Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese?
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 21:47
VIEWED: 25305
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
...
"Basically, Japanese people are very law-abiding. We have been taught not to swim when there are no lifeguards," he says. "Same with traffic lights. You don't see many people jaywalk here do you?"
It's true. Even along car-free country lanes, people tend to wait patiently for the cross signal.
What happens on 1 September is that lifeguards vanish, because local authorities pull them from the beaches and close all amenities. Summer-season beach bars and restaurants are also meekly dismantled.
"Many of us are so submissive to authority that we will never think to challenge the status quo," says Sato.
Indoctrination starts at school. Children are drilled: "Follow the rules. Don't be selfish. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
They learn that custom decreed long ago that autumn (the time you halt beach trips and instead do autumny things) returns at midnight on 31 August precisely. Only a barbarian would be foolish enough to disregard "correct behaviour" that has been established over generations by broad consent.
"Most Japanese are very conscious of the 'four seasons' and what they should do for each season," another Tokyoite and beach lover, Yukiko Oono, tells me.
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29429742
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a bit of an ongoing theme of some of my arguments with them and their culture - Yuriko even agrees with me about it, that by rooting their culture in such obedience they are destroying the meaning of their own lives.
This is, in my opinion, what causes hikikomori, NOT social anxiety, but a variant form of C-PTSD on a wider scale in combination with an absolute repudiation of the values forced on them by their society, Zielenziger has done some work on it also.
Retreating Youth Become Japan's 'Lost Generation'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6535284
Of course, there's other cultural flaws which flow from the same root, such as the ridiculous level of misogyny in that society, especially the conservative end of it - generally second children are viewed poorly, and in a culture where one is expected to marry off the first daughter only to improve their social and economic standing, every daughter past that is subject to the viewpoint, often within their own family, that they're a waste of space.
Which is why a backwater shinto temple to a childrens kami wound up overflowing with miko, because those families dumped them on Yuriko as a surrogate mother to be RID of them, hell some of em weren't even welcome in their own homes fer crying out loud.
(which is mind you, one of the only reasons I play along with her intentions.)
Sure, some of it's population pressure and no ROOM for individual expression, but with a declining population and advances in technology that's no longer the excuse it once was, and part and parcel of why I see hikikomori for what they are, people who refuse to "play ball" with social and cultural norms they find offensive or unconscienable.
Believe me, understanding their culture better than most westerners doesn't make me any fonder of it, which some folks might assume because I do appreciate some of their arts.
I will say we could learn a thing or two from em about public transportation systems and infrastructure though.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Want to know about the Japanese? Look at the 61-volume official biography of Emperor Hirohito about to be published. The Japanese are pushed around by their teeny-tiny hierarchy and the results are terrible for ordinary Japanese. But do they revolt against the hierarchy? No. They are 127 million robots taking orders from only 300,000 leaders and then marching to their deaths. BANZAI!
Quote:www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/hirohito-string-puller-not-puppet.h
The official history confirms Hirohito’s bullheadedness in delaying surrender when it was clear that defeat was inevitable. He hoped desperately to enlist Stalin’s Soviet Union to obtain more favorable peace terms. Had Japan surrendered sooner, the firebombing of its cities, and the two atomic bombings, might have been avoided.
Why does all this matter, nearly 70 years since the end of the war?
Unlike Germany, where acceptance of responsibility for the Nazis’ crimes is embedded in government policy, Japan’s government has never engaged in a full-scale reckoning of its wartime conduct. This is partly because of the anti-imperialist dimension of the war it fought against Western powers, and partly because of America’s support for European colonialism in the early Cold War. But it is also a result of a deliberate choice — abetted by the education system and the mass media, with notable exceptions — to overlook or distort issues of accountability.
tml
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not really.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Want to know about the Japanese? Look at the 61-volume official biography of Emperor Hirohito about to be published. The Japanese are pushed around by their teeny-tiny hierarchy and the results are terrible for ordinary Japanese. But do they revolt against the hierarchy? No. They are 127 million robots taking orders from only 300,000 leaders and then marching to their deaths. BANZAI!Quote:www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/hirohito-string-puller-not-puppet.h
The official history confirms Hirohito’s bullheadedness in delaying surrender when it was clear that defeat was inevitable. He hoped desperately to enlist Stalin’s Soviet Union to obtain more favorable peace terms. Had Japan surrendered sooner, the firebombing of its cities, and the two atomic bombings, might have been avoided.
Why does all this matter, nearly 70 years since the end of the war?
Unlike Germany, where acceptance of responsibility for the Nazis’ crimes is embedded in government policy, Japan’s government has never engaged in a full-scale reckoning of its wartime conduct. This is partly because of the anti-imperialist dimension of the war it fought against Western powers, and partly because of America’s support for European colonialism in the early Cold War. But it is also a result of a deliberate choice — abetted by the education system and the mass media, with notable exceptions — to overlook or distort issues of accountability.
tml
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
The failure to take accountability for their wartime atrocities is the second reason I feel discomfited by them, despite their largely peaceful and positive role they have played in the world since then.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought this was going to be about the weird sex fetishes of the Japanese , despite their outward appearances of being proper and respectful.
I basically just ignore it all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Their refusal to account for their actions includes the wartime beheading of U.S. Marine Prisoners of War. The Japanese beheaded the POWs after some time in confinement.
That they insist upon erasing that from their history, or possibly accepting it (for those more inquisitive) is very irksome.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's pretty unusual for countries to take responsibility for their wartime actions, atrocities or otherwise. Germany is an incredible exception, and I guess they really had no choice.
Most countries, cultures write history to show themselves as the heroic victors or the innocent victims. In war, both are usually fabricated stories.
It was an interesting decision allowing the Japanese Emperor to remain in power, albeit as just a figure head, at the end of the war.
I dont find Japanese culture at all creepy, it's just a different culture, some parts I dont like and some I admire.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's pretty unusual for countries to take responsibility for their wartime actions, atrocities or otherwise. Germany is an incredible exception, and I guess they really had no choice.
Most countries, cultures write history to show themselves as the heroic victors or the innocent victims. In war, both are usually fabricated stories.
It was an interesting decision allowing the Japanese Emperor to remain in power, albeit as just a figure head, at the end of the war.
I dont find Japanese culture at all creepy, it's just a different culture, some parts I dont like and some I admire.
Mostly, history is written by the victors.
That is why the Japanese example is particularly atrocious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's pretty unusual for countries to take responsibility for their wartime actions, atrocities or otherwise. Germany is an incredible exception, and I guess they really had no choice.
Most countries, cultures write history to show themselves as the heroic victors or the innocent victims. In war, both are usually fabricated stories.
It was an interesting decision allowing the Japanese Emperor to remain in power, albeit as just a figure head, at the end of the war.
I dont find Japanese culture at all creepy, it's just a different culture, some parts I dont like and some I admire.
Mostly, history is written by the victors.
That is why the Japanese example is particularly atrocious.
Good point.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jeeesh, give the Japanese a break! They atoned ... they atoned plenty! They gave us transistor radios, Godzilla, Rodan, Benihana, Kurosawa movies, tin toys, karate schools, Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, and Mitsubishi cars, motorcycles, and electronics.
What else do ya want ... an apology note with a Whitman Sampler?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Is what I worry about with regards to the Japanese.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Mostly, history is written by the victors.
That is why the Japanese example is particularly atrocious.
History is written by whoever is around to write it.
The Russian view of WW2 differs from the American view, as does the French, British, Australian, Canadian etc etc.
Everyone rewrites their own history to be as heroic as possible. That's why the French focus on the Resistance, the Russians of the battle of Stalingrad, the British on Dunkirk. The Japanese focus on the bombs and their impact. I'm not suggesting that its healthy of them not to acknowledge the atrocities they committed during the war, just saying that it's not unusual or creepy. Last time I checked my history, the Japanese and the Germans were not the only ones to have committed heinous acts during wartime.
I have to say I dont understand this thread or the views in it. I dont find the Japanese creepy, threatening or particularly weird. I know my father's generation hated them, but he was the WW2 generation, so it's kind of understandable. But that was, you know nearly 70 years ago. So a big ??? from me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Jeeesh, give the Japanese a break! They atoned ... they atoned plenty! They gave us transistor radios, Godzilla, Rodan, Benihana, Kurosawa movies, tin toys, karate schools, Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, and Mitsubishi cars, motorcycles, and electronics.
What else do ya want ... an apology note with a Whitman Sampler?
Indeed.
They also gave us Momofuku Ando, a guy who many have practically deified (and some now place in the Harvest Gods pantheon) for his efforts to feed everyone in the world possible, via a product that required no skill or tools beyond the ability to heat water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momofuku_Ando#Commemoration_in_the_United
_States
Mind you, war itself is an atrocity, and beastly acts come with it, not least of which was our nuking of a primarily civilian population, japanese biowarfare efforts (Unit 731), german death camps, russian gulags, etc...
Ain't nobody innocent when the shootin starts, nobody.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Jeeesh, give the Japanese a break! They atoned ... they atoned plenty! They gave us transistor radios, Godzilla, Rodan, Benihana, Kurosawa movies, tin toys, karate schools, Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, and Mitsubishi cars, motorcycles, and electronics.
What else do ya want ... an apology note with a Whitman Sampler?
Datsun? Toyota? Lexus? Honda? Anime? hello?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Jeeesh, give the Japanese a break! They atoned ... they atoned plenty! They gave us transistor radios, Godzilla, Rodan, Benihana, Kurosawa movies, tin toys, karate schools, Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, and Mitsubishi cars, motorcycles, and electronics.
What else do ya want ... an apology note with a Whitman Sampler?
Datsun? Toyota? Lexus? Honda? Anime? hello?
Oh yeah, anime. Teenage girls love that stuff!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Jeeesh, give the Japanese a break! They atoned ... they atoned plenty! They gave us transistor radios, Godzilla, Rodan, Benihana, Kurosawa movies, tin toys, karate schools, Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, and Mitsubishi cars, motorcycles, and electronics.
What else do ya want ... an apology note with a Whitman Sampler?
Datsun? Toyota? Lexus? Honda? Anime? hello?
Oh yeah, anime. Teenage girls love that stuff!
Where is that perv 6? Asian girl groups.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that its healthy of them not to acknowledge the atrocities they committed during the war, just saying that it's not unusual or creepy
I disagree, I think a nation being in denial about atrocities committed on such a massive scale is unusual.
Quote:
So a big ??? from me.
It's the slavish relationship the Japanese have with authority that worries me. Such unquestioning submission to authority makes me think of concentration camp guards 'just following orders'.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I'm not suggesting that its healthy of them not to acknowledge the atrocities they committed during the war, just saying that it's not unusual or creepy
I disagree, I think a nation being in denial about atrocities committed on such a massive scale is unusual.Quote:
So a big ??? from me.
It's the slavish relationship the Japanese have with authority that worries me. Such unquestioning submission to authority makes me think of concentration camp guards 'just following orders'.
It's not personal. It's just war.
Who are you and what have you done with the normally delusional kpo?
In this surrealistic experience, you are, like, kinda making sense, like. What gives?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anime? hello?
I never got anime. Never did appeal to me. Too over dramatic and simplistic, at the same time. Despite the cool visuals, it bores me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anime? hello?
I never got anime. Never did appeal to me. Too over dramatic and simplistic, at the same time. Despite the cool visuals, it bores me.
Are you Japanese? Do you buy other Japanese stuff? Or are you more patriotic and buy only the Chinese stuff at Walmart?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I'm not suggesting that its healthy of them not to acknowledge the atrocities they committed during the war, just saying that it's not unusual or creepy
I disagree, I think a nation being in denial about atrocities committed on such a massive scale is unusual.
I could give you dozens of countries that have either not acknowledged atrocities or they have written their history in a way that justifies or minimizes atrocities, the US included. I'd say its more the norm that not. so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
It's the slavish relationship the Japanese have with authority that worries me. Such unquestioning submission to authority makes me think of concentration camp guards 'just following orders'.
/b]
Asian cultures are just different and tend to have different attitude to authority. if you know anything about Confucianism, you'll understand how it has influenced many Asian cultures.
The idea is to respect and obey your parents and elders and respect for moral authority and respect for you ancestors and what they have to teach about living.
It is very different to the culture that I have - descended from a hotchpotch of disenfranchised and transported cultures with scant regard for authority and a disregard for what came before. Granted parts of it are difficult to understand and accept, but I find your attitude of defining this something this complex 'creepy' kind of ignorant and immature.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anime? hello?
I never got anime. Never did appeal to me. Too over dramatic and simplistic, at the same time. Despite the cool visuals, it bores me.
Are you Japanese? Do you buy other Japanese stuff? Or are you more patriotic and buy only the Chinese stuff at Walmart?
I don't get anime. What's that have to do w/ anyone being Japanese ( Which I'm not ) or buying other stuff ?
I was speaking of the cartoonish sci-fi anime stuff only.
I like Chinese food, of course.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the things I noticed about things Japanese when I started watching cartoons like Yu Gi Oh and Pokemon (with my son) was how competitive they are. All those cartoons involve strong levels of competing to win moulded into their storylines.
A great Japanese move.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089881/
Pretty much anything by Kurosawa.
Pre CGI. Kurosawa must have used 1000's of extras to make this film.
I don't mind a bit of anime, loved this film
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0347149/ Howl's Moving Castle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some atrocities still not acknowledged or no responsibility taken.
Armenian Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Indonesian 'Year of Living Dangerously'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%
Ukranian Holdomor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
The Algerian Harkis
http://thinkafricapress.com/algeria/review-harkis-wound-never-heals
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In the history of human rights, the ... are always committed by somebody else, never us"
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20120606.htm
Quote:
On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement."
Dow provided the chemicals that Washington used from 1961 onward to destroy crops and forests in South Vietnam, drenching the country with Agent Orange.
These poisons contain dioxin, one of the most lethal carcinogens known, affecting millions of Vietnamese and many U.S. soldiers. To this day in Vietnam, aborted fetuses and deformed infants are very likely the effects of these crimes -- though, in light of Washington's refusal to investigate, we have only the studies of Vietnamese scientists and independent analysts.
Joining the Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of the horrendous 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of history's worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands and injured more than half a million.
Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the disaster, was taken over by Dow, for whom the matter is of no slight concern. In February, Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation for the victims and prosecution of those responsible.
Another major crime with very serious persisting effects is the Marine assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in November 2004.
Women and children were permitted to escape if they could. After several weeks of bombing, the attack opened with a carefully planned war crime: Invasion of the Fallujah General Hospital, where patients and staff were ordered to the floor, their hands tied. Soon the bonds were loosened; the compound was secure.
The official justification was that the hospital was reporting civilian casualties, and therefore was considered a propaganda weapon.
Much of the city was left in "smoking ruins," the press reported while the Marines sought out insurgents in their "warrens." The invaders barred entry to the Red Crescent relief organization. Absent an official inquiry, the scale of the crimes is unknown.
If the Fallujah events are reminiscent of the events that took place in the Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica, now again in the news with the genocide trial of Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic, there's a good reason. An honest comparison would be instructive, but there's no fear of that: One is an atrocity, the other not, by definition.
As in Vietnam, independent investigators are reporting long-term effects of the Fallujah assault.
Medical researchers have found dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukemia, even higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Uranium levels in hair and soil samples are far beyond comparable cases.
One of the rare investigators from the invading countries is Dr. Kypros Nicolaides, director of the fetal-medicine research center at London's King's College Hospital. "I'm sure the Americans used weapons that caused these deformities," Nicolaides says.
The lingering effects of a vastly greater nonatrocity were reported last month by U.S. law professor James Anaya, the U.N. rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Anaya dared to tread on forbidden territory by investigating the shocking conditions among the remnants of the Native American population in the U.S. -- "poverty, poor health conditions, lack of attainment of formal education (and) social ills at rates that far exceed those of other segments of the American population," Anaya reported. No member of Congress was willing to meet him. Press cov
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the things I noticed about things Japanese when I started watching cartoons like Yu Gi Oh and Pokemon (with my son) was how competitive they are.
Is that for the male characters, or both sexes?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I could give you dozens of countries that have either not acknowledged atrocities or they have written their history in a way that justifies or minimizes atrocities, the US included.
Really? You think dozens of countries compare to Japan in this respect? Few countries even compare to Japan in terms of atrocities committed: murdering 200,000+ in the rape of Nanking; starving and brutalising and murdering tens of thousands of POWs; forcing 400,000 women into sadistic forced prostitution - http://www.vice.com/read/seventy-years-later-japan-is-still-denying-th
e-systematic-sexual-slavery-of-chinese-comfort-women
And then 70 years later, the average Japanese person not knowing anything about these incidents, in a democracy?? I don't see how you can say that's the norm. There's only one country I can think of that's as seriously in denial about its awful history, and that's Turkey - but they're still a young (and imperfect) democracy. You bring up the USA, so let's look at the USA. Americans took land off the Native Americans - but this is well known and discussed. Slavery - ditto (also they inherited that from us, the British). The firebombing and atomic bombing of Germany and Japan in WW2 is well known and often debated - very brutal and morally questionable by today's standards but both served legitimate military aims, and helped shorten the war. They are morally ambiguous - not like Japan's massacring and sexually torturing hundreds of thousands just for the pure sadistic joy of it. So in conclusion Japan's sins are black and white, and barely acknowledged, whereas America's sins are more grey (some of them), and they are openly discussed and debated. Not really much comparison there for me.
Quote:
Granted parts of it are difficult to understand and accept, but I find your attitude of defining something this complex 'creepy' kind of ignorant and immature.
Perhaps I would find these cultural attitudes quirky and quaint and amusing, if not for the line that my mind draws between them and some extremely horrific wartime activities, that the society hasn't even begun to process and accept accountability for. It could be I'm wrong and there is no connection between Japan's national psyche and its past atrocities. Let's hope so.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What creeps me out about the Japanese is how rapidly and easily Japanese victims of Fukushima Dai-ichi became non-persons to the rest of Japan. And the hostility they received and still receive when trying to move anywhere, or get medical care or compensation.
But then the same thing happened here to the victims of Katrina. Their role was to be made to disappear as quickly as possible, so the rest of the country could absolve itself of any inkling of mutuality, and continue unruffled. Only the widespread hostility at all levels seems to be missing.
The same thing happened to Maggie Thatcher's victims of 'efficient' industry.
And then there's the victims of war and expansion the US simply steamrolled over and forgot
When I think about it, we have our own share of non-persons who've been written off.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I could give you dozens of countries that have either not acknowledged atrocities or they have written their history in a way that justifies or minimizes atrocities, the US included.
Really? You think dozens of countries compare to Japan in this respect? Few countries even compare to Japan in terms of atrocities committed: murdering 200,000+ in the rape of Nanking; starving and brutalising and murdering tens of thousands of POWs; forcing 400,000 women into sadistic forced prostitution - http://www.vice.com/read/seventy-years-later-japan-is-still-denying-th
e-systematic-sexual-slavery-of-chinese-comfort-women
And then 70 years later, the average Japanese person not knowing anything about these incidents, in a democracy?? I don't see how you can say that's the norm. There's only one country I can think of that's as seriously in denial about its awful history, and that's Turkey - but they're still a young (and imperfect) democracy. You bring up the USA, so let's look at the USA. Americans took land off the Native Americans - but this is well known and discussed. Slavery - ditto (also they inherited that from us, the British). The firebombing and atomic bombing of Germany and Japan in WW2 is well known and often debated - very brutal and morally questionable by today's standards but both served legitimate military aims, and helped shorten the war. They are morally ambiguous - not like Japan's massacring and sexually torturing hundreds of thousands just for the pure sadistic joy of it. So in conclusion Japan's sins are black and white, and barely acknowledged, whereas America's sins are more grey (some of them), and they are openly discussed and debated. Not really much comparison there for me.
Did you check any of the links I provided?
I dont want to justify any of the atrocities, but it is by far and away the norm for countries to minimize their own actions in wars and conflict and to maximize their victim status. Yes, and even America does it. what seems grey to you as an american living on american soil probably does not seem grey to Native Americans, and to countless other cultures who see themselves as victims of American military action or support for tyranny.
I dont want to get into an American bashing thread, but I think your being completely myopic about your view of Japan.
Quote:
Perhaps I would find these cultural attitudes quirky and quaint and amusing, if not for the line that my mind draws between them and some extremely horrific wartime activities, that the society hasn't even begun to process and accept accountability for.
quirky? quaint? amusing?
Have you been brought up in a box? Is that what you think about other cultures that you dont find 'creepy'? If you found the culture of 4 billion humans benign instead of being subservient and creepy, that is how you would choose to think about it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
moving along
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rape of German women postwar
Quote:
A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army fought their way into the Third Reich.[5] On the territory of the Nazi Germany, it began on 21 October 1944 when troops of the Red Army crossed the bridge over the Angerapp creek (marking the border) and committed the Nemmersdorf massacre before they were beaten back a few hours later.
The majority of the assaults were committed in the Soviet occupation zone; estimates of the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers ranged up to 2 million.[1][6][7][8][9] In many cases women were the victims of repeated rapes, some as many as 60 to 70 times.[10] At least 100,000 women are believed to have been raped in Berlin, based on surging abortion rates in the following months and contemporary hospital reports,[7] with an estimated 10,000 women dying in the aftermath.[11] Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000.[3][12] Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
denied by Russians of course
Ethnic cleansing of Germans from post war Europe
Quote:
It is estimated that between 12 and 15 million ethnic Germans, including children, were systematically expelled, tortured, raped, put in camps, starved, enslaved and executed after World War II from 1944-1948, and later. Their only crime was being German. These actions were many cases government sanctioned and done in full knowledge of the victorious allies. To date, no one has ever been held accountable, and most do not know or do not acknowledge this genocide.
http://justice4germans.com/2012/12/02/a-forgotten-genocide-the-systema
tic-ethnic-cleansing-of-ethnic-germans-in-post-war-europe/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
it is by far and away the norm for countries to minimize their own actions in wars and conflict and to maximize their victim status. Yes, and even America does it.
Yes of course most if not all countries spin their history to some extent, or at least shine a positive light on it. But to equate that to denial or mass unacknowledgement of genocide and war crimes on a massive scale is incredible. Does Britain deny or unacknowledge its role in the slave trade? Does America deny practicing slavery for the first 100 years of its history? Does Germany deny the Holocaust? Does Belgium deny its barbarous rule of the Congo? I could go on, but the pattern is clear: mature democratic countries are open and reflective about their history, even the horrible aspects. Japan is an anamoly.
Quote:
Did you check any of the links I provided?
Turkey, I mentioned - it is not a mature democracy like Japan. Indonesia ditto - and I doubt the unacknowledgement runs as deep. Russians (as far as I know) on the whole acknowledge the sins of the USSR, and consider themselves victims as well as the other peoples Moscow dominated. Algeria, it wasn't clear from the link whether the genocide has been covered up and denied or not.
Quote:
Yes, and even America does it. what seems grey to you as an american living on american soil probably does not seem grey to Native Americans
I am sure Germans agree that the firebombing of their cities was morally grey. I didn't say all the things the USA has done are morally grey - in fact I specifically said 'some of them'.
Quote:
quirky? quaint? amusing?
Have you been brought up in a box? Is that what you think about other cultures that you dont find 'creepy'?
You're getting carried away with your smug, liberal high-mindedness. Remember we were talking about particular cultural quirks: waiting for the little man to show green before crossing the road even on a deserted country road; everyone abandoning the beach on the 1st of September even though the weather is glorious because it is the 'official' end of summer. Yes, by themselves, I find these quirky, quaint and amusing.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
it is by far and away the norm for countries to minimize their own actions in wars and conflict and to maximize their victim status. Yes, and even America does it.
Yes of course most if not all countries spin their history to some extent, or at least shine a positive light on it. But to equate that to denial or mass unacknowledgement of genocide and war crimes on a massive scale is incredible. Does Britain deny or unacknowledge its role in the slave trade? Does America deny practicing slavery for the first 100 years of its history? Does Germany deny the Holocaust? Does Belgium deny its barbarous rule of the Congo? I could go on, but the pattern is clear: mature democratic countries are open and reflective about their history, even the horrible aspects. Japan is an anamoly.Quote:
Did you check any of the links I provided?
Turkey, I mentioned - it is not a mature democracy like Japan. Indonesia ditto - and I doubt the unacknowledgement runs as deep. Russians (as far as I know) on the whole acknowledge the sins of the USSR, and consider themselves victims as well as the other peoples Moscow dominated. Algeria, it wasn't clear from the link whether the genocide has been covered up and denied or not.Quote:
Yes, and even America does it. what seems grey to you as an american living on american soil probably does not seem grey to Native Americans
I am sure Germans agree that the firebombing of their cities was morally grey. I didn't say all the things the USA has done are morally grey - in fact I specifically said 'some of them'.Quote:
quirky? quaint? amusing?
Have you been brought up in a box? Is that what you think about other cultures that you dont find 'creepy'?
You're getting carried away with your smug, liberal high-mindedness. Remember we were talking about particular cultural quirks: waiting for the little man to show green before crossing the road even on a deserted country road; everyone abandoning the beach on the 1st of September even though the weather is glorious because it is the 'official' end of summer. Yes, by themselves, I find these quirky, quaint and amusing.
It's not personal. It's just war.
I had thought Germany denied the Holocaust. Copped to WWI and WWII, but had not to Holocaust.
One of the reasons Hogan's Heroes was reportedly a top comedy for their TV networks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I'm not suggesting that its healthy of them not to acknowledge the atrocities they committed during the war, just saying that it's not unusual or creepy
I disagree, I think a nation being in denial about atrocities committed on such a massive scale is unusual.Quote:
So a big ??? from me.
It's the slavish relationship the Japanese have with authority that worries me. Such unquestioning submission to authority makes me think of concentration camp guards 'just following orders'.
It's not personal. It's just war.
Not to cause an argument but the Japanese have been like this for centuries. It's burned into them so deep it will never leave. Not saying I understand it and I readily admit that I know little or nothing of their say prehistory.
Just thought I'd add that and also I am not creeped out by the Japanese and they didn't bother my dad and he fought in WW2 though in Europe.
I could be wrong that the Japanese ultra-high respect for authority led to (or facilitated) the atrocities they committed in the past, and their subsequent denial of them. It's just a hunch.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
it is by far and away the norm for countries to minimize their own actions in wars and conflict and to maximize their victim status. Yes, and even America does it.
Yes of course most if not all countries spin their history to some extent, or at least shine a positive light on it. But to equate that to denial or mass unacknowledgement of genocide and war crimes on a massive scale is incredible. Does Britain deny or unacknowledge its role in the slave trade? Does America deny practicing slavery for the first 100 years of its history? Does Germany deny the Holocaust? Does Belgium deny its barbarous rule of the Congo? I could go on, but the pattern is clear: mature democratic countries are open and reflective about their history, even the horrible aspects. Japan is an anamoly.Quote:
Did you check any of the links I provided?
Turkey, I mentioned - it is not a mature democracy like Japan. Indonesia ditto - and I doubt the unacknowledgement runs as deep. Russians (as far as I know) on the whole acknowledge the sins of the USSR, and consider themselves victims as well as the other peoples Moscow dominated. Algeria, it wasn't clear from the link whether the genocide has been covered up and denied or not.Quote:
Yes, and even America does it. what seems grey to you as an american living on american soil probably does not seem grey to Native Americans
I am sure Germans agree that the firebombing of their cities was morally grey. I didn't say all the things the USA has done are morally grey - in fact I specifically said 'some of them'.Quote:
quirky? quaint? amusing?
Have you been brought up in a box? Is that what you think about other cultures that you dont find 'creepy'?
You're getting carried away with your smug, liberal high-mindedness. Remember we were talking about particular cultural quirks: waiting for the little man to show green before crossing the road even on a deserted country road; everyone abandoning the beach on the 1st of September even though the weather is glorious because it is the 'official' end of summer. Yes, by themselves, I find these quirky, quaint and amusing.
It's not personal. It's just war.
I had thought Germany denied the Holocaust. Copped to WWI and WWII, but had not to Holocaust.
One of the reasons Hogan's Heroes was reportedly a top comedy for their TV networks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
All persons of Japanese descent were placed in to internment camps.
This is a good way to compare morality actually, as Japan had their own civilian internment camps: http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/96232/Torture-starvation-and-
hell-of-Japan-s-concentration-camps
I know which ones I would much rather stay in.
Quote:
I consider that an atrocity, the removal of these families liberties simply because they were Japanese and looked different.
'Atrocity' might be a bit strong, though it was certainly shameful and unconstitutional.
Quote:
Magon also referenced my own ancestors and for the American Indian there is no grey or in Canada either on our treatment.
Sure. I mentioned a couple of things I consider to be morally grey, but I wouldn't say everything is. Like slavery for example.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's been fascinating watch you move the goal posts in your argument to enable it make any sense at all.
Most recently, it's come down to 'if we do it, it's morally grey, if the creepy little Japanese do it, it's an atrocity.
Then there is justifying behaviours depending on whether you consider countries to be mature democracies or not.
Somehow Turkey does not qualify. Are they too creepy and Muslim because as far as I can see they've had deocratic government longer than creepy little Japan, which has been fairly close to an Absolute Monarchy prior to the end of WW2.
Speaking of creepy little Japanese, I read some of Weary Dunlop's biography a while ago. Weary http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/weary-dunlop is something of a national hero here, due to his courage as a surgeon during his period on the Burma Railway. What struck me was the incredible racism in the attitudes towards the Japanese by the British and Australian, not because of their treatment, but it was about the Japanese being an inferior race. How dare they challenge the superiority of the British empire. Something about the way you are having this conversation reminds me of this because basically, I agree that the Japanese should acknowledge what happened in WW2, it's just the way you are arguing it which I find disturbing.
Interestingly enough, the Japanese were expanding their military empire same as everyone else in that period. Pear Harbour was an American base because why???? Why should Hawaii be part of the American empire rather than the Japanese one just because American decided to annex what had been a self governing nation earlier than the Japanese.
The Geneva Convention, which outlines the treatment of prisoners was never signed by the Japanese. They considered prisoners of war to be dishonourable as they were prepared to die for their Emperor. The Geneva Convention was only ever loosely followed. It went away towards some protection of prisoners, but was only followed haphazardly by the germans - didn't apply if you were Jewish, or Polish, or Russian. America has disregarded it in recent years, getting away with appalling treatment of prisoners of war (prisoners in general) because it doesn't recognise their status.
When I watched the Railway Man recently http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2058107/ he was tortured by the Japanese, you'll love this, using waterboarding. No apologies yet by the US government for their use of torture during recent military actions.
As for being subservient to authority, I'd say again that was a big feature of many collective cultures in the world, particularly Asian cultures who rely on lines of authority, including family. There is no doubt that these cultural values are not the same as western cultural values, and may seem peculiar to us, but they are the norm in SE Asian countries, and should you ever choose to visit any of these countries, you'd be advised to take note of the differences.
There are pros and cons associated with these kinds of values, does it produce more morally dubious behaviour? I'm not entirely sure when I look at the US, Britain and Europe and contrast them with Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MD:
Were not many of the asian/oriental cultures based on a caste system? Not saying that the occidentals were not, but do you feel that this has any bearing upon the obedience/authority influence of their cultures?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not in SE Asia. It really is based upon Confucianism
from Wiki
Quote:
The core of Confucianism is humanistic,[4] or what the philosopher Herbert Fingarette calls "the secular as sacred". Confucianism focuses on the practical order inscribed in a this-worldly awareness of the Tian and a proper respect of the gods (shen),[5] with particular emphasis on the importance of the family, rather than on a transcendent divine or a soteriology.[6] This stance rests on the belief that human beings are teachable, improvable, and perfectible through personal and communal endeavor especially self-cultivation and self-creation. Confucian thought focuses on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of ethics. Some of the basic Confucian ethical concepts and practices include rén, yì, and li, and zhì. Ren is an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals. Yi is the upholding of righteousness and the moral disposition to do good. Li is a system of ritual norms and propriety that determines how a person should properly act in everyday life. Zhi is the ability to see what is right and fair, or the converse, in the behaviors exhibited by others. Confucianism holds one in contempt, either passively or actively, for the failure of upholding the cardinal moral values of ren and yi.
Historically, cultures and countries strongly influenced by Confucianism include mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, as well as various territories settled predominantly by Chinese people, such as Singapore. In the 20th century, Confucianism’s influence has been greatly reduced. More recently, there have been talks of a "Confucian Revival" in the academia and the scholarly community.[7][8]
Interestingly, the Confucianism ideals were most rejected by the Communists in this area of Asia because it did not square up with Marxist ideology.
According to wiki, it doesn't require subservience to authority, but loyalty.
Quote:
Loyalty
Loyalty (Chinese: ?, zhong) is particularly relevant for the social class to which most of Confucius' students belonged, because the most important way for an ambitious young scholar to become a prominent official was to enter a ruler's civil service.
Confucius himself did not propose that "might makes right", but rather that a superior should be obeyed because of his moral rectitude. In addition, loyalty does not mean subservience to authority. This is because reciprocity is demanded from the superior as well. As Confucius stated "a prince should employ his minister according to the rules of propriety; ministers should serve their prince with faithfulness (loyalty)".[26]
Similarly, Mencius also said that "when the prince regards his ministers as his hands and feet, his ministers regard their prince as their belly and heart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him as another man; when he regards them as the ground or as grass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy".[27] Moreover, Mencius indicated that if the ruler is incompetent, he should be replaced. If the ruler is evil, then the people have the right to overthrow him.[28] A good Confucian is also expected to remonstrate with his superiors when necessary.[29] At the same time, a proper Confucian ruler should also accept his ministers' advice, as this will help him govern the realm better.
In later ages, however, emphasis was often placed more on the obligations of the ruled to the ruler, and less on the ruler's obligations to the ruled. Like filial piety, loyalty was often subverted by the autocratic regimes in China. Nonetheless, throughout the ages, many Confucians continued to fight against unrighteous superiors and rulers. Many of these Confucians suffered and sometimes died because of their conviction and action.[30] During the Ming-Qing era, prominent Confucians such as Wang Yangming promoted individuality and independent thinking as a counterweight to subservience to authority.[31] The famous
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How much are we really able to question authority in the west.
Military personnel are still trained to follow orders, otherwise armies just wouldn't function. In fact, being able to follow orders without question is a central tenet in enabling militaries to function. Refusing to follow an order or questioning authority can still lead to court martial and imprisonment (eg Bradley Manning) and not so long ago lead to death
As Frem said, all war is an atrocity. Most men would run and throw down arms in the face of certain death or injury, because lets face it, when we take up arms, it's generally not because the homestead is under attack. Armies rely upon men who have been trained to act not question in order to function.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Most recently, it's come down to 'if we do it, it's morally grey
At this point I question your ability to understand basic written English.
Quote:
Somehow Turkey does not qualify. Are they too creepy and Muslim because as far as I can see they've had deocratic government longer than creepy little Japan, which has been fairly close to an Absolute Monarchy prior to the end of WW2.
Turkey began multi party democracy in 1945, just a couple of years before Japan. But Turkey has endured a series of military coups since then, which has hampered its democracy... I could go on, but basically no, I don't view Turkey as a mature democracy. If you check global democracy ratings/indices you'll find they agree with me.
Quote:
No apologies yet by the US government for their use of torture during recent military actions.
President Obama:
"I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake."
“Waterboarding is torture. It’s contrary to America’s traditions, it’s contrary to our ideals, it’s not who we are, it’s not how we operate”
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magons
FWIW I find the processes by which the cultures write off whole swathes of people different - but not the end result. The Japanese may actively deny things - but here in the US we have our rationalizations and cultural callousness at the ready instead. The homeless? Lazy. Victims of Katrina? Foolish. Iraqis? Muslim. NA natives? Whachagonna do? it's all in the past and anyway, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And so on. It's how we - and they - justify doing what we want to do.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KPO>You're nitpicking history in an attempt to reinforce your own flawed argument that Japan is singular in it's denial of its atrocities.
The democratic ranking is nothing to do with maturity of democracy and I'm not sure that there is an index which outlines such a concept. You'll note that many 'immature democracies' are ranked highly, including many former eastern bloc states who are not only very recently democratic but were also referenced in a number of the unacknowledged atroctities that I provided links to. The rankings have nothing to do with maturity, but a number of political and social dimensions, including economy, health, gender, equity. And even on this basis, Turkey rates somewhere in the middle along side South Africa, and above Thailand, Indonesia, India and Malaysia.
so give it up, really. Your understanding of the Japanese culture is, at worst, racist and at best, just an ignorant view from someone so seeped in western cultural superiority that you can't acknowledge difference in other cultures without feeling weirded out by it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Magons
FWIW I find the processes by which the cultures write off whole swathes of people different - but not the end result. The Japanese may actively deny things - but here in the US we have our rationalizations and cultural callousness at the ready instead. The homeless? Lazy. Victims of Katrina? Foolish. Iraqis? Muslim. NA natives? Whachagonna do? it's all in the past and anyway, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And so on. It's how we - and they - justify doing what we want to do.
Yup, along with us as well. Although Australian government has recently done the apology thing to Indigenous Australians, there is still lots of cultural denial that anything too bad took place.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The rankings have nothing to do with maturity, but a number of political and social dimensions, including economy, health, gender, equity.
What did you think I meant by 'maturity' of a democracy?
Quote:
And even on this basis, Turkey rates somewhere in the middle along side South Africa, and above Thailand, Indonesia, India and Malaysia.
And way below Japan, which was my whole point...
Quote:
so give it up
I'm sorely tempted.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, clutching at straws now. Turkey was one example of many, many examples of atrocities denied by countries on all spectrum of the democracy index. It doesn't support your argument in any way, which appears to be that Japan is somehow unique in its denial because, you seem to be saying, it has a unique characteristic in that it is subservient to authority.
So here it is a nutshell. It's not alone in its denial and it's not unique in it's attitude to authority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My position crystallised as this:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Does Britain deny or unacknowledge its role in the slave trade? Does America deny practicing slavery for the first 100 years of its history? Does Germany deny the Holocaust? Does Belgium deny its barbarous rule of the Congo? I could go on, but the pattern is clear: mature democratic countries are open and reflective about their history, even the horrible aspects. Japan is an anomaly.
You have not shown me a single mature democracy that is in as serious denial of its bad history as much as Japan. I know I didn't mention it at first but democracy is an important factor here because it ensures that government is open and transparent, and that there is freedom of speech and opinion - which ought to ensure a large degree of openness and honesty about a country's history.
So, to disprove my claim you would need to show:
1. A country that has a democracy rating comparable to Japan's
2. Atrocities committed by that country comparable to Japan's
3. Evidence that this country denies or fails to acknowledge its atrocities as much as Japan
None of the cases you have given so far come close to meeting these criteria.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
How much are we really able to question authority in the west.
Military personnel are still trained to follow orders, otherwise armies just wouldn't function. In fact, being able to follow orders without question is a central tenet in enabling militaries to function. Refusing to follow an order or questioning authority can still lead to court martial and imprisonment (eg Bradley Manning) and not so long ago lead to death
As Frem said, all war is an atrocity. Most men would run and throw down arms in the face of certain death or injury, because lets face it, when we take up arms, it's generally not because the homestead is under attack. Armies rely upon men who have been trained to act not question in order to function.
I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.
For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?
You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
KPO>You're nitpicking history in an attempt to reinforce your own flawed argument that Japan is singular in it's denial of its atrocities.
so give it up, really. Your understanding of the Japanese culture is, at worst, racist and at best, just an ignorant view from someone so seeped in western cultural superiority that you can't acknowledge difference in other cultures without feeling weirded out by it.
Must agree. Not only as directed at kpo, but also many others with the same viewpoints.
As a reference, have you always been on the same continent/island, or have you lived on other countries for periods?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!
I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.
Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)
Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.
Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.
I'm sorry I dont know what you are referring to here. What slang? Context?
Quote:
For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?
You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.
I'm not making snide remarks and I'm not actually taking a position here. It was an observation of how the military functions and why 'following orders' is a necessary part of its function.
Basically you have to be trained to be in circumstances that most untrained people would flee or be unable to function.
As for the rest of the topic, I suppose I tend to see things in more greys than black and white than many people. That being said, I dont think all things are equal in war. There are definetely behaviours that are more atrocious than others, but the very act of declaring war (or not declaring and waging armed conflict) means that you will be killing in order to achieve your goals. Each society tends to 'pretty up' the unpaletable by making it a rightous conflict or a 'necessary to preserve our way of life'...and sometimes it is, but often, mostly, it's about control of resources or spheres of influence or both.
In most wars, if the young men and women who were on the front line really thought about it and the reasons they were doing it, they'd pretty much 'fuck this, I'm outa here' but then again armies have long been made up of the poorest, with least or no choice led by the most powerful.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
[
Must agree. Not only as directed at kpo, but also many others with the same viewpoints.
As a reference, have you always been on the same continent/island, or have you lived on other countries for periods?
Lived mostly in this remote neck of the world, but also in UK for 6 years. You?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I keep seeing mentions like this and I am no longer certain that the context and slang is understood.
I'm sorry I dont know what you are referring to here. What slang? Context?
"When we take up arms, it is not usually because the homestead is under attack"
As a strictly technical statement, I have seen this or similar often here, and usually let it slide.
Some might see "homestead" being used as slang, some might see it as reflecting context, some might think of it by strict definition. Is it meant to represent "the land our Family's home is built upon" or generically "the Home Land of our nation, the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave" or something in between?
Quote:Quote:
For any civilization or society which desires to survive, waiting until the actual land upon which the home is built (the "homestead") is tactically and strategically very stupid and extremely short-sighted.
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon Territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming invaders?
Would it make better sense to wait until an attack upon the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House or Congress, or see it coming and stop it before it gets that far, although it would be called an "attack" against the oncoming infiltrators?
When pursuing a peace or combat campaign in the barrens of the Middle East, would it make better sense to find the most valuable piece of land, or most useful piece of land, and try to defend it, or to find a vacant spot in the desert and dig in a defensive position, from which planning can sprout from, and greatly effective skirmishes can be controlled from?
You may be making snide remarks, or you might actually understand the wisdom, I'm not sure. If you were interested, thought I would help by pointing out the higher level of military opertions which you might have been making snark on.
I'm not making snide remarks and I'm not actually taking a position here. It was an observation of how the military functions and why 'following orders' is a necessary part of its function.
Basically you have to be trained to be in circumstances that most untrained people would flee or be unable to function.
Military theater is not the sole purview of this team trait. Firefighters are trained to go in the opposite direction as those fleeing the fire - I do not often see the ungrateful minimizing their efforts, values, morals, or guiding principles. EMTs see much gory injuries, yet are trained to ignore the horrors and treat with life-saving measures. Training is a must in many jobs.
Quote:
As for the rest of the topic, I suppose I tend to see things in more greys than black and white than many people. That being said, I dont think all things are equal in war. There are definetely behaviours that are more atrocious than others, but the very act of declaring war (or not declaring and waging armed conflict) means that you will be killing in order to achieve your goals. Each society tends to 'pretty up' the unpaletable by making it a rightous conflict or a 'necessary to preserve our way of life'...and sometimes it is, but often, mostly, it's about control of resources or spheres of influence or both.
In most wars, if the young men and women who were on the front line really thought about it and the reasons they were doing it, they'd pretty much 'fuck this, I'm outa here' but then again armies have long been made up of the poorest, with least or no choice led by the most powerful.
This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belitt
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!
I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.
Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)
I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood. My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.
2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.
3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.Quote:
Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.
1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.
2. Poor communication and lack of understanding probably on both sides but this one I will lay at the White Man's door.
3. Don't get me started on this one. Yes, the missionaries played heavily into it. Lazy Indians, heathens. We must convert them to our God, and our way of doing things. Groundwork for destruction of cultures and families that are trying to rebuild to this day. My own have first hand knowledge of the residential school system in the US. This one is all the White Man.
4.There would have been much discussion between Dakota, Cheyenne and mine before the Little Big Horn and it was successful. There would have been a hiercharchy there. Tecumseh tried to gather a coalition in the east to deal with the White Man but he couldn't get the tribes to stop long enough to see the threat.
Quote:
Thanks in advance for your response. Often, it seems each "side" blames the other for breaking the treaties, "Indian giving", "land theft", and forced migration to "reservations" and such; and I wonder how much of it was truly evil and greed, and how much was monumental gaps in communication.
You're welcome. My feelings are that most of the treaties broken
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.
No snark at all. It's what I believe.
I dont know who Pat Tillman is, what he has done and nor have I made any reference to him to be able to belittle him. I have no idea what you are talking about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.
No snark at all. It's what I believe.
How atrocious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I meet few pure bloods anymore, even multi-Nation Pure Native.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!
I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.
Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)
I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood.
Quote:Quote:
My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.
Are you disputing that entire Tribes/Nations/Races were wiped out by other Tribes prior to 1492?
Quote:Quote:
2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.
Did they not also move to avoid certain other warring Tribe?
Quote:Quote:
3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.
Yes, and this lack of experience with the pitfalls of written language left them at disadvantage. Like a modern day layman (Native) signing a contract with a lawyer (White Man).
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.
1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.
Thank you. I did suspect you to be worthy of entering discussion with.
Quote:Quote:
2. Poor communication and lack of understanding probably on both sides but this one I will lay at the White Man's door.
3. Don't get me started on this one. Yes, the missionaries played heavily into it. Lazy Indians, heathens. We must convert them to our God, and our way of doing things. Groundwork for destruction of cultures and families that are trying to rebuild to this day. My own have first hand knowledge of the residential school system in the US. This one is all the White Man.
I'm not sure I can argue. However, keep in mind thi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
why the double?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This sounds highly snide or snarky of you, I don't see why you would think it wasn't. I do think that Pat Tillman thought long and hard about his decisions, as well as his wife, and it does not behoove you to belittle their ideals, actions, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pat is not the only example, merely a more visible one.
We are here due to our love of a Hollywood production. Recall that Hollywood was in many regards rationed due to the large number of Hollywood personnel who left to serve in WWII. A great many of them did so of their own will.
No snark at all. It's what I believe.
How atrocious.
You didn't finish your sentence. "How atrocious, you don't agree with me"
Carry on, Colonel Blimp
^that was a snark
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Attempting to edit for readablility.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Due to weird editing, I need to quote this and edit it just to be able to read it.Quote:I meet few pure bloods anymore, even multi-Nation Pure Native.
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
And since NA is my home and I am an American Indian, I can't count how many times I have heard, "That's all in the past and you have to move on" Ugh!
I am curious of your viewpoint, which I ask when I find Native Americans who seem to understand things.
Can you agree that certain Given situations existed:
1. Native American Tribes/Nations were effectively slaughtering each other, exterminating whole societies, prior to White Men showing up. That is, Whites were not instrumental or inventive in introducing this to the realities of the Tribal life.
2. Native Americans did not have words or understandings of "land" or "land ownership" or even clear language for any "ownership" as the Whites assumed they did.
3. Native Americans lack of written history, unfamiliarity with the concepts and pitfalls of written history. (I'm not sure if there were any Tribes which had written history, or a written language, prior to introduction by Whites)
I'll take a stab at answering you.But you must remember that though I think of myself as an American Indian, I must state that I am not pure blood.
I've known a few pure bloods up here and some people like me, mixed-blood.Quote:Quote:
My understandings have come from my family and looking at the history critically.
1. There was fighting here amongst the tribes but not complete destruction of tribes to my knowledge. The White Man did however introduce scalping to America.
Are you disputing that entire Tribes/Nations/Races were wiped out by other Tribes prior to 1492?
No. I can't dispute that or the fact that slaves were taken in the fighting. Though to my understanding the slaves could win or were eventually adopted into the tribe that took them.Quote:Quote:
2. We knew the land as we lived on it but "land ownership" was not known to us. Tribes had territories that they moved around for hunting purposes especially when you speak of the prairie tribes like the Dakota, Cheyenne and such.
Did they not also move to avoid certain other warring Tribe?
Yes, that happened as well.Quote:Quote:
3. Most histories were oral and they said we have been here since the
beginning of time. Time for us meant the movement of the seasons and days. Not hours, minutes and seconds. History meant births, deaths and maybe major battles, like the Little Big Horn. There are petroglyphs scattered around North America where certain are carved in stone. Though the meanings have been lost to time.
Yes, and this lack of experience with the pitfalls of written language left them at disadvantage. Like a modern day layman (Native) signing a contract with a lawyer (White Man).
It did.Quote:Quote:Quote:
Do you feel most of the poor relations and/or atrocities between White Men and Native Americans were do to:
1. Evil White Men - solely, or almost exclusively this.
2. Very poor communications between Whites and Natives.
3. Religious missionary work.
4. An overwhelming mountain of new information, technology, concepts, languages, threats, combining to hamper the adequate response or discussion among the Native Tribes.
1.This is a hard one to deal with. I would love to say yes it was all the White Man's fault, my rational side won't let me.
Thank you. I did suspect you to be worthy of entering discussion with.
I'm not sure if I should appreciate this remark or be insulted. You see I feel that at times I have to see both sides of the picture because of my family's history. Though I fe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Sort of off topic: I love Toronto.
Carry on.
I've never been to Toronto. So I know nothing about the city except what I have read and seen on tv.
I learned from Canadian Bacon that Toronto is the Capitol of Canada.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Sort of off topic: I love Toronto.
Carry on.
I've never been to Toronto. So I know nothing about the city except what I have read and seen on tv.
I learned from Canadian Bacon that Toronto is the Capitol of Canada.
Okay, first off Toronto likes to think it is the capitol of Canada but it's not. That distinction falls to Ottawa. Same province of Ontario but that's all.
If you have not seen Canadian Bacon, you should.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It needed to be done. Surprised it wasn't done already.
You're welcome.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More on Japanese internment of Western civilians during the war: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29665232
A useful comparison for those tempted by moral equivalence with regards to the internment of Japanese Americans.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More on Japanese internment of Western civilians during the war: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29665232
A useful comparison for those tempted by moral equivalence with regards to the internment of Japanese Americans.
One of the under taught ( ignored ) parts of WW2 history. I knew of " some " folks who found themselves in camps, but had no idea it was so wide spread.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More on Japanese internment of Western civilians during the war: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29665232
A useful comparison for those tempted by moral equivalence with regards to the internment of Japanese Americans.
One of the under taught ( ignored ) parts of WW2 history. I knew of " some " folks who found themselves in camps, but had no idea it was so wide spread.
Especially in Japan...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
if you are interested in that part of history, I can recommend a couple of films -
Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085933/
Paradise Road http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119859/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The Railway Man http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2058107/?ref_=nv_sr_1
A Town Like Alice http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049871/?ref_=nv_sr_1
I love A Town Called Alice, such a beautiful poignant film - an early look at how war changes people when such things were usually not acknowledged.
I am assuming that this part of history is more well known here, from some of your comments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hope not too many are downplaying the treason committed by "Japanese-Americans" against the United States, and for Imperial Japan.
Which was why the internment camps were established, to isolate potential traitors. Unfortunately, there were no Democrat camps to isolate the Democrat traitors.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're a bit of a 'one idea only' fella, aren't you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I also loved Paradise Road, although it copped criticism for being racist in the US for its depiction of the Japanese - another indication that KPO's creep factor is that some of the stuff that appears to be new news in the US 'geez, the Japanese were shitty to prisoners during ww2' is old news here.
Like A Town Called Alice, it's about the experiences of women in prisoner of war camps.
Interestingly enough, the Man Booker Prize (a very prominent literary prize' has been won by Richard Flanagan for his novel "The Narrow Road to Deep North' based on his father's experience on the Burma Railway. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/richard-flanagan/the-narrow-road-t
o-the-deep-north-9780857980366.aspx
Sadly, I struggled to get through this novel, but I will try again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More attention in Britain and the US is given to the war in Europe, which was the main theatre of war for those countries. I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe, so naturally the war against the Japanese is what is most remembered there. But that's not to say Japanese atrocities against Brits and Americans are forgotten, or 'new' - they're not.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Outside of Peal Harbor, Midway and Iwo Jima, about the only thing anyone is taught of the Pacific theatre are possibly the Flying Tigers.
And dropping the first atomic bombs, of course.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More attention in Britain and the US is given to the war in Europe, which was the main theatre of war for those countries. I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe, so naturally the war against the Japanese is what is most remembered there. But that's not to say Japanese atrocities against Brits and Americans are forgotten, or 'new' - they're not.
It's not personal. It's just war.
God your knowledge of history is pretty shitty. A quick Google search will give you this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_Worl
d_War_II
Australians fought in Europe, North Africa and the Pacific, along with New Zealanders, Canadians and many other soldiers from the 'British Empire'. From 1939 as well, in case you dont realise that the war started for everyone else then. In fact one of the controversy's of the war for us is that Churchill prevented Australian soldiers from returning to Australia from the European 'arena' to protect Australia when the Japanese invasion threat became imminent (Darwin was bombed) despite the request from our then Prime Minister.
British casualities from the Burma railway were exceedingly high, so I believe that it's well known in the UK as well.
One of the pissy things about many mainstream films is that it appears that only Americans fought in WW2, which I believe adds to the messiah complex demonstrated by some on this board.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Outside of Peal Harbor, Midway and Iwo Jima, about the only thing anyone is taught of the Pacific theatre are possibly the Flying Tigers.
And dropping the first atomic bombs, of course.
And where did the Japanese fly to get to Pearl, over my home province of British Columbia. Which at that time had many a military target on the coast. BC's coast was covered by our military to protect it.
We were chosen as a fly-over for their bombers to avoid your radar.
Japanese bombers, in 1941, flying over British Columbia to get to Hawaii base Pearl Harbor?
Got any cites? Further info? Not sure I've heard of this, or that it makes any sense. Seems like it would be beyond fuel range for any bomber in 1941. Were these land-based or Carrier-based bombers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More attention in Britain and the US is given to the war in Europe, which was the main theatre of war for those countries. I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe, so naturally the war against the Japanese is what is most remembered there. But that's not to say Japanese atrocities against Brits and Americans are forgotten, or 'new' - they're not.
God your knowledge of history is pretty shitty. A quick Google search will give you this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_Worl
d_War_II
Australians fought in Europe, North Africa and the Pacific, along with New Zealanders, Canadians and many other soldiers from the 'British Empire'. From 1939 as well, in case you dont realise that the war started for everyone else then. In fact one of the controversy's of the war for us is that Churchill prevented Australian soldiers from returning to Australia from the European 'arena' to protect Australia when the Japanese invasion threat became imminent (Darwin was bombed) despite the request from our then Prime Minister.
British casualities from the Burma railway were exceedingly high, so I believe that it's well known in the UK as well.
One of the pissy things about many mainstream films is that it appears that only Americans fought in WW2, which I believe adds to the messiah complex demonstrated by some on this board.
In case you are interested, here are a few thoughts.
The media coverage from Yurp was much more reliable, timely, consistent, and quantitative. Communications across the vast Pacific was troublesome, both for the military and the media. Island-hopping meant that weeks could go by without news, or action, while covering one mile in Yurp could be followed day by day by anybody with a map or memory from WWI. The foreign names of Pacific Islands also made it hard for many to find on a map or in their memory.
One thing that American military has held to is unit cohesion. Few other countries had entire Armies assembled, ready to mesh with the flanking Army next to them, with the same weapons, practices, training. Films showing a mish-mash of nationalities in combat make it harder for dim audiences to follow. Hope you know by now that Hollywood dumbs down everything, mashes 20 people into one character, and homogenizes at every step possible.
I'm not trying to rationalize or apologize, but if you didn't already know these factors, it might help you to understand. Those who know history see these things, they are not trying to demean or belittle the efforts and sacrifices of those who served. Even in America, I was not taught and did not know about the Navajo Code Talkers until I was already in the Marine Corps. There are many incidents like this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That would be really odd if they chose that route to get to Hawaii.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
God your knowledge of history is pretty shitty. A quick Google search will give you this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_Worl
d_War_II
Well, your ability to google trumps my knowledge of history - but not your ability to read, apparently. From your link:
Quote:
While most Australian forces were withdrawn from the Mediterranean following the outbreak of war in the Pacific, they continued to take part in large numbers in the air offensive against Germany. From 1942 until early 1944, Australian forces played a key role in the Pacific War, making up the majority of Allied strength throughout much of the fighting in the South West Pacific. The military was largely relegated to subsidiary fronts from mid-1944, but continued offensive operations against the Japanese until the war ended.
Pretty much what I was saying - most Australian fighting took place in the war against Japan. Elsewhere in the Wiki article it even says: "relatively few Australians fought in Europe during World War II".
If I was going to correct someone, and be an arse about it, I would make sure I got my facts straight. But that's just me.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
if I were you, I'd stop trying to argue, because, man are you bad at it. I've never seen someone slip and slide quite like you.
You said "I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe,'
So buddy, yes they did as you yourself have just validated by your quote from the article I linked.
But keep arguing yourself into your ditch AGAIN.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Actually just saw this last night - what a powerful film. I didn't think there was much chemistry between Kidman and Firth at first, but I think that's because they felt they needed to get to the other story pretty quickly. In the end the film made a big impression - definitely recommend.
FWIW: plenty of US know about Japan, both their brutality and our confinement of them in WWII.
In terms of now, I'm a fan of Japanese architecture and fashion and food, and that's my contribution.
Now, back to the thread!
I read a little of the true story, it seems he already had a family when he met the character Kidman based, so they did kind of rush through the relationship stuff. But yes, very powerful.
An interesting history too. My son has been studying the Restoration of the Meiji.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That would be really odd if they chose that route to get to Hawaii.
As I already said to JSF. I apologize for my error. My mother wasn't the only buying into the hysteria of a Japanese attack on Canadian soil.
Lotta hysteria on the West coast w/ regards to the Japanese during the war.
Ever see the Spielberg comedy, 1941 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_(film)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You said "I don't think many (any?) Australian regiments fought in Europe,'
That's a statement and a question. The statement is that I don't think many Australian regiments fought in Europe. And Wiki agrees with me:
"...relatively few Australians fought in Europe during World War II".
Regiment, of course, means army - and what was the extent of the Australian army's fight in Europe? A 3 week campaign in Greece.
So tell me again why what I said was wrong?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Yes, there was. Sadly.
Another film I have heard of but not seen. Comedy and movies about war not a good mix in my opinon.
Point taken, but if you can't laugh with former enemies turned friends about the past, then it makes wounds tougher to heal. Time helps too, of course. Just a thought.
And ever heard of Hogan's Heroes ?
Same sort of idea.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1941 - great movie with 2 of the sexiest gals of the era ... Dianne Kay & Nancy Allen.
A few other great war comedies :
Kelly's Heroes
M.A.S.H.
Teahouse of the August Moon
Mr. Roberts
McHale's Navy
Good Morning Viet Nam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Blackadder 4 is a good one, looks at the tragic absurdity of WW1. And what is comedy about, if not absurdity?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not to everyone's taste (as with most British humour), but this series in particular had a serious message about war (the 4 series were set in 4 different periods of history), and was probably the funniest. Certainly it's the most well-loved.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The first season of Blackadder is pretty average, I didn't really like it, but then Ben Elton came on board as a writer and it just took off from there. It really is a terrific series, and yes, very poignant in the last series, especially the last episode which was brilliant, ground breaking stuff.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well the character he plays in Blackadder is close to the opposite of Mr Bean... though I can see why a dislike of Mr Bean would put you off.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
A few other great war comedies :
Kelly's Heroes
M.A.S.H.
Teahouse of the August Moon
Mr. Roberts
McHale's Navy
Good Morning Viet Nam
I love Mr Roberts. I find Hogan's Heroes a bit wrong these days, but I loved it when I was a kid. MASH the movie is very dark and pretty misogynist, but the series was fun.
What about Life is Beautiful, a comedy about a concentration camp. A fab film that is both funny and tragic. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118799/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What about Life is Beautiful, a comedy about a concentration camp. A fab film that is both funny and tragic.
Life Is Beautiful, along with Seven Beauties, and Jakob The Liar are movies that try to find humor during the Holocaust. Even Schindler's List has some comedic moments in it. I think Jakob The Liar is a great Robin Williams movie on many levels. Seven Beauties, with Giancarlo Giannini, is great too.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I also loved Paradise Road, although it copped criticism for being racist in the US for its depiction of the Japanese - another indication that KPO's creep factor is that some of the stuff that appears to be new news in the US 'geez, the Japanese were shitty to prisoners during ww2' is old news here.
Like A Town Called Alice, it's about the experiences of women in prisoner of war camps.
Interestingly enough, the Man Booker Prize (a very prominent literary prize' has been won by Richard Flanagan for his novel "The Narrow Road to Deep North' based on his father's experience on the Burma Railway. http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/richard-flanagan/the-narrow-road-t
o-the-deep-north-9780857980366.aspx
Sadly, I struggled to get through this novel, but I will try again.
The fact that the Japanese were crap to POWs is not new news in Canada.
I've never read any books on POW experiences in the Asian theatre during WW2. Maybe I should try expanding my knowledge.
he stories are far fewer, largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
1941 - great movie with 2 of the sexiest gals of the era ... Dianne Kay & Nancy Allen.
A few other great war comedies :
Kelly's Heroes
M.A.S.H.
Teahouse of the August Moon
Mr. Roberts
McHale's Navy
Good Morning Viet Nam
Wow. Remind me to never, ever, take your movie recommendations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What about Life is Beautiful, a comedy about a concentration camp. A fab film that is both funny and tragic.
Life Is Beautiful, along with Seven Beauties, and Jakob The Liar are movies that try to find humor during the Holocaust. Even Schindler's List has some comedic moments in it. I think Jakob The Liar is a great Robin Williams movie on many levels. Seven Beauties, with Giancarlo Giannini, is great too.
I found "Schindler's List" to be a very good film.
I don't consider Schindler's to be comedy. I would think of Catch-22, but that might be too America-centric for others.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Remind me to never, ever, take your movie recommendations.
Nice.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote JewelStaitFan: [T]he stories are far fewer, largely due to there being no survivors
of most Japanese POWs.
There were survivors, but I was too young to be one. My young-20's BF was son of a
Japanese POW. So this is 3rd hand, FWIW. He was on a sub reconnoitering a Japanese
river. They were spotted and the whole crew captured. Dunno how many guys were on
a WWII sub. They spent more than half the war as POWs. 8 of them survived & came
home. Of those 8, BF claims that his Dad was the only one who was not crazy, not a
drunk, not a suicide. It was harsh.
Otoh, I gather the Germans followed the Geneva Convention on that.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
Part of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
... largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.
No survivors? Where'd ya come up with that? The survival rate for American POWs held by the Japanese was 67%. The survival rate for British POW's was 75%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
[
he stories are far fewer, largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.
That's just not true, not even remotely true.
Many, many Australians and Brits returned after the war from POW camps.
http://hellfire-pass.commemoration.gov.au/after-the-war/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
... largely due to there being no survivors of most Japanese POWs.
No survivors? Where'd ya come up with that? The survival rate for American POWs held by the Japanese was 67%. The survival rate for British POW's was 75%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
Your link only mentions those in POW camps. No mention of Bushido that I see there. Those beheaded after capture are not listed. Have more info?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just admit you are misinformed on this one. There were plenty of survivors, hence we are able to read accounts of what happened in the camps.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME