Let's not forget about the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII. Techinically, the US apologized, but could have done much better.

Agreed. The "comfort women", and their families, deserve reparations.

It's unlikely to happen, though, because they weren't "true Japanese".

Good points, Samhita. But the "comfort women" (WWII sexual slaves) deserve an apology, public recognition and reparations. Hell, they deserve a lot more than that, but I'm not sure what else can be given at this point. Is anyone who took direct part still alive to be tried?

It's a tough question, though. Certainly the U.S. has committed many atrocities and then promptly forgotten about them and denied them. There's no doubt that we should also be called on our shit, including genocide, racial injustice and sexually based injustice. But do we also want to make a rule that only those who are morally "pure" can stand up against injustice? It's a complex issue and I'm not really sure how I feel. I'd be really interested in hearing more of your personal thoughts, Samhita, if you happen to get the chance!

Maybe the US could apologize for the comfort women used by US soldiers stationed there after the war? Just a thought, since they seem to be in a mood for apologies.

I agree that these women deserve an apology! I just do not think that by the US forcing Japan to give one is going to be really what these women are looking for or deserve. Japan has to own up and appologize for the horrible acts they forced these women into before and during WWII on their own.

Yes, good point Marle. And to Cara, yeah I hear what you are saying. I don't necessarily think we need to be morally pure to call people out, I just notice an undo focus on atrocities in other places, whilst ignoring the ones done at home. For me it is just the hypocrisy of it.

I completely and totally believe that these women deserve a public apology and a settlement their grandkids can live off, lol.

Thanks for the clarification, Samhita. I see better where you're coming from now and I definitely agree.

Marle's comment deserves a post of its own. I've read that the US military basically had the Japanese continue the "comfort women" system pretty much as it was, for many months, for use by American troops. I can't find anything about that right now - we don't like to publicize our war crimes either...

I agree with the post. and I also have question. I've heard of the slavery reperations in the US. The thing I don't get is, how would they conduct something like that. How would they conduct reperations to the "comfort women" of Japan. I was reading on the net about it and I'm sorta lost.

I hate the idea of reparations when the people who suffered are no longer alive. At the very least, the kids should be alive and have some memory of a parent who suffered greatly for the harm done.

Many comfort women, however, are still alive, and their children are certainly around.

I also dislike reparations because they don't get to the real issue of ensuring that this does not happen again. Women, particularly, suffer during war. The Japanese government would be better off issuing binding declarations and laws to ensure the safety of women in times going forward, instead of giving unearned wealth to those who were never harmed by those practices.

This is extremely hard to believe as the U.S. military allowed the system of comfort women to continue according to the Associated Press (http://tinyurl.com/2tb3n6). We should set the precedent and begin by apologizing for our role as well. The recent airing of the CIA's dirty laundry has shown that it's okay for the federal government to apologize for its mistakes.

"How would they conduct reperations to the "comfort women" of Japan."

The way they would do that is by first acknowledging and taking responsibility for the mistreatment of women by the Japanese military. The next step would be to compensate the victims in the form of money, land, goods, or services. For example, the Japanese government could fund support groups and therapy for former comfort women.

Since the powerful are evidently determined to continue to commit these kinds of crimes, I suppose the odd apology for ugly behaviour in the past is as much as can be expected.

Maybe Santayana should have said: "The history we wish to repeat must first be forgotten". It sure seems to be the operative principle in global affairs, and maybe that's why apologies for the past are so hard to get.

I think we really need to hear less of never before, and more of never again.

I hate the idea of reparations when the people who suffered are no longer alive. At the very least, the kids should be alive and have some memory of a parent who suffered greatly for the harm done.

Right, because the stigma, shame, and ostracization of the comfort women most certainly doesn't have any effect on their distant progeny, oh no.

I cannot stand this willful refusal to acknowledge and consider the perpetuity of an atrocity's effects. Comfort women's children are the children of comfort women. Comfort women's grandchildren are the grandchildren of comfort women, and on and on and on. When a people has been dehumanized, the humanity of their progeny is not a foregone conclusion, I'm afraid, which is why the descendants of the violently dehumanized black American slave are still denied full recognition of our humanity to this day.

Denying the ongoing effects of a people's history doesn't make those effects go away.

Oenophile - reparations say "We're sorry".

The past cannot be changed, but acknowledging wrong-doing is a vital process in healing.

In the modern world, the currency is money.

By offering money as part of an apology, the government would be showing their true remorse isn't just lip-service.

The descendants of "comfort-women" deserve a fiscal acknowledgment of their mothers' trauma.

From 1992, the Prime Minister of Japan:

What we should not forget about relationship between our nation and your nation is a fact that there was a certain period in the thousands of years of our company when we were the victimizer and you were the victim. I would like to once again express a heartful remorse and apology for the unbearable suffering and sorrow that you experienced during this period because of our nation's act." Recently the issue of the so-called 'wartime comfort women' is being brought up. I think that incidents like this are seriously heartbreaking, and I am truly sorry

The Government again would like to express its sincere apology and remorse to all those who have suffered indescribable hardship as so-called 'wartime comfort women,' irrespective of their nationality or place of birth. With profound remorse and determination that such a mistake must never be repeated, Japan will maintain its stance as a pacifist nation and will endeavor to build up new future-oriented relations with the Republic of Korea and with other countries and regions in Asia. As I listen to many people, I feel truly grieved for this issue. By listening to the opinions of people from various directions, I would like to consider sincerely in what way we can express our feelings to those who suffered such hardship

Undeniably, this was an act, with the involvement of the military authorities of the day, that severely injured the honor and dignity of many women. The Government of Japan would like to take this opportunity once again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women" (Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the result of the study on the issue of "comfort women."

The problem of the so-called wartime comfort women is one such scar, which, with the involvement of the Japanese military forces of the time, seriously stained the honor and dignity of many women. This is entirely inexcusable. I offer my profound apology to all those who, as wartime comfort women, suffered emotional and physical wounds that can never be closed

I say, before you complain, find one country, any country, anywhere in the world, which has apologised 4 times for any act it committed, no matter how heinous. Find another country with a pacifist constitution.

Number 2's comment is particularly disgusting.

The descendants of "comfort-women" deserve a fiscal acknowledgment of their mothers' trauma.

No, they don't.

1. The government does not have any money. It is always derived from the taxpayers. This system amounts to the government-sanctioned theft from the innocent to the progeny of those who are innocent and harmed.

2. You aren't owed "fiscal acknowledgment" of anything, let alone something that never happened to you. You are owed either recompense or an apology, but the former is not a requirement of the latter.

Giving money to anyone but the comfort women is complete crap.

The argument for reparations for slaves is nothing but a victimised money-grab. Let's be honest here. Should I get reparations because my female ancestors were discriminated against? I'm Irish, in part - I want reparations!

Eventually, you would distribute money from the few who cannot find a trace of discrimination in their family tree, regardless of their present circumstances, to those who can prove some harm faced by their ancestors, regardless of whether or not it has caused present financial distress. Thievery by government fiat does not make it any less so.

Nothing against compensating comfort women, slaves, or those who are on the bad end of discrimination; but anyone who thinks their far-distant descendants deserve, by virtue of birth, to live the high life off of taxpayers is just inventing another form of aristocracy, albeit one based on long-forgotten suffering and not long-forgotten wars.

Oenophile wrote: "I also dislike reparations because they don't get to the real issue of ensuring that this does not happen again.

I'm not a fan of reparations, but reparations say more than "I'm sorry".

Imagine a world where reparations become expected after civil rights violation and the price of reparations are steep. This would function to discourage future abuses of civil rights if governments are forced to reckon with the real possibility that they will pay (literally) for their abuses.

Point well taken, Samhita, but I have trouble calling out Rep. Lantos specifically, as I suspect the emotional motivation for his sponsorship of this bill and issue is his history not as an American, but as a Holocaust survivor (the only one currently serving in US Congress).

Oenophile - I don't think you grasp the distinction between some sort of professional shyster trying to make a quick buck (as you seem to imagine), and the gravitas that only an apology with fiscal reparation carries.

Putting one's money where one's mouth is speaks louder than any other message in a capitalist culture.

"anyone who thinks their far-distant descendants deserve, by virtue of birth, to live the high life off of taxpayers is just inventing another form of aristocracy"

And the straw man rears his ugly head!

Reparations do not need to take the form of monetary compensations. As I noted in my comment, they can also take the form of social services. Giving reparations in the form of health care and education benefits would hardly constitute 'living the high life' as you put it.

Nothing against compensating comfort women, slaves, or those who are on the bad end of discrimination; but anyone who thinks their far-distant descendants deserve, by virtue of birth, to live the high life off of taxpayers is just inventing another form of aristocracy...

Yet, by virtue of birth, white men still benefit from the spoils that were won at the expense of the disadvantaged, how ever far removed from the present, spoils that they only maintain at the expense of the descendants of those same disadvantaged people. I don't see oenophile decrying the unfairness of that, though.

Good point Jeremy!

And justicewalks too!

David Schraub, Lantos being a holocaust survivor doesn`t give him the right to distort history or beat other countries with his US stick. Japan has apologised 4 times. Why should they do so again because the US Senate is ignorant of this fact?

From today's Times Online (British paper):

"Shinzo Abe, Japan’s nationalist Prime Minister, provoked an outcry in March when he said there was no proof that the military had forced women into prostitution. He refused to comment yesterday on the resolution, saying that it was a matter for the US Congress.

Mr Abe was forced to back-track from his comments of March during his US visit, saying that he sympathised with the women’s plight. But his position was not helped by 44 Japanese MPs who signed a denial in The Washington Post this month that the Imperial Army had engaged in sexual enslavement of women."

Also, The Asian Womens Fund does not receive any funding from the Japanese government, it is entirely funded by private donations.

So Flashheart, this is an ongoing issue, not done-and-dusted as you would have us believe.

Abe`s comments concern one aspect of a debate about history. As you can see from the text I posted above, Abe`s comments also go against the flow of the last 20 years of Japanese public comments on the issue - those apologies are not exactly equivocal.

Perhaps Anorak is also not aware that both China and Korea signed away their right to reparations in the 70s and 80s. Japan has paid massive public reparations to both countries for war damage, and it is surely a matter of debate as to whether particular groups of affected victims should be compensated outside of that framework.

It is also apparently a matter of opinion as to whether or not descendants of comfort women should receive money.

There is also evidence that many comfort women were simply paid workers. Should they be compensated for doing a job they were not coerced into doing?

Point taken, Flashheart, I am eating my humble pie.

You are right, Flashheart, I didn't know about China and Korea's signing away reparations.
And yes, I guess it does come down to personal opinion as to how and why reparations are made, and to whom.

I for one am of the opinion this issue hasn't been correctly handled yet.

But as Samhita points out in her post, there is an irony to the U.S. telling other countries how to behave regarding warcrimes.

I think there's more than an irony to it. I think it's dangerous in this case. Japan is a pacifist nation, and most Japanese support that position. They also support Japan's history of apologies and reparations. But being forced to repeat the apologies has made many Japanese sick of the process. Abe is Koizumi's successor, and they were elected for non-fascist reasons, but it is easy for them to use this apology-weariness to drive their own political point, which is much more conservative and at odds with the majority of the population. Later this year Abe is going to try to introduce a referendum to reverse a key point of Japan's pacifist constitution. These senate votes will encourage Japanese to reject pacifism, and the world will lose a very special thing - the only openly pacifist nation in the world.

I think it is reckless and stupid of the US to push this issue.

Those are good points, Flashheart.
You've made me think.

the US does indeed also have a problem with not taking responsibility for past actions, but that doesn't mean that the US should approve of other people doing the same thing. I think it's good for japan to be pressured by 3rd parties in this disagreement. It is a real problem in japan, and the new Prime Minister Abe is trying to take the country for a turn further to the right. The conservatives don't feel there will be any ill consequences to their contued denial of reality.

crypticfortune, how is it a "real problem in japan"? I have never met a Japanese person who supports Abe's position on pacifism or the war history. He is going to use these kinds of ill-considered attacks on Japan to force people to the right on the issue. Why should anyone encourage this?

Absolutely right, justicewalks.

What you don't seem to grasp, oenophile, about reparations to the descendents of American slaves and Japanese/Korean comfort women, is that what was stolen from them was of fiscal value.

The labor of American slaves was stolen from them. Their labor created immense value, value that funded private fortunes as well as state infrastructures. Because of the state-mandated practice of slavery, these people were unable to use their labor to create wealth for themselves. They could not earn money, put it away, and leave it to their descendents. They could not invent something, patent it, and reap the rewards. They could not write a book, sell it, and pass the resulting money on to their heirs. Their labor was stolen, and the value it created was used by white people and the government.

Thus it is eminently reasonable for the descendents of those slaves, who were denied any possibility of benefitting from their ancestors' wealth.

And don't give me that nonsense about governments not having any money, but only taxing. They manage to find the money for every other project they think is worthwhile.

Under your standards, all a country would have to do to duck any fiscal liability for its atrocities would be tie things up in court until all the initially affected parties are dead. Since nations tend to last longer than individuals, that's essentially denying any individual the ability to obtain proper recompense from the state. Which doesn't sound like a libertarian position to me.

Let me add that as a country, we Americans still benefit from the labor stolen from slaves. Been to Providence, Rhode Island? It's a beautiful city. You know what built it? Rum and the slave trade.

anorak, I have commented more on this (and the historical issues about coercion) and also on modern japanese fascism at my blog, here:
http://flashy-san.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

You have to scroll down, because I can't seem to link directly to my posts (it's in "On Fascism" and "Should they or shouldn't they?")

if you are so foolish as to read my blog, please be nice - it's not a political blog.

Thanks, Flashheart, I'll take a gander at it right now.
And actually, I am pretty nice. I said it so it must be true. ;o)

EG, while we're pointing out the bleeding obvious to Oenophile, can I ask how the descendants of the first Americans are doing these days?

And how do we think they might be doing if their ancestors didn't have to survive attempted genocide?

Very interesting, Flashheart. I've never been to Japan, but am interested in the country.
Cute turtle too.

Hey, you're an Australian...I'm a N.Z.er.
Words to the effect of "Bonza, mate!"

I was born in NZ, and lived there on and off. I still support the All Blacks (but who wouldn`t?)

Japan is a very interesting place, but now that I`ve been here a year and seen what goes on, I have to say that you can`t trust anything a foreigner says about it. ex-pats here are the most racist, sexist people I have ever met. They are also generally stupid and greedy. So everything you see and hear about Japan needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt (including from me!)

Yet, by virtue of birth, white men still benefit from the spoils that were won at the expense of the disadvantaged, how ever far removed from the present, spoils that they only maintain at the expense of the descendants of those same disadvantaged people. I don't see oenophile decrying the unfairness of that, though.

If we're going to be completely honest about it, we should say SOME generally white people who tend to be male are rich off of this. Our society is bad for EVERYONE who is not a rich white male. But I do not expect reparations because I am a woman, or because my parents grew up poor at the expense of people who were not.

I personally don't think reparations should be made for people who are not DIRECTLY affected by events such as slavery, comfort women, etc. To me, the best way to help those who are indirectly affected by such things is, as someone else already posted, by creating more social programs. That way it seems less like placing blame and more like actual progress.

Yeah man, The AB's are playing Australia on saturday, it's gonna be awesome (who says rugby and feminism don't mix?). After last weekend's amazing clash with the Springboks, this weekend's match should be a ripper!

Anywhoo - I have several friends, both male amd female who've spent time in Japan (mostly teaching English), and I agree with your analysis. There certainly seems to be a certain strain of white expat who are attracted to Japan.

think u might have left out a minor historical event (or 4+, against Japan alone) in your commentary:

"The first use of atomic weapons against human beings occurred on August 6-9 1945, when the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, killing an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injuring another 130,000. By 1950 another 230,000 died from injuries and radiation. Earlier in 1945 two fire bombing raids on Tokyo killed 140,000 citizens and injured a million more."

Those are all clearly war crimes for which the U.S. President and military leaders should have been hanged.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOE201A.html

Tom Lantos is just a warmonger for the Democrats. His entire act is a charade - this action of his, and everything else his 'rights' committees do only provide cover for his real objectives - increased military spending. He's capitalizing off the extreme suffering of others for his own political gain. Nice guy, Tom Lantos.

ok flashheart, I read around your blog so I'm aware that you know fairly well what you're talking about, even if we don't agree. Anyway, I'll engage your question:
Why's it a real problem?
Because a lot of Koreans/Chinese still feel that Japan is not sincerere the apologies that they offer, and the current administration outright denies that it happened (granted a lot of this comes from more than the comfort women issue). Also the whole "comfort women"/other incidents were made possible by an environment filled with racist propaganda, which has led to generations of racist belief/practices (many of which still live on today, and pretending they didn't happen and/or don't exist now only serves to make them worse). If Japanese seriously felt that the ww2 atrocities were seriously abhorable then they should be visibly outraged at their government's continued denial (and as you point out, many are). But for some reason they keep electing these conservative representatives! So obviously the truly outraged people are either a) in the minority or b) not voting. Either way, you have to ask: why? I've gotten into this debate many times over my years in japan, and yes most of the time people don't have a good answer. But I've met a number of people who genuinely feel that they don't want to vote for someone who says that they should educate their children that their parents/grandparents/heros were "evil," and thus the conservative side continues to gain/hold power. I think this feeling is pretty natural, and perhaps more common than you think. Though of course, I think most Japanese have to get a more than little drunk to talk about this kind of political introspection ;)

And ultimately, as you said, Abe's pushing to change the constitution to allow an offensive military. But I think that if he can draw support from groups who feel threatened by this pressure to take more responsibility for actions of the old imperial government, then obviously Japan is not doing a good enough job to 1) educate its populace about those events, and 2) take a firm stand against those past actions. I agree, it would be tragic if the constitutional amendment goes through, but institutionalized denial of historical tragedy is not an acceptable alternative.

Anyway, I really had no intention of turning my comment into such a long argument (probably why this box is so small). The point of my original comment was simply disagreeing with Simatha's claim that the US has no right to criticize Japan. I was merely saying that the US would be more wrong not to criticize Japan.

crypticfortune, equally a lot of Japanese feel that China and Korea aren`t sincere in their denunciations of Japan`s war past - that they use them to distract from political problems at home (this is particularly true of China). If we judge nations by what we think their real reasons are, we will never get anywhere. However, Japan has apologised and the text is clearly there for all to see, and its sincerity therefore more easily accepted than I think you are willing to admit.

As regards the current conservative trend in Japaense politics, I think Japan has a lot of other reasons to elect these people than just the war debate, and have had to take the good with the bad. Remember, Japan is essentially a one party state, so there are a lot of people with little choice in who to vote for, a lot of rural gerrymandering, and a lot of disgruntled young people not voting. In fact, only a minority or bare majority of people vote in Japan, and rural electorates have more power.

As to your comments on how Abe will win the referendum on the constitution; it won`t be from people who feel threatened by this pressure to take more responsibility; it will be from people who feel that continuing pressure in the face of repeated apologies - and claims of insincerity and historical revisionism - are an injustice. Remember, they have apologised and paid up.

A far better act for the US Senate would be to pass a resolution commending the apologies, accepting them, and arguing that the comfort women is a special case (I can`t see why) which requires special reparations, and asking the Japanese goverment to make those reparations. Or better still, not mentioning reparations and encouraging Japan to remain a pacifist nation as a beacon of hope to the whole world. That would carry a lot of weight in Japan.

Responding to an apology by saying it is in bad faith is really very rude, especially to a country which values apologies as Japan does. Doing so repeatedly is going to be seen as an attack on Japanese culture.

I hate breaking my vow (to leave this site), but I couldn't help but notice that no one addressed the "real" motive behind the demand for an apology for comfort women on this site. What is the legislative branch's motive for demanding yet another apology from Japan?

First off reparations aren't mentioned in the resolution, and Rep Lantos sites "historical amnesia" and "seeks admission of the horrible truth, in order that this horror may never be perpetrated again" in his sponsoring of the nonbinding resolution. What is Lantos talking about, and why is he bringing it up now?

Might it have something to do with a resurgence of nationalism in Japan, and a politic desire on the part of Abe's government to no longer be a pacifist nation? And could it also have something to do with the fact that Abe's approval ratings are in the low 30s% less than a month before nation wide elections?

I see this as a blatant attempt on the part of the US legislative branch to embarrass Abe, for good or bad.

I am no supporter of Abe, and I am happy that my wife is keeping her citizenship of Japan so that that way she could vote against his party in the upcoming elections, but I still think America should stay out of the affairs of other nations. We caused enough damage to Iraq by meddling when we shouldn't have, and we are only going to anger more people by meddling someplace else.

Another side note. Canada and Japan were ranked the most popular nations in a recent global survey http://www.thestar.com/News/article/188472 , and America, Israel, and Iran were ranked the most unpopular, just below North Korea.

Japan actively participates in international affairs. It is also the world's second-largest donor of official development assistance, donating 0.19% of its GNP in 2004.

Taken from Wikipedia.

Flashheart> Yes I agree that a lot of the time the politicians have a lot to gain by drawing animosity towards japan, but likewise japanese politicians also have a lot of gain by fomenting this feeling of "injustice" as you say. The point of the panel's resoultion (if i'm inferring from the news articles correctly (i wish i could find the real text of the resolution)) is that despite the past apologies, the efforts to deny the past events are getting stronger rather than weaker, and the Japanese government's recent behaviour (remember it's been over 10 years since the last apology) is disturbing, and I agree deserves reprimand.

And while I agree it seems injust to say that the current taxpayers (myself included) and government are responsible for the mistakes of the previous regime, the fact that the current government's denials of the historic wrongdoing and continued efforts to suppress adequate education of these issues in public school is indeed cause for concern. Saying that the emporer has no clothes may be a cultural/social taboo, but sometimes it's the right thing to say.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting debate. I apologize if this is my last post for a while, but I really should be quite busy today >_<;;;

Food for thought:

Oenophile - I don't think you grasp the distinction between some sort of professional shyster trying to make a quick buck (as you seem to imagine), and the gravitas that only an apology with fiscal reparation carries.

Putting one's money where one's mouth is speaks louder than any other message in a capitalist culture.

However, Jeremy told me that my argument involved a "strawman rear[ing] its ugly head" because reparations need not involve money.

Well, which is it?

If we accept anorak's argument that reparations must include money, then my argument stands. If not, then, frankly, I don't much care if countries want to "do something" for the descendants of comfort women.

Note again: the government does not have its own money. It's not a person or a corporation; it if wants money, it taxes its populace or raises its tariffs. When you talk about "the government" or "the state" giving money to people as a form of self-flagellation, you are invariably talking about costs that are passed on to the populace - a populace that was, for the most part, not even alive during those atrocities.

Whatever, EG.

I never condoned "tying things up in court."

Name-call all you want, but anyone who can't understand that a libertarian doesn't like the idea of government taking on roles not its own and taking the citizenry for its projects unrelated to its limited powers is a few apples short of a peck.

As a libertarian, I ABHOR most of the ways that government spends the earnings of its citizens. The fact that some bad things take place does not entitle others to take place, too. Let's use your "logic" (ha!) to undermine feminism: since men still harass women on the street, why bother reporting DV? After all, if the patriarchy is going to win in one area, why fight at all?

Sorry, babe. Also, sorry to anyone who misses the fact that I do fight civil rights battles. Ad hominem attacks - which seems to be "oenophile hasn't single-handedly changed the world, so she has no right to point out the logical fallacies in a proposed plan" is stupid and ridiculous.

EG - anyone who thinks that government makes its own money needs to get herself some religion. You're looking for a creation myth or a Jesus at Cannes mtyh, with government as your God. As an atheist, I'm appalled when I see creationists pretend that the Stone Age never existed, and appalled when people expect literal miracles from the government.

crypticfortune, your claim that the government is trying to undermine teaching in schools really need to be sourced; I am yet to see any evidence to support this claim. Abe`s historical "revisionism" concerns only one issue, and one issue only: whether the government and army forced comfort women to work. There is ample evidence that the government only had a minor role in this part of the process, and that most of this coercion was patchily performed by recruiting companies. The US Senate has chosen to meddle in the only currently historically contentious part of the war record, giving Abe leeway to drum up a bit of nationalism using this debate.

Itazura is right, if the US meddles now, in a pacifist nation with a history of apologies, reparation and aid, it will simply encourage nationalism (remember: nationalism is at its strongest when it is struggling against external interference). Right now it is in America`s interests to encourage nationalism in Japan. If Japan revokes it`s pacifist constitution it will be able to develop its military, and could rapidly rearm to become the most powerful force in the East. This would give the US the chance to remove forces to more desperately needed places - e.g. Iran - encourage the idea that the world is a dangerous place, and leave China facing another very close and very dangerous military adversary. At a sensitive time for military developments in Asia, it is best that the richest nation in the region remain pacifist, so as to control the potential arms race which could develop here.

PS. EG, last time I checked, if you bring a lawsuit during your lifetime, your descendents can collect on the earnings. You need to specify the right to any earnings in your will, however.

If people never brought suits during their lifetime, however, the entire thing turns into a money-grab.

At a sensitive time for military developments in Asia, it is best that the richest nation in the region remain pacifist, so as to control the potential arms race which could develop here.

While it certainly is an irony of Orwellian proportions that the US would tell another country to take responsibility for its atrocities while demanding that the country it demolished and continues to occupy pay the cost of reconstruction, there are a few things worth noting:

For one one of the biggest bones of contention in Japan over the past few decades is that Japan is only nominally a pacifist state. While Art. 9 of the Japanese Constitution prevents the maintenance of military forces and renounces any right to make war, Japan nonetheless has more military spending than most other countries in the region (second only to the PRC, if I recall correctly).

For another thing, Japan is about as good about teaching the history of its atrocities in its schools as we are in ours. Things like the Rape of Nanjing, the brutal occupation of Korea, and other similar matters are often glossed over or denied altogether in Japanese textbooks.

And once the US government pays reparations at the very least to its most recent victims (let's say, going back to 1973), and submits unconditionally to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, they'll have every right to condemn others for failing to face up to their historical responsibility.

In the meantime, maybe the US Congress might focus on at least not committing any new atrocities.

flashheart

I don't know how much you know about American politics, but Lantos and the Democrats in congress are acting a lot more subtle than you think. Arm races, and getting more out of Japan militarily aren't on their agenda, but attacking the only Asiatic member of the G8 is. They fight (the Democrats in congress) against Abe, because they don't like his stance on international foreign policy, which is very much in line with Bush’s and neo-con’s agenda; making exploiting third world labor easier. The Democrats would also like to aid a democratic removal of one of Bush's most ardent international supporters (Abe), and score points with women voters back in America.

Lantos' intentions are good, but meddling and rehashing the past is going to backfire against the Democrats best intentions. Or perhaps not, personally I think democratically removing Abe from power would be a good thing, but I hate that the national character of Japan is caught in the crossfire (a lot of good Japanese people are going to catch shit, because of a few things that their incompetent leader said).

The shame in all this is that it's politics as usual.

Oenophile - two points:

1)If you read the thread you'll see that I think Flashheart's suggestion of governmental aid in the form of healthcare or scholarships is a good one.

2) You say you're ok with
government spending for services etc.
"I don't much care if countries want to "do something" for the descendants of comfort women."

So which is it, "babe"?
Money is being spent either way...

I guess I'm way too socialist for libertarianist arguments. I care too much about other people, I guess.

If we're going to be completely honest about it, we should say SOME generally white people who tend to be male are rich off of this.

You obviously don't understand a thing about the way privilege works, or you'd realize how trite and irrelevant it is to talk about the poor, poor, disadvantaged white people who didn't have a silver tray fall into their laps at birth. Privilege isn't just about the cream of the crop with the silver tray (premiere access to resources); it's also about who's first in line to get some of the crumbs should any fall off of that tray. White people, even those who aren't rich for now, fall into that category.

"Should I get reparations because my female ancestors were discriminated against? I'm Irish, in part - I want reparations!"

There is a HUGE difference in the discrimination faced by the Irish in this country and the torture that the black slaves had to endure, HUGE.

I am all for reparations, I am not sure which would be the best way to do it, but the descendants of the slaves definitely deserve something.

"Because a lot of Koreans/Chinese still feel that Japan is not sincerere the apologies that they offer, and the current administration outright denies that it happened."

crypticfortune

Abe didn't deny that comfort women were used; he denied that evidence showed that they weren't legally hired.

The comfort women incidents are part of a long story, and like all stories there are 2 sides to it. Prostitution had (and still to this day) played a unique role in Japanese, Korean, and Chinese history (as well as in the Philippines, Thailand, and in Viet Nam). Prostitution in Asia in the early 20th century was a lot like the old courtesan systems of 16-18 century Europe, and a lot of the Asian sex workers were well respected (Geishas are a good example of the respect that some of them received). The first Comfort Women of the Japanese conflicts in mainland Asia that started in the late 1920s, were mostly all Japanese professional prostitutes, many of whom signed up for the pay and sense of adventure. But by the late 1930s, when the war in China started to go sour (as wars do), and as the Japan imperialist government became more culturally assertive at home, it became preferred to hire local women as Comfort Women for 2 main reasons. The local girls were cheaper, and the Japanese government deemed it demeaning for their own women to be prostitutes for the military. Logistics records kept by the Japanese imperial army at this time were not good, so the details are heavily debated as to how Comfort Women were hired, and the role the Japanese government played in hiring the Comfort Women is in dispute. However enough evidence shows that the Japanese government did commission sex worker brokers to get comfort women for the army as cheap as they possible could, and there is a lot of evidence that the imperial army did not care at all about the health and welfare of the Comfort Women they took possession of.

Abe's assertion that all comfort women were not taken against their will is wrong, as the many living former Comfort Women would love to tell him so. However most Japanese people will tell you that they believe that most Comfort Women were taken against their wills, and the Japanese Government has apologized for the Comfort Women incidents on 4 separate occasions as FlashHeart pointed out.

Why must the Japanese people be embarrassed by the actions of their military again, three generations later, only because their Prime Minister is lost in his nationalistic delusions?

Abe certainly needs to correct himself, but the Japanese people should not have to suffer at his peril.

And more germane to the discussion, I honestly don't see how a restitution agreement between groups of men (the governments of China, Japan, and Korea) can be considered in any way an appropriate resolution to the ethical dilemma of the rape profits (both monetary and in soldier "morale") reaped by the Japanese. That the Chinese and Korean governments also managed to get in on some of the booty (pun intended) doesn't make it any better.

This is interesting from a European perspective as the Polish premiers are now bringing up all kinds of WW2 stuff to use against the German government, and making some very peculiar hints in their speeches.

justicewalks - very good points.
Itazura - I don't particularly want to engage you, I thought you'd left, but if you are correlating the geisha tradition with prostitution, you're even more fucked up than I thought (which, by the way, was pretty fucked up).

I personally don't think reparations should be made for people who are not DIRECTLY affected by events such as slavery, comfort women, etc. To me, the best way to help those who are indirectly affected by such things is, as someone else already posted, by creating more social programs. That way it seems less like placing blame and more like actual progress.

There's nothing particularly remarkable about compensating a victim's heirs when the victim is deceased. For another thing, what constitutes a "direct effect"? To remain with the case of slavery, although slavery was formally abolished by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the 1860s, the practises of slavery remained in force throughout the southern states by means of laws that codified slavery in all but the name until the mid 20th century and beyond. Now, if there had been 50 years in which the African American population's social and economic condition were completely equal to that of the white population, and then things suddenly took an inexplicable downturn, it would make perfect sense to make a distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects. However, that is not the case. Nor, I might add, is it the case with many other disenfranchised groups (certainly, the fact that you can live in this country for years without ever meeting anyone whose ancestors are indigenous to North America suggests that the effects of all those broken treaties and smallpox blankets might not be all that trivial even today).

I also don't see what's wrong with placing blame when there's responsibility to be taken. That's the sort of thing you hear in abusive families. "It was a long time ago. Can't you just get over it? Why can't we just move on without playing the blame game?" And the answer is the same: unless the guilty parties and/or those who benefit from their actions actually take responsibility, there can be no "moving on".

Blame needs to be placed with those who bear responsibility. When that does not happen, it usually ends up being placed with the victim.

Oenophile, you haven't responded to my questions regarding the lawful owners of the land you live on.
How are those descendants of the first north americans doing, by the way?
Every thing coming up Milhouse for them?

Elise, exactly. And not only are the ill effects suffered by the disadvantaged perpetual in nature, so too are the spoils enjoyed by the privileged, whether it is the privilege of never being publicly named a rapist or the privilege of presumed humanity, rather than humanity that must be proven or earned.

In order to resolve the issues without reparations, which is what so many libertarian/conservative types claim they'd like, these spoils must be relinquished. It is a shame that most governments (and their libertarian/conservative supporters) are willing to neither relinquish their unfair advantage nor make meaningful amends for their continued privilege.

Is it me, or did oenophile not address, well, any part of the argument for reparations that I outlined? Because last I checked, outside of high school, "whatever" is not actually an adequate response. Nor is "babe." I didn't like Itazura's "you gals," and I've really had it up to here with oenophile's sexist bullshit whenever anyone happens to disagree with her.

Although I love her idea of how if freed slaves didn't actually bring suit and mention it specifically in their wills, too bad for their descendents. Because there certainly wasn't any real barrier to that happening on a wide scale, post-Resconstruction. And it's not like any compensation was actually promised to former slaves.

I've never understood so many people's bizarre hatred for taxes. Governments, especially democracies, claim to act on behalf of the people. Therefore they have the people fund their endeavors. And thus, yes, when they do things that are appalling, as they so often do, it is appropriate that the people in whose name they claimed to be acting suck it up and make restitution.

I don't know, I thought the "ignore oenophile" pledge was specific to abortion-rights threads, but if she keeps up with the "whatever" and the "babe" and the "you need to get some religion" (whatever that means), it might not be a bad idea to extend it.

I would also add that you could make a reasonably good case for the Irish, including the descendents of those who had to emigrate during the 1840s, to demand reparations from England.

In order to resolve the issues without reparations, which is what so many libertarian/conservative types claim they'd like, these spoils must be relinquished. It is a shame that most governments (and their libertarian/conservative supporters) are willing to neither relinquish their unfair advantage nor make meaningful amends for their continued privilege.

Sometimes that shamelessness reaches even more impressive heights. When the US terminated the invasion of Vietnam in the 1970s, the government had indicated a willingess to compensate Vietnam for the 3 million civilians killed, the devastation of much of the arable land by chemical weapons, etc. That idea quickly died, however, based on the notion that "the destruction was mutual". When Bush I entered office, he was magnanimous enough to announce that he wouldn't demand reparations from Vietnam. Which is sort of like saying one won't demand compensation for all the free room and board provided to African Americans during slavery.

I like "the destruction was mutual." Because if you interfere in a country halfway around the world where you have no right to be, taking up the fight of the country's former colonialist power, and the people of that country actually fight back, then obviously they're just as responsible for any destruction incurred as you are.

It's exactly the way a woman defending herself from a woman-beater is just as bad, if not worse, than the brute attacking her in the first place. Disgusting.

And, yes, it's happening in Iraq, too (as in all wars, I suppose), with the refusal to distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters.

"you need to get some religion" (whatever that means)

It's like telling someone they need a drink. The idea is that your brain is functioning too rationally and intelligently, and needs to be impaired somehow.

And, yes, it's happening in Iraq, too (as in all wars, I suppose), with the refusal to distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Maybe that's because it's pretty easy to distinguish already: most of the terrorism in Iraq today — if we accept the definition providd by US law and Pentagon manuals, anyway — is committed by people who don't speak a word of Arabic.

Pot, meet kettle!

When the discussion of reparations comes up I always ask should I have to pay because my ancestors that I didn't know were slave owners (I have no idea if any of them actually were, but who knows)? Or because a grandfather I didn't know served in the SS (they didn't, but you all get the point)? Or should my children have to pay because they are the great grandchildren of Japanese soldiers that they never knew. Who pays the reparations, and is it fair to make a generation of tax payers pay reparations for evil deeds committed by the generation from 3 generations before (who are mostly all dead)? Are you guilty of rape if your great grandfather you never knew committed rape?

No generation or culture at any period of time is completely blameless of atrocities.

However, it is funny that you are all "gals and guys" are debating reparations, when the non-binding resolution at the center of interest of this string doesn't ask for them.

BTW Anorak some of the first Comfort Women were ex-Geishas (and yes at that time Geisha did sell their virginity to the highest bidder, and accepted mistress status of the highest bidder, much like courtesans did of the 16th-18th centuries).

Back to the point, the question is should Prime Minister Abe correct his flawed understanding of history less than a month before nation wide elections are held in the country that he leads, and should we be suspicious of the Democrats in congress asking for Abe to correct himself at this particular juncture in time?

Itazura> in a word, yes. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of legalized prostitution so I have to admit that it didn't realize that Abe could be making that argument. According to wikipedia (Korea under Japanese rule), there's evidence that wartime government destroyed the records you're referring to. But anyway I find it hard to believe that in spite of the testimonies of survivors, and all the koreans forced into normal labor jobs or conscripted into the army, that they would take care that no sex workers were forced against their will. It's this bush-like desire to take as little responsibility as legally possible, denying what they can, and "promoting historic amnesia" that really pisses off the surviving ex-"comfort women" (which is presumably the reason many ex-"comfort women" refused to accept any money from the Asian Women's Fund when it existed), and it's those denials that the bill takes issue with.

Anyway, I agree with you full heartedly when you said that it's unfortunate that so many good japanese will/do catch shit over what Abe says. Politics as usual indeed.... =(

Flashheart> I made a post a comment a while ago with links to sources, but it's currently pending approval from moderators (apparently links look like spam). hopefully it'll get posted once the fministing crew wakes up. in the mean time, start by checking out wikipedia: Japanese history textbook controversies.

The US judging other countries on WWII atrocities is like Donald Trump determining the "morality" of a pageant contestant!

No generation or culture at any period of time is completely blameless of atrocities.

Right on.

Reparations...yeah, I want mine as well, from the Catholic Church. At least I know they CAN magically produce revenue, as opposed to taxation. :)

If reparations could accurately be calculated, that would be great. How can you do this realistically? I for one would really like to see funding for a new version of the WPA (Works Progress Administration). While not a direct reparation, it would have great potential of allowing people to earn money while rebuilding communities.

I think it's easy for people here to assume that just because most of us posting agree on a general philosophy, that we all agree on exactly how this is best achieved. I guess we all like to feel we are correct.

I think we all agree that Abe should correct himself, and that the history text in the Japanese education system should be amended to reflect the true history of WWII.

however, would it have hurt the Democrats in congress to have waited till after the nation wide Japanese elections were over to then pass their resolution asking Japan to acknowledge the horrors that Comfort Women went through?

Passing the resolution now puts Abe in a position where he cannot safely correct himself. If he does, he will look like a weak flip-flopper at a time of national crisis. But had the Democrats waited till after the elections, which Abe's party is certain to lose, the new Japanese government would have been more willing to accept it (the Democrat's resolution).

In any case it would not surprise me if the Japanese government returns the favor, say in October of 2008. The Japanese government will be in a much more morally secure position to demand that the American government pay restitutions to the interned Japanese Americans from WWII, or, better yet, demand that the American government acknowledge that American GIs also used the Japanese Comfort Women in their occupation of Japanese territory after WW11. Such a resolution would create a lose-lose situation for the Democrats. If they don't comply with the resolution they will look like hypocrites a month before election night, and if they do accept the resolution they would look weak on foreign policy and/or to liberal with tax dollars.

He (or she) who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

No generation or culture at any period of time is completely blameless of atrocities.

Exactly. Where does this stop? Nearly every nation on earth right now sits on top of land that was once occupied by someone else.

And given what the US is doing in Iraq, surely any demand for apologies and/or reparations directed at anyone else is a cruel joke.

Never mind the bloody past, which can't be changed anyway. Perhaps we should focus on stopping atrocities that are being committed now.

IMHO, it would be more immoral if the US did not at a minimum pass such a resolution, especially considering how they were complicit in the suppressing of discussion of Japanese War Crimes in the late 1940's due to Cold War considerations. As the US needed a Cold War ally in Asia to counter the Soviet Union and Communist China, the Tokyo Trials were wrapped up before much of the issues of Japan's war responsibility were fully addressed. The Comfort Women was one of those issues that was suppressed as the US and its East Asian Cold War ally, Japan were focused on fighting the Cold War. While there were Japanese historians that tried to get at the root of Japan's war responsibility, the Japanese education ministry has done much to suppress such discussion beyond painting Japan as a victim due to the atomic bombings while neglecting the fact that Japan were at a minimum just as brutal in their colonial rampage throughout Asia as the Western colonialists. One example of this was the 20 year case (1960's to 1980's) of Ienaga Saburo whose book was turned down for use in Japanese school systems because its discussion of Japan's war responsibility during events such as the Rape of Nanking was too uncomfortable for the Japanese Educational Ministry. It did not help that many of those in the Japanese socio-political establishment has saw fit to try to discredit in the popular media many Japanese historians trying to examine Japanese war responsibility as left-leaning communists and thus, should be completely ignored.

Moreover, the Japanese nationalist right-wing historical revisionists such as Tanaka Masaaki have been trying to further supress any discussion of Japan's War responsibility since at least the 1970's. So contrary to what some have posted, the Japanese government (Read: Mostly LDP with one notable exception) has been waging a compaign of supressing popular discussion of these questions until the end of the Cold War and the increasing publicizing of previously unknown documentation of Japanese War Crimes such as the Comfort Women and Unit 731 made such public discussions unavoidable. Even then, the right-wing revisionists just ramped up their efforts to deny, obfuscate, and discredit professional Japanese historians who tried to engage the public in examining Japan's war responsibility.

The apologies posted are undermined by the subsequent actions of the Japanese government to continue supporting the right-wing Japanese revisionists and the continuation of official support and endorsement of militarist institutions such as the Yasukuni Shrine which houses 14 Class A War Criminals. Never minding that this support technically violates their own Constitution's policy of Separation of religion and state. Not only does this show victims of Japanese aggression that those apologies are a dead letter, but it also illustrates how the Japanese government has continued to support institutions that endorsed the very colonial militarist traditions which led to the victimization of other Asian societies. Apologies are meaningless if the actions indicate the "apologizer" was never contrite. It also does not help Japan's image that several attempts to pass a parliamentary bill to officially apologize for Japan's Colonialist actions were stimied by the LDP. Did I also mentionthe convoluted cockeyed reasonings Japanese judges use to justify denying reparations to most former Comfort Women and slave laborers who filed suits against the Japanese government even while those judges did validate the Japanese state being the cause? Some of it would be laughable if there was not so much horrific suffering involved.

Moreover, unlike Flashheart, I have actually met a few Japanese grad students who felt that Japan did nothing wrong and that the East Asian countries are complaining too much. Though I am thankful they are a small minority of the international Japanese student population, it is scary how open they are with their views, especially when nearly all of them work in the Japanese government. I fear for the day they are placed in key positions of power.

Elise, Itazura and Anorak still haven`t sourced their claims that schoolbooks in Japan don`t teach about war crimes. In fact in the Daily Yomiuri a few weeks ago there was discussion of this years text books and the figure they place on the Nanjing massacre (from memory 120,000). Furthermore, a lot of the current knowledge about Nanjing comes from Japan. Figure that out. I don`t believe these claims about Japanese not understanding the war or not being taught it.

Exholt judges knowledge about Japan from a few grad students he/she has met. I have met Australian grad students who believe that no massacres occurred in Australian history. They don`t represent Australian beliefs, but right-wing stoogery at its best. Itazura is right to point out that this kind of person gives the silent majority of their countryfolk a bad name.

Exholt, before you accuse the Japanese government of undermining the apology you need to consider that repeated demands for apologies may fuel nationalism, in turn fuelling actions opposed to the apologies.

Furthermore, your claim that high court reasoning is cock-eyed is just wrong. The High Court today passed a judgement on slave labourers that said what happened was wrong and criminal but the government cannot pay reparations because they have a binding agreement with China not to. i.e. Chinese forced labourers` demands for compensation are being stymied by an international agreement with China.

Finally, while it is true that Koizumi`s visits to the Yasukuni Jinja violate the separation of church and state in some abstract sense, the claim that the Japanese government needs to stop supporting the institutions which started the war is ludicrous. These institutions were the government, the army and the Emperor. How does a government stop supporting itself and its constitutional leader? That`s crazy talk.

Incidentally, I have read Saburo`s book "The Pacific War", and it is rather polemical and supports a view of the war which I don`t think all historians agree with (I do agree with it, but I`m no historian). The claim that his "New Japanese History" wasn`t used in schools is not true; it was used with corrections, NOT concerning nanjing. I will say it again, as I have said regularly on this website: to the best of my knowledge, Japanese schoolchildren are taught about the Rape of Nanjing.

Flashheart,

You seem to have omitted the part of the sentence where I said I was thankful the Japense grad students who were Colonialist apologists were a small minority of the international Japanese student population. The only reason why their statements creeped me out was that nearly all of them are currently working in the Japanese government in entry to mid-level positions. That means their views would have much more potential influence within the Japanese socio-political establishment than the average citizen. This is also a concern in the context of Japan's extreme right-wing having a far greater voice in the Japanese socio-political establishment than their actual numbers would indicate.

Moreover, you keep emphasizing that Japan has been besieged by the constant demand for apologies even though it has offered many. You also made the assertion on your blog that the victims should be grateful for those apology offered and thus, should effectively shut up.

Your reasoning that because Japan's apology was couched in passive language out of politeness from their own cultural perspective is not only cockeyed, but also disturbing.

It is like saying the victim of a serious felony must accept the apology of
a criminal, however vague and equivocal it may be, because in his/her cultural context, it would be considered acceptable. Excuse me, but most jurists and reasonable people I know would say the offender has no right to dictate the terms of the apology to the aggrieved victim. To do so would not only grant too much power to the offender, but also encourage the production of equivocal "apologies" tailored to the convenience of the offender. While it may be a time-honored practice among politicians, it sets a bad precedent in terms of holding offenders accountable for their actions. This includes compelling them to make amends that are suited more to the victim who suffered the offense, not the convenience of the offender.

Flashheart,

First things first, you have to understand the historical context in which those apologies were offered. Due to the fact the Americans were dominant in the occupation of Japan combined with Cold War concerns, the Americans found it expedient to aid Japan in the suppression of Japan's war responsibility so they can get Japan on board as a viable Cold War ally. One example of this was the fact none of the leaders of Unit 731 were ever tried, much less convicted in the Tokyo Trials. Shiro Ishii, the leader of Unit 731 struck a bargain with the American military authorities to hand over the results of his biological experiments in exchange for immunity from prosecution for him and his men. Many of those men later became prominent members of the Japanese medical and scientific research establishment. Another example was the use of the Comfort Women by the US military. Discussions of these topics or war responsibility as a whole would prove a distraction from the Cold War at a minimum and worse, embarassing for the US military.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 was another component of the American effort to curtail the examination of Japan's wartime legacy. Remember, the United States along with the UN were fighting the Korean war during this time. Considering how much fear and uncertaintly there was during that period of the Cold War, the Americans felt the Cold War needed to be the first priority. The concerns of Japan's mostly Asian victims could be ignored, especially if they acted as "distractions" from waging the Cold War.

Some countries such as the Philippines were diplomatically coerced into signing the treaty despite the fact the Filipino government and its people had concerns. The San Francisco Treaty was a largely American drafted treaty with little, if any imput from the victimized Asian nations. In short, one has to examine the power disparity which allowed the US to browbeat its Asian allies to sign the treaty, especially when Cold War concerns were of a higher priority. In short, those Asian allies had better sign up or risk losing American military and foreign aid after their societies were devastated by Japan's colonial rampage.

The treaties you cited South Korea and China signed were not legal contracts carried out between two peers. To treat them as such as you seem to be doing is to take those treaties out of historical context. By the 1960's Japan was a rising economic power. In South Korea's case, they were in deep poverty as a result of Japan's colonial legacy, damages from the Korean War, and political instability from mismanagement by a series of American supported governments. Should I also mention that the 1965 treaty was signed by a government headed by an army general Park Chung Hee who gained power through a coup. More interestingly, Park was a Japanese army lieutenant before becoming part of the South Korean military establishment. Thus, he was not speaking for the South Korean populace when his government signed that treaty with Japan. He was also in no position to refuse as he had only been in power for four years and needed to use this as a propaganda prop to justify his rule lest another coup is launched against him.

In the 1970's the ravages of WWII on China's economy was suffering from was exacerbated by Mao Zedong's communist policies. Thus, by the time Japan broached the treaty with China, they were in no position to refuse. Also, they do not really speak for the Chinese people as the government was an authoritarian dictatorship.
This is augmented by how Mao Zedong in a 1955 press conference with Japanese journalists actually thanked the Japanese government for weakening the Chinese nationalists aiding his rise to power. If there was no press censorship in China, the majority of the Chinese people with recent war memories at the time would be incensed by such remarks to the point of lynching him if the government did nothing to remove him for implicitly endorsing an invasion that caused innumerable deaths and devastation on China's physical and social landscapes. Of course, since he was a dictator in a Communist dictatorship that did practice censorship, he had nothing to worry about.

Cold War considerations combined with American racial deprioritization of concerns of the Asian victims of Japan's colonial legacy created a suppressing effect on the discussion of Japan's war responsibility. This combined with the fact America had leverage to ensure the leaders of the other allied Asian nations toed the line to put aside their "differences" to fight the Cold War on American terms. These terms included the reestablishment of the Japanese armed forces in the guise of the "Self-Defense Forces" which many Asian allies as well as opponents opposed due to fears borne out of WWII. All this establishes a pattern of how Japan's Wartime legacy has been left unaddressed by the socio-political establishments beyond a few profesional academics who were often tarred with the "leftist" label to discredit them in Japan and elsewhere.

(Cont.)

(cont.)

Moreover, extreme Japanese right-wing nationalism has always existed though they had to work within the confines of the American occupation and the Cold War landscape. Unlike Germany where allied denazification programs were effective in eradicating Nazi and militarist influences from the post-war German government, the turning-back policy of Gen. MacArthur due to Cold War fears not only meant that many Japanese gov't ministries were not fully purged of right-wing militarists, but that many purged militarists were called back into ministries that were not considered "critical" by the American authorities. The Japanese ministry of education in the late 40's early 50's is a good example of this as it had one of the highest numbers of officials who were holdovers from the imperial militarist era. For that reason they rejected many history texts that delved too closely into Japanese war responsibility and accepted them only after "corrections" that effectively downplayed the historicity of that period to the point of effective whitewashing. Though many professional Japanese historians and academics protested this from the late 50's onward, the Japanese socio-political establishment labeled them "left-wing" and "communists" to discredit them. In the context of the Cold War, such labels served as an effective means to discredit dissent not only in Japan, but in many Western societies such as the US.

Moreover, the right-wing historical revisionists have been at work since the early 50's. Tanaka Masaaki is the earliest example. A former soldier and minor colonial official during the war, he started the effort to redefine Japan's imperial colonial legacy in a more positive light. He and other like-minded folks continued putting forth their revisionist works. However, they gained little traction as their position was not only too extreme for the Japanese socio-political establishment of the time, much less a 1950's-60's Japanese public whose wartime experiences made them skeptical of polemic writings reminiscent of Japanese wartime propaganda.

With the increasing prosperity brought about by Japan's economic growth, however, the majority of the Japanese public were content to avoid discussing Japan's colonial legacy. Cold War concerns coupled with the minimalist presentation of Japanese colonial legacy in Japanese K-12 books made it easy for most in the Japanese public to ignore uncomfortable facts in favor of the popular narrative that Japan was a victim of the war due to the atomic bomb attacks.

In the 1970's when Honda Kasuichi published a series of articles where he interviewed Chinese victims/witnesses of the Nanjing Massacre that gained popularity in the Japanese populace, right-wing revisionists started to act with other right-wing militarist groups to force a revising of the already diluted historical narrative in Japanese high school texts to spin Japan's colonial legacy as that of "Liberating Asia from the West". Contrary to popular belief in the West, the revisionist efforts to rewrite the history of Japan's colonial past which includes its wartime legacy has been an ongoing process from the 1950's onward.

Moreover, Honda's articles started a firestorm of controversy within the Japanese populace. Military veteran families, apologists for Japanese colonialist militarism, and others felt Honda's articles was threatening their efforts to spin the Japanese public's understanding of their nation's colonial past as a positive, however ineffectual it was at that point. As a result, they agitated and published many books and articles denouncing Honda and supportive Japanese academics as "left-wing" and "communist".

Thus, while it may seem to you that the rise of Japanese nationalism is due to the victimized nations' demands for "excess apologies", the rise of Japanese nationalism actually had little to do with outside influences. Rather, it is the product of a continuing contestation in defining the historical narrative between professional Japanese historians on one side who want to delve into Japan's colonialist legacy and the right-wing historical revisionists and their allies in the Japanese socio-political elite who are trying to spin Japan's colonial legacy as an effort to liberate Asia from Western Imperialism. This has been prompted by two perceptions on the part of the revisionists and their allies in the socio-political elite.

1. The Japanese Educational Ministry's efforts to minimize and couch mention of Japan's colonial legacy in excessively neutralistic decontextualizing language does not go far enough.

2. Efforts by professional historians and journalists such as Honda Kasuichi are a left-wing communist plot to undermine Japan's cultural and national integrity.

In short, I call BS on your contention that the rise of Japanese nationalism is due to the rejection of apologies by those who were victimized by Japan's colonial rampage.

exholt, you still haven't sourced the claim that japanese textbooks don't teach the nanjing incident. care to elaborate?

I didn't say that the rise of Japanese nationalism is due to the rejection of apologies. I said that the current nationalist government is using increasing frustration by ordinary Japanese at their unaccepted apologies to manipulate their own anti-pacifist agenda. You have erected a strawman to "call BS" on.

I should also point out that Honda Matsuichi's articles were written in the 70s in one of Japans main newspapers. I'm not sure how this can be taken as evidence of anything except that right-wing nationalism has been on the fringe for years. Remember Mishima? Nothing he ever did politically ever went anywhere.

You have also left of your description of Japan's revisionist past its large overseas aid program, and reparations given. How much of South Korea's current success is due to japanese aid, do you think?

The fact remains that ordinary Japanese people decry their war past and support the process of apology and reparations. They support pacifism as it is constructed in Japan now, and don't want to see another war. They read the historical and current apologies on face value. If they see these apologies continually rejected, or feel that they are in a constant treadmill of apologies, they will lose interest in supporting this process. If you don't believe this will happen, you are blind to the nature of popular nationalism.

Finally, when you say "excessively neutralistic decontextualizing language", you wouldn't happen to mean... Japanese, by any chance, would you?

"Elise, Itazura and Anorak still haven`t sourced their claims that schoolbooks in Japan don`t teach about war crimes."

Just for the record, leave me out of this one. Nowhere have I made any comments about Japanese schoolbooks.

Thanks!

Sorry, it was someone else. i'm a ditz.

Flashheart,

Just wanted to address one point before I go to bed.

Where exactly did I claim that Japan's textbooks did not teach the Nanjing Massacre?

I await your response.

In the 1970's when Honda Kasuichi published a series of articles where he interviewed Chinese victims/witnesses of the Nanjing Massacre that gained popularity in the Japanese populace, right-wing revisionists started to act with other right-wing militarist groups to force a revising of the already diluted historical narrative in Japanese high school texts to spin Japan's colonial legacy as that of "Liberating Asia from the West". Contrary to popular belief in the West, the revisionist efforts to rewrite the history of Japan's colonial past which includes its wartime legacy has been an ongoing process from the 1950's onward.

And do you seriously expect me to believe that when the Japanese government gives its apologies, it should do so in a way which it thinks would be rude and insincere? Obviously they will give their apologies in the way that is most meaningful to them. If you and your senate cannot understand what constitutes a serious apology by a Japanese person, why should that be their problem?

http://www.jcp.or.jp/akahata/aik4/2006-03-30/2006033015_01_0.html

The text is in Japanese. Here's a translation of a few excerpts and summary:

Secondary School Textbook Inspection: Discussion of Agression Vague

The article discusses the results of an examination of Japanese secondary-school history textbooks, which "Obscures Japan's responsibility...and do not include articles that will deepen students' understanding." Amongst other things, textbooks were found to minimise and dilute war crimes such as the forced resettlement of Koreans to Japan, the comfort women, and the Rape/Massacre of Nanjing.

To which I would also add that the history textbooks we used in high school in Japan in 1995 didn't dedicate a whole of of ink to the matter either.

But my point was, and still is, that the same is true to an even greater extent in the US, where (amongst many others) the invasion of South Vietnam is virtually nonexistent in standard histories (which refer to the "defence of South Vietnam"), and that the US can feel free to criticise other countries' alleged failure to take historical responsibility as soon as the US actually takes some.

Obviously they will give their apologies in the way that is most meaningful to them.

Flashheart,

Apologies made by perpetrators of wrongdoing are meant mainly for the benefit of the victims of said wrongdoing, not for the benefit of the apologizer. It is not up to Japan to determine at its convenience that the apology is "meaningful" and thus, adequate atonement. That determination should be made by the victims of Japan's colonial rampage in Asia. If you do not understand this, you may want to reconsider a career in politics or public relations. Politicians and PR staff routinely issue politically convenient apologies deliberately designed more for the benefit of the apologizer than an actual atonement for the victim's sufferings.

My point in the paragraph you cited was not that the Japanese texts were not teaching about the Nanjing Massacre and other events related to Japan's colonial legacy, but the Japanese educational ministry's efforts to minimize and couch mention of Japan's colonial legacy in excessively neutralistic decontextualizing language. While you may make many potshot comments by saying "Do you mean Japanese?", Elise has provided evidence similar to the ones I've seen at several academic conferences devoted to the topic of Japan's Colonial legacy at one of the top Japanese studies programs in the country. This included a large selection of Japanese textbooks used in school systems across the archipelago along with further testimony by professors from Japanese universities and public school teachers.

This has been further corroborated by most Japanese classmates whose geographic origins ranged from rural areas of Hokkaido to the major Japanese urban centers on Honshu who have all felt the texts did not delve deeply enough into Japan's issues of war responsibility. On the other hand, the SMALL VOCAL MINORITY of Japanese grad students who are colonial apologists felt the same texts overemphasized Japan's wrongdoings and that the historical narrative should be rewritten into a swansong praising Japan's efforts to liberate Asia from Western Imperialism. As they are nearly all entry/mid-level bureaucrats in the Japanese government, their open revisionist views deeply concern me.

No offense Flashheart, but I think I will take the word of Japanese scholars, public school teachers, and the vast majority of the Japanese grad students who spent decades learning from and/or researching/teaching from these textbooks over a Westerner whose knowledge of Japanese history and society seems to be mainly derived from spending a year in Japan and uncritically accepting the Japanese government's spin of their "efforts" at dealing with their nation's colonial past.

Among the friends who, by the way, have lived in Japan for far longer periods than you, none would dare claim the authoritative tone of being an expert on all things "Japanese" as you seem to from your limited in-country experience. This is including the fact that two of them have extensive backgrounds studying/doing research in Japanese history and politics in both American and Japanese universities. One of them is currently a professor of Japanese/comparative politics at a major Canadian University.

Elise, the Americans should be involved in calling for Japan's apology because their very Cold War driven postwar actions effectively impeded any potential efforts to gain the evidentary documentation and testimony necessary to conduct a thorough examination of war crimes such as the enslavement of Comfort Women and Unit 731's biological warfare experiments on local civilians and POWs in
Manchuria.

This resolution, though late, is a decent gesture that attempts to remedy the damage by American active indifference over the last several decades.

Elise, the Americans should be involved in calling for Japan's apology because their very Cold War driven postwar actions effectively impeded any potential efforts to gain the evidentary documentation and testimony necessary to conduct a thorough examination of war crimes such as the enslavement of Comfort Women and Unit 731's biological warfare experiments on local civilians and POWs in Manchuria.

So the Americans should demand someone else apologise for their atrocities while not taking responsibility for their own efforts in covering those atrocities up?

Should the US also be demanding that Chile apologise for the desaparecidos, torture, and mass murder under Pinochet? Considering that the US role went considerably beyond that of a mere accessory after the fact (indeed, the US government incited and facilitated the atrocities before the fact in Chile, as in so many places), the US would be even more justified in demanding that other people take responsibility. Perhaps the US should also demand that the former soldiers and officers of the ARVN for the atrocities they committed under US orders as well.

That last lines hould read: Perhaps the US should also demand that the former soldiers and officers of the ARVN take responsibility for the atrocities they committed under US orders as well.

When Discussing Slavery (U.S.) reparations, here are some things to keep in mind:

1. Slaves were promised 40 acres and mule

2. Former slaves did try and get reparations during their lifetime, but were always denied.

3. Slavery began in 1620. And lasted for (not counting the slave masters who did not inform their slaves that where free..they are testimonies of African-Americans who were held as slaves into the 1960's) 246 years. For another 100 years, African-Americans had to live under "black codes" and jim crow. Subject to rape, murder, being thrown off their land when they got too "uppity", lynching, riots, substandard, if any, education, etc..and the perpetrators, if legally perused (rare), were always found innocent.

3. The Civil Rights Act came in 1964.
It has only been 43 years since then.

So please tell me how no one of African-American descent (or anyone really) is not directly affected by slavery?

Also, please, don't try the Oh, however will they prove that your ancestors where slaves? argument. Even though, I'm fortunate enough to be able to prove it (I've got the tax records where my ancestors are listed as "property"), the lack of documentation was a purposeful act.

Although I have those tax records, I will never know from where my ancestors came. I will never know what songs they sang, what stories they told, what jobs they held before they were stolen. Tell me that is not a direct result of slavery.

The comfort women and their children deserve everything they're asking for and more.

oenophile-Do you know how lucky you are to know your ancestors where Irish? You can go visit Ireland. Read books by Irish authors. Study Irish history and learn Gaelic. Learn Irish cultures, ancient and present, and read Irish legends and myths.

African-Americans where purposefully denied these kinds of things (although it is amazing what has survived). It greatly, GREATLY affects me to this very day and will for all the days of my life. Tell me how this is not a direct result of slavery?

So the Americans should demand someone else apologise for their atrocities while not taking responsibility for their own efforts in covering those atrocities up?

Elise,

While I agree that this apology demand would have been better had the US acknowledged its complicity, this can serve as the first step toward a long process towards that goal.

Should the US also be demanding that Chile apologise for the desaparecidos, torture, and mass murder under Pinochet? Considering that the US role went considerably beyond that of a mere accessory after the fact (indeed, the US government incited and facilitated the atrocities before the fact in Chile, as in so many places), the US would be even more justified in demanding that other people take responsibility. Perhaps the US should also demand that the former soldiers and officers of the ARVN for the atrocities they committed under US orders as well.

Yes along with other American historical wrongdoings, including slavery of African-Americans and the seizure of American lands from the Native Americans. Unfortunately, as was demonstrated with the inadequate apology rendered toward Japanese-Americans for their wartime internment, it is usually a long drawn out process that takes decades of lobbying to overcome stubborn resistance from the perpetrating government.

My own views on the issue of Japan's responsibility for its colonial past is not that of one who cheers this policy on for the sake of American jingoism, but one who has family and friends who were personally affected by the depredations wrought by Japan's colonial rampage.

My own views on the issue of Japan's responsibility for its colonial past is not that of one who cheers this policy on for the sake of American jingoism, but one who has family and friends who were personally affected by the depredations wrought by Japan's colonial rampage.

All of which are matters of monumental indifference to the US government. It's interesting that the issue of comfort women, which is hardly a recent discovery, is now the subject of US government demands for an apology. Previously, the only thing the Japanese Empire had done that was considered worthy of an apology by these great humanitarians was the attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbour.

Hypocrisy aside, the only purpose that is served by the US suddenly discovering that the Japanese Empire committed atrocities other than responding to threats by attacking a US colony is to divert attention from the current atrocities being committed by the US government itself.

If the US government is suddenly so interested in justice for the victims of the Japanese Empire, one might be forgiven for suggesting that they get the ball rolling by apologising for their role in thwarting justice back when the wounds were still fresh.

States do not care about atrocities. They are not moral actors. They respond only to "pragmatic" concerns of feasibility and utility. If we wish to test the sincerity of a politician who professes concern over others' atrocities, we would do well to ask what he's said about the atrocities committed (and being committed) by the goverment of which he is a part.

Condemning others' atrocities while remaining silent about one's own is nothing but pure moral cowardice.

The comfort women and their children deserve everything they're asking for and more.

Roxie,

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

What makes the victimization of the Comfort Women so tragic was the fact the social stigma borne of patriarchial assumptions of the time along with the psychological trauma was such that the vast majority ended up living lives of silence and shamed isolation.

To worsen matters, their own compatriots saw their victimization as a humiliating symbol of their nation's subjugation under Japan. This coupled with the unfortunate tendency of many to conflate former Comfort Women with hated fellow citizens who collaborated with Japanese colonial authorities further added to the shame and psychological trauma felt by former Comfort Women.

As a result of this along with the common patriarchical assumptions of the time, very few former Comfort Women were in any position to start familes and/or have children.

I support reparations for comfort women but I have one question. At what point does the right to reparations end? Some of my ancestors would have been slaves. Should I be entitled to reparations from former Viking countries?

No offense Flashheart, but I think I will take the word of Japanese scholars, public school teachers, and the vast majority of the Japanese grad students who spent decades learning from and/or researching/teaching from these textbooks over a Westerner whose knowledge of Japanese history and society seems to be mainly derived from spending a year in Japan and uncritically accepting the Japanese government's spin of their "efforts" at dealing with their nation's colonial past.

I also don`t take the Japanese government`s "spin" uncritically; rather, I take critically foreign governments` continuing interventions against what is probably the only country in the world which actually teaches any truth about its war past, and which has made any kind of apology, reparations and aid.

Regardless of whether the apologies a nation makes are self-serving or undermined by subsequent actions, the fact remains that Japan`s apologies are the best any country has ever done. Continuing to insist from the position of past victor that this country should make its record better, when one`s own record is very very shoddy, is at best opportunistic and at worst racist. The obvious consequences in Japan will be that the majority of ordinary Japanese, who support policies of contrition, will stop supporting them.

Also regarding the issue of language used for an apology being that of the victim rather than the aggressor; I presume this means that when the US apologizes to the Iraqis, it will do so using suitably religious language that Islamic people would take to mean the apology was serious? So there will be much invocation of Allah by your christian nation when you apologise?

I take critically foreign governments` continuing interventions against what is probably the only country in the world which actually teaches any truth about its war past, and which has made any kind of apology, reparations and aid.

Actually, Germany made apologies and reparations much sooner and much more extensively than Japan. Public education and public discourse in Germany deal with Nazi war crimes and German militarism in an open and straightforward manner, with the focus on the moral responsibility of Germany. The same cannot be said of Japan.

Flashheart,

I understand the indignation you and Elise share about American hypocrisy regarding this bill. While I agree that it is hypocritical, I also feel it would be equally hypocritical for the US to remain silent on this issue due to American complicity in depriving former Comfort Women the means of gaining justice through the courts. Moreover, the fact that Japan relies heavily on the US for its regional security needs means the Japanese politicians cannot brush the Comfort Women's demands for an apology as easily as Japan's victimized nations and individual victims. While I understand nations are not moral in their considerations, they do pay attention to exertion of power from a more powerful actor. Despite the hypocrisy, if this action results in Japan's taking this issue much more seriously than it has so far, it would have been worth it.

As Elise has mentioned above, Germany's actions regarding its wartime legacy is a far greater demonstration of remorse than Japan's. The few efforts Japan regarding diplomacy with its former victims has often been done as an exercise of Japanese economic privilege due to her greater economic clout. In the eyes of victimized nations' citizens, those treaties were used to "buy out" Japan's wartime guilt. Worsening this feeling was the fact those treaties were approved by governments with no input or consent from their citizens.

More recently, several international jurists in a 1992 UN Report on the Comfort Women stated that those treaties' clauses renouncing individual citizen's rights to launch claims against Japan for its wartime conduct is not legally enforcable under the norms of international law. They also criticized the same type of clause present in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 for the same reasons.

As with the previously mentioned Korean-Japanese and Sino-Japanese treaties, the Asian Women's Fund was also seen by most former Comfort Women as the Japanese government's attempt to use its economic privilege to buy its way out of having to issue a serious unreserved apology taking full responsibility demanded by its victims.

This is probably a little bit late, but this link will shed light on the Japanese "revision of history" controversy.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/?last_story=/tech/htww/2007/07/03/atomic_apology/

I think actually this link will shed more light on the issue:

http://www.je-kaleidoscope.jp/english/index.html

This website holds English translations of the major textbooks used for middle school English teacing in Japan. You can also read the text of the main "controversies" on wikipedia. I think it`s a stretch to argue that these books are avoiding Japan`s moral responsibility.

Furthermore, the books shown here are the latest revisions; one of them (which I didn`t read) is the new Right Wing textbook, issued last year. During the storm of controversy over this book the other textbooks were supposedly watered down and made less satisfactory for foreign readers (I read about this debate in an article from the New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies). The conservative book, however, is used in about 8 schools in Japan (less than half a percent of all schools). The rest use the books shown in the JE Kaleidoscope website.

So Exholt, I think you should revisit your claims about the material presented in Japanese schools. Perhaps you are confusing points about historical correctness (i.e. discussion of which details to present in a story) with political correctness (i.e. discussion of whether the textbooks give a correct overview of issues like moral responsibility). I think it likely that in Middle School teaching, for example, the former is unlikely to occur. The latter is more important.

I`m going to leave this issue now, being late in my responses (I have been busy). I should mention in closing that I think your reading of my blog is very unsympathetic - I have tried at all times to maintain the level of uncertainty of, and present the tone of, a bemused outsider, and I think it takes an unsympathetic reader to see otherwise. The cause of my more assertive statements her eis my anger at the US demanding apologies from others that it will not give itself.

Flashheart,

A few points.

1. I am wary of relying on wikipedia for critical information. While there are some decent informative articles, I've already had to correct several major factual errors, miscontextualizations, and outright biases on topics pertaining to Chinese/Japanese history as well as an article dealing with early Windows operating systems.

2. My arguments are mainly with the omission of certain details and/or the use of vague/euphemistic language to decontextualize and thus, mislead the reader in understanding the scope and gravity of a historical event.

For instance, in one of the books on the link you provided, the book "Tokyo Shoseki" stated that "The Koreans themselves were sharply divided between the pro-Japanese camp...and the pro-China camp.(p. 15)" While it is technically correct, the book neglects to mention that these divisions started out as a power struggle between two camps within the royal family where the Japanese took advantage of one camp's desire for their help as a chance to augment their influence on the Korean peninsula. They also completely omitted mentioning how Queen Myeongseong became such an impediment to Japanese desires for more influence in Korean affairs that she was murdered by Japanese led assassins in 1895.

Moreover, most Korean and Japanese historians felt the effective start of Japanese colonization process of Korea started from around 1895, not 1905 as that text states. I am certain the Korean and Japanese history professors in my department would be hitting their heads at these omissions of critical contextualizing information in discussing Japan's colonization of Korea.

History is not simply a collection of facts and details of such facts. Those facts must be understood in the context of the time, place, culture, and other factors to be effectively analyzed and understood. To do otherwise would reduce history to a collection of disjointed facts and minutiae.

One can effectively "rewrite" history not only by completely omitting undesirable events, but also through the process of mentioning such events in ways so distorted that they end up misleading the reader as to the context and scope. The latter is the main bone of contention most Japanese historians both within Japan and abroad have about the way Japan's colonial legacy is presented in the history texts from the 1950's onward.

Again, my "claims" about Japanese history textbooks are based on seeing such texts firsthand and hearing presentations about them from Japanese scholars, schoolteachers, and Japanese classmates who've spent decades learning from, teaching from, and/or researching them. Again, I think I'll continue to take their word on this, especially when my examination of your link has confirmed much of what they have said so far.

3. My "unsympathetic tone" was not based on reading your blog though it did play a small part, but mainly from the tone with which you used to argue your points on this blog.

Exholt! Don't be so obstinate! You are looking at these texts first hand (as I said, you can find extracts on wikipedia; if you really want to argue factually though you can read the JE kaleidoscope documents). You can see for yourself that these texts give the general thrust of the history of the war correctly.

Your points about Korea from 1895 etc. are correct, but this issue is somewhat separate and comes back to my point about teaching history (to Middle School students!) You can teach history correctly without teaching it correctly, just as you can teach Physics correctly while teaching it all wrong. As far as our discussion here goes, the concern is not that the history book aimed at Middle School students (12-15 year olds?) glossed over the historical reasons for Korean divisions of opinion; it is about whether or not the history being taught is broadly morally correct. I.e does it say

1. Japan invaded asia
2. the co-prosperity sphere was propaganda
3. Bad things were done

Sure the details are something for historians to slap their heads over but we're talking 12 year olds here. As a neutral example, look at Tokyo Shoseki's description of the start of ww1. One paragraph, which states that the assassination of whats-his-face was the reason for the war. This is standard middle school history but it's not correct in the sense that historians like to think.

I suppose you need to be asking yourself, what is your purpose in criticising a Japanese history book for 12-15 year olds? Do you want to revise the book so it takes 15 years to read and bores every kid to death? Or do you want it to say "Bad things were done by the Japanese to the Chinese"? If you want the latter, then I would say that these books are okay. If you want the former, I can only assume you aren't teaching 12-15 year olds!

As for my blog and your unsympathetic tone, if I may rebut your critique with one of my own: I see that you think America is hypocritical to demand people "speak english or leave". While I agree with you about this, I note that your position is radically opposed to the position on this thread. In both cases your position falls on the side most consistent with your Chinese heritage. A dispassionate observer could argue your hypocrisy on the issue of American hypocrisy is based on your particular personal position, not on a critical analysis of the particular circumstances which apply. So on that basis I am not particularly fazed by your overly critical interpretation of my tone.

Obstinate?! That is like the pot calling the kettle black. You continue to maintain Japan has given out the best apology when several posters have already pointed out that Germany's apologies to its wartime victims went far beyond Japan's in word and deed. If you want to compare, there is really no contest as to who has shown more genuine remorse to their victims.

Moreover, the omissions I mentioned could easily be remedied by a few well-worded sentences instead of the magnum opus you seem to be implying. These are not only my own criticism from examining Japanese history texts beyond the ones in the link you provided, but also from the Japanese history scholars who research this period of history and Japanese public school teachers who teach it.

Your assertion that "You can teach history correctly without teaching it correctly, just as you can teach Physics correctly while teaching it all wrong." is dangerous when the omitted detail or decontextualized text ends up misleading the reader to the scope and context one needs to accurately understand the historical event. Your quoted statement is also self-contradictory. It sounds like something the old neighborhood stoned addicts would say to me on my daily walk to and from school.

My biases not only come from my being Chinese-American, but also from being a history major who is sick of people like David Irving, Tanaka Maasaki and others like them who try to whitewash and distort history for sinister non-scholastic purposes. While the Japanese Education Ministry does not approach the extremes Tanaka or The Japanese Society For Textbook Reform would take, the textbooks they approve still falls far short of even approaching a cursory examination of the depth or gravity of the historical events within Japan's colonial legacy.

To give an example from recent US history, it is as if I distorted the Japanese-American internment during WWII by playing up the actual fears US authorities had of Japanese-American sabotage and espionage activities while completely omitting or neglecting to give similar weight to the fact the American authorities later concluded those fears were mostly overblown after a series of investigations.
If one omits or downplays this critical fact, many American students could easily be mislead into believing that the Japanese-Americans were dangerous enough to justify the paranoia by US authorities when this is contrary to the actual historical evidence.

As to your last point, a dispassionate observer could also view your uncritical defense of the Japanese government's position as a Westerner whose strong interest in Japan causes him to overlook its flaws and to become defensive when anything related to it is criticized.

Incidentally, your behavior fits a pattern I've seen in many Japanophiles and Sinophiles who've gone abroad without learning much about their respective nation's history and related issues beforehand. Upon going abroad to live in their respective nations of interest, the combination of strong interest with the freshness of being newly arrived causes most to have a mentality that their adoptive nations "cannot go wrong". Like you, they also tend to get virulently defensive whenever anyone criticizes their nation of interest. Fortunately, most grow out of this way of thinking after two or more years in-country.

Alas, some never grow out of this "uncritical love" phase. I've had similarly heated arguments with Western Sinophiles who refuse to believe that Mao Zedong or the current Chinese Communist Party did anything wrong in its history. They make those assertions even though there is plenty of damning evidence in cases such as the Cultural Revolution or Tienanmen Square. As with you, I'll take the living witnesses (including some relatives), documentation, and prevailing scholarly consensus over a Western Sinophile whose knowledge of Chinese culture and society is mainly derived from limited in-country time and some knowledge of the language.

Thankfully, most Westerners with interest in East Asia that I've met tended to do through research in the nation's history and related issues before going abroad. They described how this "grounded" them so that they do not fall into this trap of "uncritical love" for their nation of interest. Not only are they able to maintain sufficient skepticism, they also tend to be much more humble and aware of the limits of their knowledge and act accordingly.

Exholt, the issue of German and Japanese war reparations is something of a red herring. Japan has a far more civilised modern policy towards war and aid than Germany, which all decent nations should be applauding and supporting:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/postwar/60th.html

As far as I can tell from reparations information available on the internet, Japan paid 1 billion us $ compensation by 1955, under the peace treaty. In 1998 money, that is worth about 6-20 billion US dollars, depending on whether you adjust for GDP growth. Given Japan's GDP growth has been far greater than America's, I would suspect the higher end of those values is the more accurate. To the best extent I can tell, Germany paid $62 billion in reparations. (As opposed to loans and aid). So unless you want to argue that Japan's actions were on a par with Germany's for destructiveness, I don't know that the argument about Germany's vs. Japans reparations is really an argument that can be resolved in anything but an academic sense. Germany killed 30 million Russians. Their reparations are, of necessity, quite large.

The same can be said of "coming to terms" with the war. Germany had a democracy before the war, its leadership were not established through military coup, they weren't nuked and they had a little issue of genocide to account for. The differences between the 2 nations need to be considered in what is ultimately an academic debate.

I'm not sure what you mean about decontextualised text. The books I linked to mostly say things like "Japan invaded China" for "financial gain" or "resources" and describe the co-prosperity sphere as a "smokescreen" to hide "colonialism" and the like. How is language like this "decontextualising"? Wasn't this the context? How would you prefer this were reported? Remember, you have 1 paragraph to state your case to 12 year olds.

You seem to think that Japanese 12 year olds need to be taught all the details of history as if every ounce of context was relevant to what they need to learn. What they need to learn is that Japan did bad things for bad reasons; they need a broad outline of those bad things. This is history taught incorrectly, because 12 year olds don't learn history well. I don't know how you can look at the history in those books and say it is particularly off, given its target audience and the goals of a middle school history class. Or should Japan's middle school history classes be about American curricula, in your view?

As for the last couple of paragraphs: you think I've "gone native." Nice choice of colonial motif to finish your comment.

Finally, can you tell me: if the US needs to get its own language in order before it tells others to speak English, why should it not have to get its own reparations in order before criticising Japan? Particularly when it is in a war which is on track to kill 1 million people, hasn't acknowledged its own genocide history, won't pay slavery reparations, harboured most of Japan's criminal scientists for personal gain, and has never apologised for Vietnam? Shouldn't we be supporting those nations which have apologised (i.e. Germany and Japan) even if their apologies are flawed, and using their achievements to pressure our own nations to do better? Or is it all about China vs. Japan for you?

Flashheart,

Your exhibited ignorance of the historical issues related to Japan's colonial legacy is quite revealing in your posts, especially the last one.

I would argue Japan's damages are at least on par with Germany's for the following reasons.

1. Japan has effectively controlled the Korean peninsula since at least 1895 though the official annexation took place in 1910. From that time until 1945, the Japanese state used Korea as a ready repository of natural resources and a captive market for Japanese-made goods. Japan also used Korea as a "lebensraum" for poor Japanese farmers who needed a new homestead, local Koreans be damned. During this period, Japan also attempted to wipe out Korean language and culture through policies such as forcing all Koreans to adopt Japanese names, learn Japanese in schools, and discouraging the use of Korean language and cultural practices through harsh punitive means. Though there were Korean resistance groups, they were often harshly suppressed along with innocent Korean civilians whose only crime was to be in the area where the uprising occurred. With the addition of forcible impressment of Comfort Women and slave laborers along with the harsh treatment of Korean civilians at the hands of Japanese colonial authorities, I think it is quite understandable why most Koreans harbor deep bitter resentment of their former colonizer. The Japanese use of economic privilege in the mid-60's only exacerbated the Korean perception that Japan continues to act with a colonial entitlement mentality. This is especially when the South Korean Prime Minister at the time was well-known as a former collaborator who served as an officer in the Japanese army.

2. In China's case, the Japanese war machine has been fighting the Chinese on and off since 1931 when the Japanese Kwangtung Army annexed Manchuria from China. From that point onward, Japan started to develop Manchuria as another free repository of natural resources and another "lebensraum" for Japanese farmers looking for bountiful land, the locals be damned. Manchuria was also the region where Unit 731 and other Japanese bio-chem warfare units set up research labs and supply stockpiles. Many of those stockpiles are still causing deaths and serious injuries in the present.

Throughout the 1930's the Japanese army and navy air forces had initiated indiscriminate bombing runs on Chinese cities which prompted strong, but ineffectual international condemnation. In this regard, the Japanese army and navy have the dubious distinction of being the first to use the widespread indiscriminate bombing of cities in the conflict that would become known as WWII.

When the Japanese army started to invade more deeply into China, the Japanese state proceeded to exploit the natural resources and industrial infrastructure of China's northeast for their own imperial growth. Due to fierce anti-Japanese resistance as the invasion continued, Japanese military authorities instituted punitive policies not only against Chinese soldiers, but also against the rest of the Chinese population. One good example of this is the "three alls" policy where Japanese army units were ordered to loot, burn, and kill everyone and everything in their assigned operational areas.

Did I also mention that when the Japanese army started to invade SE Asia that the military authorities singled out minority Chinese populations. Many were rounded up and killed without a pretense of a trial as their "Chineseness" was proof enough of being guilty of being an anti-Japanese guerilla in the eyes of Japanese military authorities.

3. This does not include the killings, looting of natural resources, enslavement of the local indigenous populations, daily humiliations visited upon the local populations by Japanese soldiers, and the brutal replication of Japanese cultural imperialism where Japanese language and culture were forced on the local population.

In short, Japan's colonial legacy has caused at least as much damage to the victimized Asian societies and victims as Germany's rampage through Europe did to theirs.

As for your accusation of you "going native", I think you misunderstood. "Going native" would imply you have a full understanding and appreciation for one's culture of interest. From your postings, I doubt your limited in-country experience and your apparent lack of knowledge of major issues in one of the most important chapters of Japanese history would provide you with the prerequisites necessary for "going native". Maybe after more in-country time coupled with many more readings on the subject from Japanese/Asian studies specialists from Japan and elsewhere.

Your uncritical quoting of Japanese Foreign Ministry's websites on the subject further underscores your ignorance. Of course the Japanese government is going to try to put the best spin on the situation even when their Asian victims know better. I also find it telling the foreign ministry places a higher priority in translating those sample history texts into English rather than the languages of their Asian victims. It smacks of an attempted slick PR campaign targeted to Western audiences to put pressure on the non-Western victims to "stop whining" and "get over it".

This along with the continuing perception of the Japanese state's "colonial entitlement mentality" among the Asian victims is one reason why Japan is deeply hated in Asia. One byproduct that I found noteworthy is how Japan has been termed "the WASPs of Asia" by some Asians. Ironically, the phrase and its meaning was first explained to me by several Japanese classmates who have done research on Japan's colonial legacy in Korea, Philippines, and China. Several Korean and Chinese classmates confirmed it when the topic came up. You would do well to emulate those Japanese classmates and start learning about the perspective of the Asian victims instead of continuing to repeat the PR of the Japanese government.