japanese people don't do that either, in my experience. But when we have had occasions to talk about that kind of thing (say, discussions about recent history, politics, Korea, or China), people have seemed to be generally knowledgeable.] I was teaching and watching classes up til a few years ago and did hear some things about the atrocities in junior high and know that most people heard more in high school, which makes sense as part of age-appropriate curriculum creation to me.
I don't think Japan is anywhere near taking a step toward the Imperial Japan in the article. Vocal and consistent opposition to attempts to get around Article 9 and that people are trying to encourage Chinese tourism in fact make me believe the opposite; Japan is (very) slowly trying to move toward a more open and global state.
I agree with this.
> The forced reinterpretation of the Constitution.
I agree that this bothers me slightly, but concede that the Japanese government can and should be able to openly modify the constitution. Article 9 isn't and shouldn't be an absolute commandment (assuming that's what you're talking about).
> Unreasonable hatred towards neighboring countries (China and Korea in particular).
Outside of extremist groups, I haven't really seen this at all. It might be more accurate to say that the government, rather than the citizens, are drumming up an opposition to push things through politically.
If anything, it seems like more people from neighboring countries carry a grudge against Japan than vice versa -- without getting into a talk about whether it's justified or should be forgotten by now etc.
> worst of all, we aren't taught anything about these Japanese atrocities at school.
This may vary depending on your curriculum and your age, especially if you're in the ゆとり教育世代. [Edit to add: Just like American adults don't really go around talking about American atrocities in daily life, Japanese people don't do that either, in my experience. But when we have had occasions to talk about that kind of thing (say, discussions about recent history, politics, Korea, or China), people have seemed to be generally knowledgeable.] I was teaching and watching classes up til a few years ago and did hear some things about the atrocities in junior high and know that most people heard more in high school, which makes sense as part of age-appropriate curriculum creation to me.
I don't think Japan is anywhere near taking a step toward the Imperial Japan in the article. Vocal and consistent opposition to attempts to get around Article 9 and that people are trying to encourage Chinese tourism in fact make me believe the opposite; Japan is (very) slowly trying to move toward a more open and global state.
>ゆとり教育世代
For those not familiar with Japanese educational policy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutori_education
For those not familiar with Japanese educational policy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutori_education
[deleted]
[deleted]
Remarkable wisdom in this quote.