Tuesday, July 31, 2007

"Menopausa" and "wired leftists."

石原知事「ババア」発言の賠償請求棄却 東京地裁

.

 東京都の石原慎太郎知事が他人の言葉を引用して「文明がもたらした最も有害なものはババア」と発言したことをめぐる裁判に関して、知事が記者会見で言及した発言で名誉を傷つけられたとして、都内の女性ら92人が都に損害賠償を求めた訴訟の判決が31日、東京地裁であった。須藤典明裁判長は原告の訴えを棄却した。

 石原知事は平成17年2月、「ババア発言」をめぐる訴訟の勝訴判決を受け、記者会見で「変な左翼が喧伝(けんでん)した」「(裁判は)あの人たちのパフォーマンス」などと発言。原告は名誉が傷つけられたと主張していた。

 須藤裁判長は「『変な左翼』は原告らを指すものではない。『パフォーマンス』との言葉で感情が害されることがあっても、社会的な許容限度を超えていない」と判断、原告の主張を退けた。

(2007/07/31)

Sankei(cash)

Let me explain
ISHIHARA Shintaro, the Governor of Tokyo, made the following comment on November 2001 in a weekly women's magazine with a circulation of more than 300,000: "He [a Tokyo University professor whom Ishihara is misquoting] says it's both wasteful and sinful for women to live beyond menopause, because while men can father children into their 80s or 90s, women lose their reproductive powers after menopause, yet even so they go on living until the age of Kin-san and Gin-san [famous Japanese twin sisters who lived to be over 100 ]. He says such useless human beings are extremely harmful to the whole planet. I really think he's on to something here, although I can't say such things myself in my capacity as a politician (laughter)."link

The feminist sued Ishiara.
It seems the court admitted
By saying “it is useless and sinful of women to live on after their reproductive abilities gone”, the Governor is discriminating against women (in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan), denying their value to live (in breach of Articles 13 and 25 of the same), denying the right to reproductive self-determination (Article 13 of the same), and denying the right of a human being to live and grow older as a human being with respect and dignity as the time goes by, until the day they finally pass away (Articles 13 and 25).

But
The Decision, however, did not accept that these remarks were not directed at specific individuals and as such did not constitute libellink

In response to this judgement, Ishihara stated,
The wired leftists noised about it, and it is just their "performance"

The women sued Ishihara again, saying the statment damaged the plaintiffs' honor.
So today the court ruled that Ishihara did not designate the plaintiffs by the" wired leftists " and that the word "performance" might hurt their feelings, but it does not exceed the the legally permissible level.

If you want to help these women, go to this
site it seems they want to internationalize the issue.

“Better to be known as a sinner than a hypocrite.”

Let the hyperbole begin/Japan observer
Will it have the courage to face up to the truth of its past, or will it hide from those truths in the desperate and foolish hope they will fade with time?"

He completely misses Japan's claim. Japan faced the past and that is why she apologized several times.
Will the U.S. have the courage to face up to the truth of the past, or will it hide from those truths in the desperate and foolish hope they will fade with time?

it appeals to Japan's good conscience to do the right thing by history, to do its duty to ensure that its children are fully aware of their country's bloody past, a burden that must be carried by every country

If the U.S. want Japan to reissue the apology, then the U.S. should issue her own apologies to the nations and people concerned.

Imperialism, Matt? Really?

The U.S. might not be Imperialist, but he misses liberal Japan's point for the objection. It objects to the resolution, for one thing;
It is sheer hypocrisy to be wagging one’s finger at other nations when one has yet to have looked critically at one’s own actions.liberal Japan

It seems Japan observer hasn't observed the U.S. sufficiently.
The time for debate about the hypocrisy of the US or whether it is within the duties of the Congress to pass such legislation is past; the resolution is on the books.

By the same token, the time for demanding Japan more apology is past;since, Japan issued several apologies.
Well, to be accurate, the time for the debate about the hypocrisy of the US is not past.
Not to be hypocrite, the U.S. needs to issue her own apologies to the formers prostitute GIs systematically exploited in Japan, in Korea, in Vietnam in the same way Japanese soldiers exploited the comfort women.

This resolution's passage ought to mean the end of hysterical rhetoric about how the US Congress is bullying poor Japan

It is this resolution that is the hysterical.



His linked site is also telling.
The effort also demonstrated the growing political maturity of the Asian American community, especially Korean American. Asian American volunteers and the human rights groups, coordinated by two young Korean American Washington lobbyists, were able to bring the message to individual congressman and sign up a record 168 co-sponsors.

The writer should have written, "the effort also demonstrated the growing hypocrity of ...."
In addition, the Congress believes in the importance of the U.S. Japan alliance to help maintain stability in East Asia.

It shows how much you can be hypocritical.

Anyway I think Japan should take no notice of the resolution and wait and see how the U.S will deal with her own past crimes ....and let's learn from her.
On a side note, I don't think in general Americans are hypcritcal;on the contrary,there are many sincere and self-critical Americans.

Hold the hypocrisy about ‘comfort women’


THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: July 20th, 2007

Monday, July 30, 2007

CHINA has ordered all hotels, holiday resorts and public showers to provide condoms




CHINA has ordered all hotels, holiday resorts and public showers to provide condoms, part of nationwide efforts to fight the spread of AIDS, a newspaper said today.

The regulation, issued by the commerce and health ministries, also required pamphlets about AIDS prevention to be displayed, the Beijing News said.

China originally stigmatised AIDS as a disease of the decadent, capital West - a problem of gays, sex workers and drug users. Traditionally, none of these officially existed in communist China.

It has belatedly woken up to the problem and health experts have warned the virus is now moving into the general population.

news comcash
[北京 27日 ロイター] エイズ感染予防対策の一環として、中国当局は全てのホテルやリゾート施設、公共シャワーにコンドームを常備することを命じた

中国は当初、エイズを同性愛者や売春、ドラッグなどの問題をかかえる西洋の“退廃的な病気”だと非難していた。また、これらの問題は共産主義の中国では存在しないとされていた。

世界びっくりニュース・ 2007年07月29日

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Metaphor

How is it possible for the speaker to say metaphorically "S is P" and means "S is R", when P plainly does not mean R? page 103


Rejecting traditional theories, comparison theory and interaction view as theory of meaning for Metaphor, Searle ("Expression and meaning") partially endorses them as theory of interpretation.


First he must have some strategy for determining whether or not he has o seek metaphorical interpretation f the utterance in the first place. Second....he must have some set of strategies ...for courting possible values of R. and third, he must have a set of strategies..for restricting range of Rs....page 105


Thus.
It is sometimes said that the notion of similarity plays a crucial role in the analysis of a metaphor, or that metaphorical utterance are dependent on the context for their interpretation. But...both of these features are true of literal utterances as well. page 93
(Comparison theory)

When you hear "S is P", to find possible values of R looks for ways i which S might be like P, and to fill in the respect in which S might be like P. look for salient, well known, and distinction feature of P things. page 106

Go back to the S term and see which of the many candidates for the values of R are likely or even possible properties of S
(Interaction theory)



Literal utterance
A speaker says S is P and mean S is P
P=R
sentence meaning and utterance meaning coincide.

Indirect speech act
Speaker means what he says, but he means something more as well. Thus utterance meaning includes sentence meaning but extends beyond it.
P⊃R
Ironical utterance.
Speaker means the opposite of what he says. Utterance meaning is arrived at by going through sentence meaning and hen doubling back to the opposite of sentence meaning.

Metaphorical Utterance(simple)
Speaker says S is P but means metaphorically that S is R. utterance meaning is arrived at by going through their sentence meaning.

Metaphorical utterance(open ended)
Speaker says S is P but means metaphorically an indefinite range of meanings. S is R1,R2,etc. As in the simple case . metaphorical meaning is arrived at by going though literal meaning.
P≠R1, R2....


Dead Metaphor.
Original sentence meaning is bypasses and the sentence acquires a new literal meaning identical with the former metaphorical meaning .
R≠old P
R=new P


some principles(strategies);

P1 R will be one of the salient defining characteristics.
Sam is a giant.
Sam is big.

P2 R should be a salient of well known property of P things.
Sam is pig.
Sam is filthy, gluttonous and sloppy, etc.

P3 Things which are P are often believed to be R
Richard is gorilla.
Richard is mean, nasty , prone to violence, and so on.

P4 It is a fact about sensibility , whether culturally or naturally determined, that we just do perceive a connection, so that P is associated in our mind with R properties.

Sally is a block of ice.
Sally is unemotional.

P5 the condition of being P is like the condition of R

You have become an aristocrat.

P6 P and R are the similar in meaning but P is usually restricted in its application.
His brain is addled.

P7 Go S-P relation to S-R relation based on the above principles.

The ship ploughs the sea.
(ploughing is b definition partly a matter of moving a substance to either side of a pointed object while the object moves forward.
......etc.

Given that a speaker and a hearer have shared linguistic and factual knowledge sufficient to enable them to communicate literal utterances, the following strategy and principles are individually necessary and collectively sufficient to enable speaker and hearer to form and comprehend utterances of the from S is P, where the speaker means metaphorically that S is R (where P≠R). page 112)



It is often the case that we use metaphor precisely because there is no literal expression that expresses exactly what we mean. page 114



Metaphor works only against shared belief about the sense and referent of the word.

Literal meaning

In general notion of the literal meaning of a sentence only has application relative to a set of contextual or background assumptions. page 117


For Searle, literal meaning is the base on which we interpret the metaphor.


What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymy's, and; anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions- they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins.Friedrich Nietzsche


On my reading , for Nietze, metaphor is the primordial usage of language and the literal meaning is derivative of metaphor; After long usage and social practice and sanction, it just happens to look as if it was fixed, canonical, binding, hiding the playful aspect of language.



METAPHOR AND MEANING
William Grey

Evangelicals

I had a similar thought with Foreing Dispatches when I read the post on the Marmot about the Korean missionaries in Afghanistan. Historically Chiristians came to Japan to convert Japanese Barbarians as
well as to, it is said ,colonize the nation. So it is not surprising that modern evangelicals have acted like that. But I was not sure of it because of the story of Mormon missionaries on the post.
I am not sure if Japan was lucky or not but I think it is hard for an average native Japanese to hold the idea of the absolute God so jealous as to forbid to worship other eight million kami(gods)
At best even believers would, deep down in their heart, think such "God"is just one of the great gods, I suspect.

command responsibility and the breach of the duty to remain imformed and prevent the crime'

I would like to take notice of how the war criminals had been judged;It would be a basis for the discussion on how the commanders untried would have been judged.
The followings are some useful quotes in this regard.

Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938


. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;
link



The Tribunal is of opinion that HIROTA b as derelict in his duty in not insisting before the Cabinet that immediate action be taken'to put an end to the atrocities, failing any other action open to him to bring about the same result. He was content to rely on assurances which he knew were not being implemented while hundreds of murders, violations of women, and other atrocities were being committed daily. His inaction amounted to criminal negligence.
'
The Tribunal finds HIROTA guilty under Counts 1 , 27 and 55. He i s not guilty under Counts 29, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 54.IMTfor far east pdf



338. In a number of cases against German and Japanese war criminals following the Second World War, beginning with the trial of the Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita before a United States Military Commission in Manila350, the principle of command responsibility for failure to act was relied upon by military courts and tribunals as a valid basis for placing individual criminal responsibility on superiors for the criminal acts of their subordinates. Thus, the United States Supreme Court, in its well-known holding in In Re Yamashita, answered in the affirmative the question of whether the law of war imposed on an army commander a duty to take the appropriate measures within his power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of acts in violation of the laws of war, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for failure to take such measures when violations result351.


the use of the generic term "superior" in this provision, together with its juxtaposition to the affirmation of the individual criminal responsibility of "Head[s] of State or Government" or "responsible Government official[s]" in Article 7(2), clearly indicates that its applicability extends beyond the responsibility of military commanders to also encompass political leaders and other civilian superiors in positions of authority.....


Thus, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (hereafter "Tokyo Tribunal") relied on this principle in making findings of guilt against a number of civilian political leaders charged with having deliberately and recklessly disregarded their legal duty to take adequate steps to secure the observance of the laws and customs of war and to prevent their breach. For example, while holding General Iwane Matsui criminally liable for the infamous "Rape of Nanking" by declaring that "[h]e had the power, as he had the duty, to control his troops and to protect the unfortunate citizens of Nanking. He must be held criminally responsible for his failure to discharge this duty"377, the tribunal was also prepared to place such responsibility upon the Japanese Foreign Minister at the time, Koki Hirota. In finding the latter guilty of having disregarded his legal duty to take adequate steps to secure the observance and prevent breaches of the laws of war, the tribunal thus declared:

As Foreign Minister he received reports of these atrocities immediately after the entry of the Japanese forces into Nanking. According to the Defence evidence credence was given to these reports and the matter was taken up with the War Ministry. Assurances were accepted from the War Ministry that the atrocities would be stopped. After these assurances had been given reports of atrocities continued to come in for at least a month. The Tribunal is of the opinion that HIROTA was derelict in his duty in not insisting before the Cabinet that immediate action be taken to put an end to the atrocities, failing any other action open to him to bring about the same result. He was content to rely on assurances which he knew were not being implemented while hundreds of murders, violations of women, and other atrocities were being committed daily. His inaction amounted to criminal negligence.378

358. Similarly, the tribunal found Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu criminally liable for their omissions to prevent or punish the criminal acts of the Japanese troops. In respect of the latter the tribunal declared:

We do no injustice to SHIGEMITSU when we hold that the circumstances, as he knew them, made him suspicious that the treatment of the prisoners was not as it should have been. Indeed a witness gave evidence for him to that effect. Thereupon he took no adequate steps to have the matter investigated, although he, as a member of the government, bore overhead responsibility for the welfare of the prisoners. He should have pressed the matter, if necessary to the point of resigning, in order to quit himself of a responsibility which he suspected was not being discharged.379


387. Regarding the mental standard of "had reason to know", the Trial Chamber takes as its point of departure the principle that a superior is not permitted to remain wilfully blind to the acts of his subordinates. There can be no doubt that a superior who simply ignores information within his actual possession compelling the conclusion that criminal offences are being committed, or are about to be committed, by his subordinates commits a most serious dereliction of duty for which he may be held criminally responsible under the doctrine of superior responsibility. Instead, uncertainty arises in relation to situations where the superior lacks such information by virtue of his failure to properly supervise his subordinates.
388. In this respect, it is to be noted that the jurisprudence from the period immediately following the Second World War affirmed the existence of a duty of commanders to remain informed about the activities of their subordinates. Indeed, from a study of these decisions, the principle can be obtained that the absence of knowledge should not be considered a defence if, in the words of the Tokyo judgement, the superior was "at fault in having failed to acquire such knowledge".414

389. For example, in the Hostage case the tribunal held that a commander of occupied territory is

charged with notice of occurrences taking place within that territory. He may require adequate reports of all occurrences that come within the scope of his power and, if such reports are incomplete or otherwise inadequate, he is obliged to require supplementary reports to apprise him of all the pertinent facts. If he fails to require and obtain complete information, the dereliction of duty rests upon him and he is in no position to plead his own dereliction as a defence.415Legal Character of Command Responsibility and its Status Under Customary International Law(cash)cash


# Fundamental to the Yamashita defence was the premise that he had in no way, either ordered or authorized, nor had he in any way tolerated such acts by forces under his command. He further was adamant, in his defence, that he had no knowledge of the fact that the war crimes in question were taking place.[184] He also argued that all of his time was committed to the preparation of the battle tasks at hand, that he was unfamiliar with the quality and abilities of the troops under his command, and as well that his communication infrastructure had been substantially compromised by the attacking enemy forces.[185]

The Yamashita case was subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court by way of an application for habeas corpus. The majority decision, delivered by Justice Stone[191] in large part makes little mention of the facts attendant to the conviction of General Yamashita by the original Tribunal. Rather, the majority judgment, in large part, attended to the technical aspects of the appeal. The majority decision, examined the actual allegation or charge made against Yamashita and noted that the substance of the allegation was that he (Yamashita) as commander had failed to control the actions of his forces by "permitting them to commit the extensive and widespread atrocities during the specified period".[192] However, in the same portion of the majority opinion, the following question is posed and answered:

The question is then whether the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within his power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of specified acts which are violations of a lot of war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take such measures when violations result.

It is evident from the conduct of military operations by troops whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders of their commander would almost certainly result in violations which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander of an invading army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable measures for their protection. Hence, the law of war presupposes that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the operations of war by commanders who are to some extent (emphasis) responsible for their subordinates.[193] *1


General Matsui was the commander of the Japanese China Expeditionary Forces (1937-1938. The Tribunal found that forces under his overall command responsible for the atrocities that took place in Nanking. The Tribunal while accepting evidence that General Matsui had issued orders to the effect that war crimes were not to be committed, noted that given the amount of time during which these atrocities took place that General Matsui had to have had knowledge that his orders were not being followed, and in point of fact, were being ignored. The Tribunal further found that General Matsui had both the responsibility as well as the authority to prevent the (ongoing) atrocities and added that in taking no action to control his subordinates he attracted criminal culpabilityCommand Responsibility and Superior Orders in the Twentieth Century - A Century of Evolution(cash)*2








*1
the Japanese armies were able
to occupy the Nationalist capital at Nanjing, in December 1937. The
Japanese had anticipated that with the fall of Nanjing the will of Chiang
Kai-shek and his Nationalist government would have been broken, and they
fully expected the Chinese Nationalist government, the Kuomintang, would
come to terms with Japanese hegemony in China. But, in this regard they were sorely disappointed when, despite the
privations, losses, and wholesale destruction of the Japanese invasion, the
Nationalist government resolutely determined to carry on the war, even with
the loss of their capital. Chiang Kai-shek moved his center of operations to
the city of Hankow, and the war continued on into l938.
Dean Meyers and My-Van Tran
University of South Australia

*2
It is, however, the dissenting decision of Justice Murphy[194] that has attracted greatest attention. For example, Justice Murphy observed:

Nothing in all history or in international law, at least as far as I am aware, justifies such a charge against a fallen commander of a defeated force. To use the very inefficiency and disorganization created by the victorious forces as the primary basis for condemning officers of the defeated armies bears no resemblance to justice or to military reality.*1cash


*3
The later judgement made clear what had been implicit in the previous judegements.
1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions

The Commission found that in his capacity as Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Eitan (along with the Defence Minister) had approved the operationpermitting the Phalangists to enter the camps. The Kahan Commission found liability on the part of the Chief of Staff for, firstly not taking steps to ensure the safety of the civilians within the camps and, secondly, for not putting in place procedures to allow him to receive ongoing and adequate information regarding the operation.[252] Further, the Commission found, as a matter of fact, that an officer, junior in rank to the Chief of Staff had ordered a halt to the Phalangist operation in the camps, however, this order was in effect countermanded notwithstanding information given advising of allegations murders.[253] Specifically, the Commission in its report noted:

The Chief of Staff was well aware that the Phalangists were full of feelings of hatred towards the Palestinians... On a number of occasions, the Chief of Staff had harsh and clear-cut things to say about the matter of fighting between the factions and communities in Lebanon, and about the concept of vengeance rooted in them:...

The absence of a warning from experts cannot serve as an explanation for ignoring the danger of a massacre. The Chief of Staff should have known and foreseen -- by virtue of common knowledge, as well as the special information at his disposal -- there was the possibility of harm to the population in the camps at the hands of the Phalangists...

If the Chief of Staff did not imagine at all that the entry of the Phalangists into the camps posed a danger to the civilian population, his thinking on this matter constitutes a disregard of important considerations that he should have taken into account.[254]
The clear judgment of the Commission was that the Chief of Staff had both breached his duty as well as had been derelict in the same. This was based, in large part, on the finding that he hada positive obligation to inquire as to whether or not criminal acts were taking place within the camps, and that if he was not satisfied that they were not taking place, or had not been taking place, that he was under a positive obligation or duty to prevent any possible continuation of the same. The Commission noted in this particular area that not only had the Chief of Staff disregarded information of atrocities, he had provided additional logistical support to the Phalangists in the camp
#

Amir Drori

# The Commission ruled that in his capacity of the commander of the forces in the area, General Drori had contemplated potential criminal acts being perpetrated by the Phalangists. He further had received reports from subordinates in his overall command that the civilians in the refugee camps would be at risk. It was General Drori who, at first instance, had ordered the Phalangists to cease their operations in the camps. The Commission further accepted evidence that the General had not been specifically informed that civilians were being killed by the Phalangist in the camps.[256]

# However, fault was found with his conduct in that he failed to pursue information he had received with reference to the Phalangists with whom he was dealing, and, that he further did not pursue the issue forcefully enough with the Chief of Staff. Rather, after being rebuffed by the Chief of Staff, General Drori left the issue, and in so doing, the Commission found that the same amounted to 'disengagement', and in turn this constituted a breach of duty


Command Responsibility an3d Superior Orders in the Twentieth Century - A Century of Evolution

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Sarkozy No apology for the past

Sarkozy said on 26th, in his speech at Dakar, the capital of Senegal, that slavery was " crime against a humanity", and French colonialism was "a big mistake", but he reject repentance, .....saying nobody can demand the new generation the compensation for the past that the older generation committed

7月29日産経新聞

 【パリ=山口昌子】フランスのサルコジ大統領はセネガルの首都ダカールで26日に行った演説で、過去の奴隷制度を「人類に対する犯罪」とし、仏の植民地政策を「大きな過ち」と認める一方、「悔恨に関するあらゆる考え」を拒み、謝罪拒否の姿勢を示した。
 大統領は、27日までの3日間、旧仏植民地のセネガル、ガボンを初めて公式訪問。ダカールでの演説で大統領は、強い口調で、黒人に対する奴隷制度やかつてフランスがアフリカ諸国にとった植民地化政策を糾弾した。
 しかし、「間違いや犯罪を否定するためにやってきたのではない」とも言明。「過去の世代が犯した罪の償いを現在の世代に要請することは誰もできない。植民地化は現在の困難のすべてに責任はない」とし、独立後、さまざまな問題を抱えるアフリカ側にも責任の一端はあるとの認識を示した。
 Sankei (cash)


For some reason, so far there is no English aritcles on it but his speech toward Algeria on July 10.
CNNcash


What Japanese politicians should learn is that they should first say that the invasions and the colonization were wrong and leave the details to the civilians.
What western media should note is Japan has a relatively good record on the compensations and apology among the nations who has invaded, intervened, colonized other nations.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Japan not observed

the posturing that leads Sakurai to claim to speak on behalf of all Japanese, who will be dishonored if this tiny non-binding resolution isn't crushed; the questioning of the motives of the US.(see the scare quotes around human rights and women): these are standard tropes in the gallons of ink spilled against this resolution of which I'm certain not even one percent of Americans are aware. This is the ugly side of America's Japanese ally. The airing of arguments such as these do not invalidate the alliance by any means (yet). I certainly don't think that Sakurai and company speak for the Japanese people. But they're out there, in positions of importance, and there is not nearly enough opposition to them in Japan's marketplace of ideas.Japan observer


I don't support for the movement Sakurai and her group are pushing.
But this is a misrepresentation of Japan---at least it is not as i see it.
It may be true that less than one percent of Americans will be aware of the resolution, but it does not follow that the resolution is right, and if the resolution is wrong, it is quite natural for Japanese to oppose it.
And it seems he does not know how this issue has evloved. The comfort women issue has
originated from demestic politics; just as the media and people opposing the ruling party are useing and abusing anything to topple the ruling party right now, it was mainly Asahi newspaper with a false testimony that fueled this campaign. And there are still a lot of Japanese people, including historians, who oppose Sakurai and her group.
I disagree with Sakurai on many points; but if I may, my advice to her would be that Sakurai should learn first and foremost this audacity the blogger shows.
But ironically it is this audacity of the the U.S. Representatives that has angered moderate conservatives, much more "ultra-nationalists"


On a side note, as for the two polls he cited,
Pew
If you look at it closely, 58(44+14)% think no apology is necessary.
Here is another poll whose objects were students in 2001
例えば、過去の戦争について、日本が中国に謝罪したかどうかの日中の学生の見方は異なっている。日本の学生の75%ほどは「十分に謝罪した」あるいは「不十分だが謝罪した」と見ているのに対し、中国の学生で「十分に謝罪した」と答えた学生は皆無だった

75 % of the students think Japan apologized.

As for the apology to the comfort women, surely Fuji's result is that 44% do not think that Japan has apologized sufficiently.
And yet there are other polls that show the contrary result.

アンケート掲示板たかじん
Of course the latter two results are not necessarily accurate. But I wonder how many per cent of people will respond "Yes" if the question is if another apology is necessary.
I also wonder if how many per cent of people will respond "Yes" to the question if, for instance, the U.S. has sufficiently apologized to the countries she intervened in history. And I am not sure if the result should entail that she should, or will apologize.

Moral relativity (3)

Moral absolutist holds,


1 Moral statements have truth values
2 There are good and bad arguments for the moral positions people take
3 Nonmoral fact are relevant to the assessment of the truth value of moral statements
4 There are moral facts.
5 When two moral statements conflicts as recommendations to action, only one statement can be true.
6 There is a single true morality. page1 "Moral Relativity" David B.Wong


David B. Wong rejects 5 and 6 (page 7) (---think of how to reconcile Rawls and Nozick, or the controversy over abortion---)and hold moral relativism and coupled with the premise that it is wrong to impose one's view on another person unless one can justify them to him , he derives the persuasive theory of tolerance.
Probably his ethnicity is not unrelated to this conclusion. Ethinic Chinese have been imposed western values and the mother country had constantly intervened by western countries; it is not difficult to imagine that a professor of Chinese background, one way or another, has arrived such a view.

Bataille's longing for the death of self and continuity

Eroticism, it may be said, is assenting to life up to the point of death.

The whole business of eroticism is to strike to the inmost core of the living being, so that the heart stands still. The transition from the normal state to that of the erotic desire presupposes a partial dissolution of the person as he exists in the realm of discontinuity

it is paving the way for a fusion where both are mingled, attaining at length the same degree of dissolution. The whole business of eroticism is to destroy the self-contained character of the participators as they are in their normal lives.

Eroticism always entails a breaking down of established patterns, the patterns, I repeat, of the regulated social order basic to our discontinuous mode of existence as defined and separate individuals

Erotic activity, by dissolving the separate beings that participate in it, reveals their fundamental continuity, like the waves of a stormy sea. In sacrifice the victim is divested not only of clothes but of life (or is destroyed in some way if it is an inanimate object). The victim dies and the spectators share in what his death reveals. This is what religious historians call the element of sacredness. This sacredness is the revelation of continuity through the death of a discontinuous being to those who watch it as a solemn rite. A violent death disrupts the creature’s discontinuity; what remains, what the tense onlookers experience in the succeeding silence, is the continuity of all existence with which the victim is now one.

mystical experience, as far as our strength allows us to break off our own discontinuity, confers on us a sense of continuity.

And then, beyond the intoxication of youth, we achieve the power to look death in the face and to perceive in death the pathway into unknowable and incomprehensible continuity─that path is the secret of eroticism and eroticism alone can reveal itGeorges Bataille/Erotism introduction

Bataille glimpsed the world of continuities in eroticism.
I would rather say eroticism lives through your body.It moves you passionately and perceive itself through you body:it is the ultimate self that is continuous with you. Discontinuous existence is just the state of its declining.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Taoist concept of self

As long as [we make the ability the ground of worth],we continue to compare ourselves with others and respect ourselves more or less accordingly ....we must get away from the idea that there must be winners and losers in the pursuit of respect, and that means getting away from the view that respect is deserved in virtue of some quality that can be possessed. page 205
We have deep tendency to "enter the comparative process" and compete for' 'morality. This does not mean that we are to lose all awareness of moral categories....What it does mean is that we should not make respect for rules the primary foundation of respect for human beings. We should cultivate the part of us that spontaneously identifies with others, the state of consciousness in which the boundaries between self and others fall away. ....The idea is that once we are able to suspend looking at people through evaluative categories, we will be able to accept them for what the are, see them as beings like ourselves, and care for them as we care for ourselves.
page 208.....[T]he innocence of one who immediately identifies with others...and who is able to suspend the use of evaluative categories is like the innocence of the infant who has no conception of self as distinct from others. ..But the innocence of adulthood cannot be identical to the innocence of the infant because the adult transcends the self while never losing it entirely. page 214 Moral Relativity David B. Wong.

Putin and history

"Yes, we had terrible pages" in Russia's history, Putin said in remarks broadcast on state television. "Let us recall the events since 1937, let us not forget that.link(cash)">

via Japan Probe
Putin has a good point.
Russia should "never forget" the abuses of the Communist era, Putin said. But he also said no one had the right to make Russia feel guilty about those abuses.

In a way it is true. guilt should not be imposed by somebody else. The sense of guilt overwhelms you even when you are trying to hide it, even when nobody notice it, but you can also pretend you feel guilty without feeling guilty. It makes no sense to impose the sense of guilt on somebody.
What Putin should have said, however, is that no one should politicize history just as some people and journalists are doing.

I am not Christian but I am reminded,
He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone....

As for this, the author of this site rightly points out,
It is incorrect to equate the "throwing" of a "stone" with criticisms and confrontation.

God says people should not act hypocritically by pointing out the sins of others when they themselves are deeply involved in sin.

Now what happened after that is more interesting.
And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones,

Nowadays it seems there are even younger people who know little about their own nation's history.
The less people know their own history the more relentlessly they accuse the other of the sin she committed,
So the "hypocrite" might be too strong, but immature or ignorance might be the right word for them. The word "hypocrite" should be reserved for the people who persist in accusing people without correcting his attitude even after it is pointed out he committed the same crime.

The message the U.S. is sending

No F-22 for Japan Japan probe
It is interesting how Japanese conservatives, who have been pro--USA, will read the message from this news and the resolution 121.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Prime Minister Abe's slip of tnogue

"LDP and DPJ are the only parties that have the ability to carry out the reform, "said Prime Minister Abe on 23rd in the speech on the street of Nagasaki city; he was supposed to say LPD and the coalition party , New Clean Government Party(NK), not DPJ
He retracted it immediately, saying "I made a big mistake, DPJ can never attain the reform, it is only LPD and NK that have the ability to reform." He had been criticizing DPJ
just before this statement: the momentum, it seems, made him misspeak.




「改革実行力、民主にも」・首相、言い間違え

 「改革実行力があるのは私たち自民党と、そして民主党であります」――。安倍晋三首相が23日、長崎市内の街頭演説で連立パートナーを公明党でなく、民主党と言い間違える一幕があった。

 首相は自ら間違いに気付き「大変な間違いがありました。民主党には絶対に改革はできない、私たち自民党、公明党しか改革の実行力はないんです」とすぐさま訂正。この直前まで首相は民主批判を繰り返しており、勢い余って「民主党」の名前が飛び出してしまったようだNikkei net(cash)

Debito all too Debito (4)

UPDATE
A Japanese blogger posted clips showing stereotypical Asians depicted in the U.S. It clearly shows that what Debit was saying is false.
He wrote:
you just know that if an American TV show were to do this sort of thing–make all the [fill in the blank] into Asians, Chinese, or Japanese (with accents or stereotypical features to boot)–there would be complaints from either the local anti-defamation leagues or even the Japanese embassy (cf. New York Senator Alphonse D’Amato making fun of Judge Lance Ito’s Japanese ethnicity in 1995

I am not saying that since since racism is rampant in the U.S. it is okay in Japan.
; racism is wrong in anyplace, and Japan needs education and needs to put the education into practice just as the U.S.needs to do so. (The first thing I was told from a white students at the dormitory was that a black student smelled. Looking back he was a racist, but I guess he was educated.)
But what is getting clearer is Debito's prejudice; the U.S. is innocent ,morally well grounded to push around Japan , and Japanese must have the same ugly prejudice that some racists in the U.S. have. Japan should learn from her, I don't know what to call it---Whitman's burden is not quite correct, because these days, not many "white people" have it. However it should be called, i say nobody has to shoulder such burden to preach. The preach is not convincing unless he tried to share local people’s agony.
That said, we can see the point in still another way; as a white person who belonged to the dominant classin USA, he might have thought there were less racism in the U.S. than in Japan where he is a minority;it might be that he just didn't notice the racism because he didn't suffer from it. If that is the case, that tells us, the majority to think twice about his prejudice;We as those who belong to the majority might have the same kind of prejudice as Debito.

........................................................................................



Debit criticises JD, "hanayori, dango 2" for being partake of racism.
via Japan probe
Let's see how the commenter on JP reacts to the drama in question.
Comment by Syd
2007-07-25 19:41:08

I agree with the lot of you, that was too stupid to even care about.

Comment by RYO
2007-07-25 22:12:46

These stereotypes are not formed in a vacuum. Blame Hollywood and MTV if you must. The scene in question, for example, reminds me of the one in which Bruce Willis’ character is saved from a harsh beating in Harlem by Samuel L. Jackson’s character. That scene even came complete with a basketball.

Comment by caz
2007-07-26 02:44:59

Oh fuck you guys. I see this kind of cultural stereotyping all the time in America where they show asian to be full of ninjas, yakuzas, and white slave rings. Get over your hypocritical racism.

Comment by Kantwon
2007-07-26 05:31:00

I couldn’t even watch this long enough to get to the scene that you were talking about. It’s so cheesy and horrible. I’m more offended that people actually consider this bad acting and horrible script entertainment. But honestly, I think America is still worst when it comes to stereotyping black people and other races, hell America created it. Plus that’s New York city and that’s actually partially correct when it comes to crime. You can ask any other black person besides me that who commit the most crimes in New York.


I don't know about J-drama A-drama because I don't watch them.

I assume what the posters are saying is all true.

Regardless, I think Debito has a good point.
what gets me is not just the stereotypes of crime in NYC: It’s the fact that all the criminals are black (from the bag snatcher to the gang of four), using random profane jive talking, and assailing our heroine with a basketball (yes, a basketball, with added sound effect when it hits her).


It is a good to raise the consciousness on the danger that the public prejudice are formed throgh TV dramas and films.


The problem with Debito's presentation this time is his articles lack balance, depth, and probably affection. But I wholely agree that Japanese producers need to keep his point in mind when producing dramas and movies.

Debito all too Debito (3)

Onishi debunked

Well, not really but Observing Japan has posted a fair criticism of Onishi's article and NYT clip.The blogger will be independent researcher.
From August on, I am going to try my hand at life as an independent researcher, analyst, and writer here in Tokyo.link

That will be fun.
As I see them, Anpontan is writing articles on Japanese politics in view of relatively conservative view point, Liberal Japan in view of liberal, or libertarian, and Observing in view of DPJ. The latter two blogs are different from Onishi and NYT type of "liberalism."
If I have to add on the Conservative side, Global American Discourse would be the one.

Zaihichi privilage?

Out of 131 local governments, 28 local governments exempt a fixed property tax for The General Association of Korean Residents , 47 local governments reduces it.
Yomiuri(cash)

The legal ground for the reduction and exemption is a tax regulation to the effect that if a facility is useful to the local community, the facility has a right to get the reduction or exemption.
The last year Fukuoka district court ruled as to the local facility that it was questionable the facility had been used for the local people and that the condition for the reduction was not satisfied.
Sankei (cash)

Some Japanese bloggers claims the reduction and exemption for the General Association of Korean Residents is an example of unfair Zainichi privilege.

I think it depends on how the facility in each local region is being used by the public, and the local people.


BNN(cash)

Tyunichi(cash)

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

The U.S. realism on the decision to use the atomic bomb

George F. Kennan to McGerge Bundy, December 2. 1947
I am afraid that if these statement were now to appear in an official biography of Mr. Stimson, a part of the reading public might conclude that the hope of influencing Russia by the threat of atomic attack had been and probably remained, one of the permanent motivating elements or our foreign policy page 472


I was going to sum up the book "The decision to use atomic bombs" by Gar Alperroviz, but I've found several sites that introduce, support or criticize his work.
So I'll just cite the link.


One implication of Alperroviz's theory is that Truman killed women and children just to intimidate Russia when there were militarily alternatives to end the war. *1I think that is one reason why his theory is embarrassing to some of Americans.

Anyway, I envy the fact the dabates over the decision to use the atomic bombs have been carried out without calling the opponent Holocaust Deniers, and without being politicized between the countries concerned.


"THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB"
GAR ALPEROVITZ AND THE H-NET DEBATE
*2


THE OBLITERATION OF HIROSHIMA
Stephen R. Shalom
cash

Personally I've found Shalom's article best.
I couldn't find Barton Bernstein's important article *3on the subject, but we can guess its content from the the following site.
Truman's decision to use the A-bomb/ Barton Bernstein."Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory" Diplomatic History Spring 1995. cash
(Alperoviz shed doubt on drawing the conclusion from the interviews with Japanese after the war.)

The followings are also interesting.

The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative

Peter J. Kuznick


linkHiroshima Didn't Have to Happencash
Atomic Bombing Of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
By Matin Zuberi
cash
The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima
by Father P. Siemes
cash

Truman was a war criminal

By John Catalinotto
Published Aug 5, 2005 11:30 PM




HARRY S. TRUMAN WAR CRIMINAL


Encyclopedia Britannica can be said to be relatively neutral.
The decision to use the atomic bomb by Alonzo L. Hamby/- Encyclopaedia Britannica


Cooper is critical of Alperroviz's position.
Truman’s Motivations: Using the Atomic Bomb in the Second World War/Cooper(pdf)
cash
TAINTED DECISION: THE ATOM BOMB AND AMERICA's RUSH TO END WORLD WAR II

Documents on the decision to use the atomic bomb

Documents

documents

See also Hirosima again


*1 To end the war, Truman could have threat Japan that Russian would join, could have waited until Runssian invaded North China to let Japan know she was sandwiched by the biggest countries. could have given clearer terms for surrender.
(The U.S. did know the Emperor was seeking peace though Russia.)

*2
Part I: MAGIC Intercepts and Military Views/cash"THE RUSSIAN OPTION/cashON HOW VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE "MYTH" WERE CREATEDON INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DECISION/cash
*3 for some reason his article "Atomic bomb reconsidered" is available in Japanese.


The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender
The Winning Weapon?
The Winning Weapon? Ward Wilson
Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of
Hiroshima/////
There is virtually no contemporaneous evidence that the U.S. use of a nuclear
weapon against Hiroshima created a crisis or that Japanese leaders viewed it as decisive.

nuclearfiles.org



[Documents menu] Documents menu

From nobody Wed Dec 31 09:48:41 2003
From: hycuqeuouv@moaeoou.org (Benedikt Brown)
Subject: Hiroshima 1945: Behind The U.S. Atom Bomb Atrocity
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Sender: Trina Clarke
Distribution: world
Organization: Mary Britton
Message-ID: <1072831049.330@news1.lynx.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:58:35 GMT
Hiroshima 1945: Behind The U.S. Atom Bomb Atrocity
By Fred Halstead, The Militant, 14 August 1995

On Aug. 6, 1945, and again on August 9, the U.S. government dropped the first and second atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Tens of thousands of people died instantly, with thousands more dying later. This year marks the 50th anniversary of that atrocity.

The following article appeared in the Jan. 25, 1965, issue of the Militant under the headline What the Record Shows: U.S. Guilt at Hiroshima. The author, Fred Halstead, was a longtime leader of the Socialist Workers Party.

As the SWP's candidate for president in 1968, Halstead took a trip around the world, visiting Japan, South Vietnam, India, Egypt, West Germany, France, and Britain. In Japan he attended several peace conferences, addressing a session of the Japan Conference Against A- and H-Bombs on August 6 in Hiroshima.

That Japan was truly making sincere requests for peace, before and at the time of the Hiroshima A-bomb, is an undisputed fact of history. It is so well established that even popular history books and standard reference works recently published in this country cannot ignore it.

The obvious implications of the fact are so damning to the moral position of the American capitalist power structure and so unpleasant to the American people generally, however, that the fact is not often squarely faced in this country, even by many pacifist critics of the government's nuclear warfare policies. In the popular histories and reference works, it is generally glossed over with the briefest, most off-hand mention—after the style of West German textbook references to Nazi crimes—as if the unpleasant fact could somehow be buried and forgotten if it is given the low-key treatment.

And indeed the general impression still exists in this country (but not abroad) that somehow the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan caused the end of the war and eliminated a bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands, thus saving more lives than the A-bombs themselves snuffed out. This is a lie manufactured and spread in the first place by President Truman and British prime ministers Churchill and Attlee, who took responsibility for the decision to drop the bombs. It is nothing but the official trumped-up alibi for one of the most shocking and unjustified war crimes in all human history.

What are the facts? This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms, though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerland and Sweden... Later the Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to an end.

The Britannica then completes its coverage by saying that Russia rebuffed the Japanese overtures because it didn't want the war to end before it was scheduled to invade the northern areas occupied by Japan. What the Britannica fails to mention is that these Japanese overtures were known to Washington because the dispatches between Foreign Minister Togo in Tokyo and Japanese Ambassador Sato in Moscow were intercepted by the United States.

The entire affair is documented in the Hoover Library volume Japan's Decision to Surrender, by Robert J.C. Butlow (Stanford University, 1954). Butlow quotes the dispatch that was received and decoded in Washington on July 13, 1945:Togo to Sato...Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war...Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. These requests continued through July.

Butlow documents that Washington knew the one condition insisted upon by the Japanese government was the continuation of the emperor on his throne and the symbolic recognition this implied of the Japanese home islands as a political entity. As it turned out this was exactly the condition that was granted when the peace was finally signed after the A-bombings August 6 and 9.

If the U.S. government knew as early as July 13 that the leading circles in Japan were seeking peace on those terms, why didn't it pursue this possibility for peace instead of ignoring it and proceeding with the A-bombings? There is simply no satisfactory answer to this question from the point of view of the military demands of ending the war—even on U.S. imperialist terms—and saving soldiers' lives.

Twice guilty As Hanson W. Baldwin, the New York Times military analyst, said in his book Great Mistakes of the War (1949):

Our only warning to a Japan already militarily defeated, and in a hopeless situation, was the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender issued on July 26, when we knew the Japanese surrender attempt had started. Yet when the Japanese surrender was negotiated about two weeks later, after the bomb was dropped, our unconditional surrender demand was made conditional and we agreed, as [Secretary of War] Stimson had originally proposed we should do, to continuation of the Emperor upon his imperial throne.

We were, therefore, twice guilty. We dropped the bomb at a time when Japan already was negotiating for an end of the war, but before these negotiations could come to fruition. We demanded unconditional surrender, then dropped the bomb and accepted conditional surrender, a sequence which indicates pretty clearly that the Japanese would have surrendered, even if the bomb had not been dropped, had the Potsdam Declaration included our promise to permit the Emperor to remain on his imperial throne.

Why, then, did the United States drop the bombs? One of the few writers who claims to believe the official alibi is Robert C. Batchelder, author of the well-documented The Irreversible Decision (1962). Even Batchelder admits: It seems clear that had the [U.S.] attempt to end the war by political and diplomatic means been undertaken sooner, more seriously, and with more skill, the decision to use the atomic bomb might well have been rendered unnecessary.

Batchelder explains the affair away by attributing it to U.S. diplomatic inefficiency and a tendency in U.S. leaders to deal with the war in purely military terms and neglect political aspects. But the evidence indicates the final A-bomb decision was made precisely for political reasons.

Indeed, some top U.S. military men—including Eisenhower and the chief of staff of the U.S. armed forces at the time, Adm. William D. Leahy—declined to support use of the bomb. In his book, I Was There (1950), Leahy says: it is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

It was my reaction that the scientists and others wanted to make this test [!] because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project. Truman knew that, and so did the people involved. However, the Chief Executive made the decision to use the bomb on two cities in Japan.
Live targets

This test on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost, by the conservative American estimates, 110,000 dead and as many injured; and, by Japanese estimates, twice that many. The evidence strongly indicates that one major motivation of the A-bomb decision was precisely to test the bomb on live targets, so as to confront the postwar world with the proven fact of overwhelming U.S. military superiority. It also established the fact that U.S. imperialism not only had the bomb but had the ruthlessness to use it.

The haste with which the bomb was used indicates that the U.S. purposely ignored the Japanese peace requests (which were known in Washington on July 13) in order to drop the bomb before the war ended. No one was sure the bomb would work until July 18 when it was tested in New Mexico. The only other two bombs in existence were quickly dispatched to the Pacific base and were dropped on August 6 and 9. This haste is unexplained by combat problems. By that stage of the war U.S. bombers and ships encountered no serious resistance and no U.S. troop attacks were scheduled until November 1, so the haste was not necessary to save American lives.

One of the most thoughtful works on the subject is that by the British nuclear scientist, P.M.S. Blackett, entitled Fear, War and the Bomb (London, 1949). Blackett points out: If the saving of American lives had been the main objective, surely the bombs would have been held back until (a) it was certain that the Japanese peace proposals made through Russia were not acceptable, and (b) the Russian offensive, which had for months been part of the allied strategic plan, and which Americans had previously demanded, had run its course.

Bomb aimed against Soviet Union This last is the final piece in the puzzle. It is Blackett's well-founded thesis that one reason for the haste was to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan. The allies had already agreed at Yalta that the USSR would attack Japan three months after Germany surrendered. Stalin had notified the United States that the Russian armies would be ready for that attack on schedule, that is, August 8. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima August 6.

In another book by Blackett, Atomic Weapons and East- West Relations (London, 1956), the scientist discusses the later feelings of some of his American colleagues who had been involved in the decision to use the A-bomb:

The opposition between 1949 and 1951 of so many atomic scientists to the H-bomb program must, I think, be taken as the price the American Government paid for lack of candor in 1945. If the scientists had been told that Japan had been essentially defeated and was suing for peace, but that the dropping of the bombs won for America a vital diplomatic victory, since it kept the Soviet Union out of the Japanese peace settlement and so avoided the difficulties and frictions inherent in the German surrender, I expect most would have accepted, however reluctantly, the practical wisdom of the act. They were not told this, but they were told that the bomb saved untold American lives. When they later learnt that this was rather unlikely, many of them must have begun to fear that their government might not be able to resist some future temptation to exploit America's atomic superiority...

To sum up: That Japan was defeated and suing for peace before the bombs were dropped is a fact established beyond doubt. The motivations of U.S. rulers in dropping the bombs anyway is, of course, a disputed question. But the evidence utterly fails to support the official alibi that it was done to avoid costly battles. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were murdered, not to end World War II, but to launch what later came to be known as the cold war.
link



[Documents menu] Documents menu

From nobody Tue Mar 4 16:38:18 2003
From: auvoazrc@veefydvf.org (Aurelia Keene)
Subject: A-Bomb: Part Of U.S. Imperialist War Drive Today
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Sender: Marcellus Huiett
Distribution: world
Organization: Saskia Hardman
Message-ID: <1045935843.784768@news1.lynx.bc.ca>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 17:13:36 GMT
Why America dropped the atomic bomb, by Ronald Takaki
Reviewed by Patti Iiyama, 9 October 1995

Why America dropped the atomic bomb
by Ronald Takaki
pp. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.
$16.95 paper.

With

Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination
by Joseph Gerson
203 pp. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1995
$19.95 hardcover.

At 8:15 on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, a U.S. bomber dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Some 70,000 people, many of them school children who had been mobilized to build firebreaks, died instantly. Birds in flight ignited. The heat of the blast kindled a raging fire that seared the city. It was followed by a black rain. More than 60,000 died within months from burns, radiation poisoning, and shock. Another 70,000 died by 1950.

The 50th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August, revealed a deepening debate in this country over why the U.S. government dropped this new, horrible weapon. The big-business press launched a campaign to defend the use of the bomb.

On one hand most editors, commentators, and politicians have argued that the bomb helped save lives by making a U.S. invasion of Japan's main islands unnecessary.

On the other hand, a recent Gallup poll cited in Newsweek shows that people over the age of 50 narrowly approve the use of the atomic bomb, and that most younger Americans, especially those under 30, believe that using the atomic bomb was wrong. Moreover, an increasing number of historians and academics say the traditional accounts of the bombings, based on the government's version, should be revised. They argue that dropping the bomb was militarily unnecessary.

Many books have been published on this 50th anniversary. Among those defending the revisionist school are: Ronald Takaki's Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb and Joseph Gerson's With Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination. Both summarize the facts that show the bomb was not needed to force Japan's military regime to surrender.

Takaki and Gerson point to Washington's anxiety about Soviet domination in China and other Asian countries, as well its occupation of eastern Europe. The dropping of the atom bomb, they say, was primarily a political warning to the Soviet Union and heralded the beginning of the Cold War.

The truth, however, is more complex. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the opening shot in a new hot war Washington was preparing: to crush the massive revolt against colonial oppression from China to India beginning to sweep the world, prevent the spread of the socialist revolution, and to move toward rolling back the conquests working people had won in the Soviet Union in order to restore capitalism there. The U.S. rulers boasted that they were launching the American Century.

In spite of its initial monopoly of this new and terrible means of mass destruction, however, Washington quickly ran into insurmountable roadblocks in its war drive. It was forced to retreat to conducting what it called a cold war.
Origins of Pacific War

In order to understand why the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sacrificed, it is important to know why the war in the Pacific was fought. Washington said the Japanese military regime's aggression in Asia had to be stopped and the bombing of the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, had to be avenged.

The real driving force behind the war in the Pacific, however, was the fight between the profit-hungry predators in the United States and Japan over, as Gerson states, the expansion and maintenance of empire in the Pacific and Asia.

Since capitalism developed relatively late in Japan, its rulers were not able to participate in the earliest imperialist divisions of Asia. But with the 1895 Sino- Japanese War, Tokyo began to wrest colonies from other imperialist powers by seizing control of Taiwan, Korea, and parts of northern China. In 1932 the Japanese imperialists invaded Manchuria and established a puppet government there.

Their major rival for control of Asia was the capitalist ruling class in the United States, who had long been eyeing China as a huge market for selling goods and investing capital. In the 1930s, the growing protectionist trade barriers imposed by the U.S. and European governments fueled the Japanese drive to conquer China and Southeast Asia in order to obtain oil, rubber, iron ore, and other raw materials.

By the spring of 1942, Tokyo, in a series of stunning victories, had conquered Indonesia, Indochina, the Philippines, Malaya, and Burma. Its troops were at the threshold of invading Australia, India, and Laos and controlled most of eastern China. But by the end of 1942, the tide was beginning to turn.

The overwhelming industrial and military might of the U.S. capitalists crushed their Japanese rivals. By the end of 1944 oil shipments from the East Indies had almost stopped, imports had fallen by 40 percent, half of Japan's merchant fleet and two-thirds of her tankers were destroyed.

On March 9, 1945, the U.S. military began firebombing Japanese cities, starting with Tokyo. City after city came under attack. Virtually every industrial center was destroyed. A report by the Japanese cabinet acknowledged that the steel and chemical industries were about to collapse, the railway system would soon cease functioning, and shipping was insufficient even to maintain transportation between the main islands of Japan.

Recognizing that the war was lost, Tokyo began to send out peace feelers to governments in Europe. Then, in early July, the Japanese government requested the Soviet Union, which had not yet entered the Pacific war, to mediate between Tokyo and Washington to end the war. The only condition the Japanese officials placed on their surrender was that Hirohito and the emperor system be preserved.

In spite of a recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the cabinet that the U.S. government accept conditional surrender, U.S. president Harry Truman and British prime minister Winston Churchill rejected the Japanese government's efforts to end the war. Instead, they issued a joint statement on July 25 saying that they would accept only un-conditional surrender from the Japanese regime.

Three weeks later, Washington accepted the Japanese surrender on the same terms that Tokyo had proposed in July. The only change was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As early as 1946, two U.S. government studies concluded that the bombings were not a military necessity. In addition to the recently discovered War Department Operations Division study, the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey judged that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned Kyushu invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Takaki points out that Tokyo exhorted Asians to unite in a race war against the white brutes, wild beasts, and hairy savages of Europe and the United States. This demonization of the enemy justified atrocities like the infamous Bataan Death March, which occurred in 1942 after 76,000 American and Filipino soldiers surrendered to the Japanese in the Philippines. On the 65-mile forced march to their internment camp, 7,000 were bayoneted or clubbed to death or buried alive when they fell behind.

At the same time, Washington stereotyped the Japanese as loathsome buck-toothed little yellow savages. This racist dismissal of the Japanese as less than human was the propaganda used to get acceptance in the United States for Washington's war against Japan and for its bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Takaki puts forward the view that Truman's racism and psychological insecurities are the key to understanding why the U.S. government dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman's policies were racist, but singling this out throws Takaki's book off balance. The U.S. capitalist ruling class had larger political considerations in mind when it decided to incinerate the populations of two Japanese cities.

Preparations for a `hot' war Soon after the Japanese government surrendered on August 14, President Truman halted all lend-lease shipments, including food, to the Soviet Union, one of its war-time allies. Takaki quotes Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew as saying, A future war with Soviet Russia is as certain as anything can be certain.

By October, Truman was attempting to rally the people of the United States for a confrontation with the USSR. There can be no compromise with the forces of evil....[The] atomic bombs which fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be a signal, the president asserted.

The U.S. rulers were preparing for a new war. By dropping the bombs on human beings, they showed that they had no qualms about using this incredibly destructive weapon, over which they had a monopoly. One of their immediate aims was crushing the democratic revolution in China that they feared could overturn capitalist rule there. This was the prize for which they had waged a bloody war with their Japanese rivals for nearly four years. At the same time they wanted to drive the Soviet Union out of Eastern Europe.

Although Washington had started to put everything into place to fight another war, it was prevented from doing so for two reasons beyond its control: the refusal of Chinese workers and peasants to be cowed into submission, and the mass protests of U.S. troops after the war demanding, Bring us home now.

Thus, the U.S. warmakers were not able to launch the hot war to establish the American Century.

Since 1945 Washington has threatened or considered using nuclear weapons many times. Gerson details a few of these occasions: during the Korean war, at the end of the Indochina war in 1954; the 1962 missile crisis; the Vietnam War, and in the Middle East from 1946 through the Gulf War in 1991. It weighed the political price it would pay for using nuclear bombs in each instance and decided not to do so.

In the course of documenting the U.S. government's nuclear extortion over the last 50 years, Gerson aims his guns at the Cuban government for its contribution to the intensity of the [1962 missile] crisis. He states that during that crisis, Fidel Castro pressed Nikita Khrushchev to launch a preemptive nuclear attack against the United States in the event of a U.S. invasion of Cuba. Gerson repeated the same slander during the July 31-August 2 International Symposium in Hiroshima where he was a featured speaker. That gathering marked the 50th anniversary of Washington's A-bomb attacks on Japan.

Gerson fails to mention that the proposal to place missiles and tactical nuclear weapons on Cuban soil was not Cuba's, but the Soviet government's for its own foreign policy goals. At a January 1992 conference in Havana that brought together participants from Cuba, the Soviet Union, and the United States to discuss the 1962 missile crisis, Castro said: We were not too pleased with the missiles actually. If it had been a matter only of our defense, we would not have accepted the emplacement of the missiles here. This was not because of the dangers involved, Castro said, but rather because this would damage the image of the revolution....The presence of the missiles would in fact turn us into a Soviet military base and that had a high political cost.

Orlando Fundora López, the Cuban representative participating in the Hiroshima conference, refuted Gerson by explaining that the Cuban revolution has never relied on Soviet missiles or weapons, but the armed power of the Cuban people, for its defense. It was, in fact, the massive mobilization of the Cuban people during the missile crisis that convinced the Kennedy administration of the difficulties of invading the island and the political price that would be paid.

Neither Takaki nor Gerson, while agreeing that nuclear weapons must be banned and dismantled, can suggest a realistic solution, other than placing political pressure on the governments with nuclear weapons.

But the question of nuclear weapons and their use is connected to the drive of the capitalist rulers toward war. Today—as the competition between the capitalist profiteers has become more intense—political, economic, and military conflicts are growing. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the possibilities of a third imperialist world war are clearer.

Only if working people wrest power out of the hands of the capitalist exploiters and establish their own government can workers and farmers bring an end to horrible predatory wars for profits and get rid of all nuclear weapons.

Patti Iiyama is a member of Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Local 4227 in Houston, Texas. She had relatives who were killed by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
link

Monday, July 23, 2007

Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, and Japan's reactoin is....

Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately
She was reluctant, saying it had no merit, according to Sankei as of July 14
A Japanese strategist was predicting that Japanese company would reject the request because Japan needed to side with the U.S. in pushing Iran into the corner.
Anpontan was warning that Japan might" start to find it advantageous after the House passes its resolution."
Asahi , as of July 18, reports that the president of the oil association is considering it in a positive light, saying "it has nothing to do with politics, it is a matter of trading conditions."
Another Japanese blogger suggests the government not to interfere since the president says, "it has nothing to with politics."

Let's see how it will develope.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Debito all too Debito (3)


Former UCLA player gets Japanese citizenship, spot on national hoops team


When Deibto writes it,
Here’s one way to avoid the accusation that foreigners in Japanese sports make events too boring:

Where did the article in question say he naturalized to avoid the accusation that foreigners make the event too boring?

Sakuragi, a 203-cm forward, is expected to be a big presence in the paint for Team Japan in the upcoming Asia Championship in Tokushima,


It seems logical that he needs Japanese citizenship.
According to the article, it was Japanese who longed for him.
Why can't we just welcome him?
Is it another instance of racism?
Is it Debito's magic that the story in which Japanse welcome this person as a Japanse national turns to his favorit subject of racism?




That said, Asahi article he linked is also misleading.

The slogan of high school sport associations could be: If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em


The restrictions followed protests from Japanese fans who say the superior ability of the foreign students is making the sporting events dull.

In May, the All Japan High School Athletic Federation decided to ban foreign students from running the first leg in the All Japan High School Ekiden Championships,

Debito says,
"But I don’t think the organizers of these events really understand what “being sporting” is all about. To them sports are great, as long as Japanese win."

In Ekiden, a Japanese school wins whoever the member.
So the case is not what Asahi writer and Debito want it to represent as.
The real problem is
"The schools bring the foreign students here just to publicize the names of their schools. They are not suitable for high school sport competitions."

The school represents the local district, and the local people support the school because of it , but if students come from other districts just for the school to win, , some local people are put off.
The problem has been pointed out and there are voices that Japanese students from other prefecture should be restricted.*1

As for this issue, it is my opinion that sports association should not interfere in this matter; whoever the member, if the school trained them, if the locals nurtured them, the school and the local people should be proud of them.


Debito all too Debito(2)

..................................................................................

*1
スポーツ
県立高校の監督は「特待生は私立の経営にもかかわる。問題は越境入学だ」と指摘。「隣接県は仕方がないが、県を飛び越えるようなことには歯止めを掛けるべき」と提言していた


留学生・金選手 「韓国で本場の剣道を」 シード校苦しめた文徳大将cash

Saturday, July 21, 2007

comfort women /Senator Daniel K. Inouye on resolution 121--- Holy shit,!!Inoue, It's red-herring.

I can think of many events in our own historic past that deserve an acknowledgement and apology issued by the United States. Nonetheless, our Government has not acknowledged these actions and other countries have not officially reprimanded us because of it.

For example, soon after December 7, 1941, the United States contacted the Governments of Chile and other South American countries and requested that they round up their residents of Japanese ancestry and send them to the United States to be used by the United States in negotiations for the return of American prisoners of war held by Japan.

Many Latin Americans of Japanese descent were arrested, stripped of their passports or visas, and shipped to the United States. Once in the United States, they were treated as illegal aliens, subject to deportation and repatriation. ステージ風発(魚拓)

So probably you also want to talk about Japanese comfort women , Korean comfort women, Vietnamese prostitutes under the U.S. occupation. don't you?
Did the U.S. force the women to be sex slaves?
They were not sex slaves; they were paid for living.
We allowed the brothels to run for GIs. We even asked the local to do so. We even carried out the medical checks for VD. The then the U.S military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations. Coercion happened, Deceptions happened. But we didn't order it: the local people did it. They were like slaves? It is not our faults, it is brothel owner's fault, and Asia were poverty stricken; that is the the way they had to live. Don't tell me we systematically forced the women into the brothels---- ----Oh yes, there were rape cases by military officers, but that were exceptions. They did it against our policy. See, we are not deniers.

Did Japan apologize several times ? Do it as clearly as possbile. Does the U.S. have to apologize?----Who are you to say this, anyway?--- Inoue?
Oh, it is a Jap , again. Perhaps the US should first retract its apology for the internment of Japanese-Americans or have the President question whether or not the Trail of Tears ever existed first, t"......

.....Sarcasm aside, Japanese should keep in mind there is a great American politician like Daniel Inoue.



..................................................................................
全文
H. RES. 121 -- (Senate - July 09, 2007)

[Page: S8789]

---

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. On June 26, 2007, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives met to consider and adopt H. Res. 121. This resolution was authored by Congressman Michael Honda of San Jose, CA.

H. Res. 121 expresses the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of young women into sexual slavery, known to the world as ``comfort women,'' during its colonial and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from the 1930s through the duration of World War II.

There is no doubt in my mind that during the war period the men in the Imperial Armed Forces of the Government of Japan did abuse, assault, and forcibly impose their wills upon women for sexual purposes. This was conduct and behavior that cannot in any way be condoned or justified.

These events, according to H. Res. 121, occurred during the war period of the 1930s and 1940s. Records indicate that on August 31, 1994, as the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II was approaching, then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement articulating Japan's remorse and apology to comfort women.

This statement was made in his official capacity as Prime Minister of Japan.

Subsequently, every successive Prime Minister since 1996--Prime Ministers Hashimoto, Obuchi, Mori, and Koizumi--have all issued letters of apologies to individual former comfort women, who have accepted an apology letter along with atonement money offered to her by the Asian Woman's Fund. It should be noted that some former comfort women refused to accept the atonement money.

The Asian Women's Fund was established, sanctioned, and approved by the Government of Japan. The letters addressed to former comfort women were issued by the Prime Ministers of Japan in their official capacity, and recite, ``as Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most sincere apologies



and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.

On March 11, 2007, Prime Minister Abe made the following statement:

I will stand by the Kono Statement. This is our consistent position. Further, we have been apologizing to those who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable psychological wounds as comfort women. Former Prime Ministers, including Prime Ministers Koizumi and Hashimoto have issued letters to the comfort women. I would like to be clear that I carry the same feeling.

The 1993 Kono statement made by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono stated in part:

The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women. ..... The Government of Japan would like to take this opportunity once again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.

The Asian Women's Fund was established in 1995 with the cooperation of the Government of Japan and the Japanese people. The fund has extended letters of apology and payments, donated by the Japanese people, to 285 former comfort women in the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan

I have taken the time to cite the above because of my concern over the adoption of H. Res. 121, the Honda Resolution.

It should be noted that after World War II, the issue of compensation for Japan's wartime crimes was settled, country by country, by the Treaty of San Francisco with the U.S. and by the relevant peace treaties with other countries. Thus, from a purely legal standpoint, the issue of the comfort women has been settled by treaties of peace.

Several questions come to mind as I read the text of statements made on this matter, and the text of H. Res. 121. For example, what would be required of Japan under H. Res. 121 to ``formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner''?

The statements of apology that I quoted earlier were issued by six Prime Ministers of Japan, each acting and speaking in his official capacity.

I would think that in the world of diplomacy, these words would suffice as official statements.

Another matter that should be noted is that these events occurred in the 1930s and 1940s, and the acknowledgment and apology over the abuse of the comfort women have been made by successive Prime Ministers since 1994.

I can think of many events in our own historic past that deserve an acknowledgement and apology issued by the United States. Nonetheless, our Government has not acknowledged these actions and other countries have not officially reprimanded us because of it.

For example, soon after December 7, 1941, the United States contacted the Governments of Chile and other South American countries and requested that they round up their residents of Japanese ancestry and send them to the United States to be used by the United States in negotiations for the return of American prisoners of war held by Japan.

Many Latin Americans of Japanese descent were arrested, stripped of their passports or visas, and shipped to the United States. Once in the United States, they were treated as illegal aliens, subject to deportation and repatriation.

The internees' vulnerable position under the law basically left their fate in the hands of the State Department and Department of Justice. Those caught in this situation were considered repatriable and thus available for use in hostage exchanges with Japan.

I am happy to report to you that after many years of concern, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has considered this matter and reported favorably on a measure to study this matter. However, the bill still faces consideration by the full Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House.

And yet has any country suggested we should ``formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner'' for this matter?

Nor have the legislatures of other nations criticized and accused us for Executive Order 9066, which directed the United States Army to establish 10 concentration camps in various parts of the United States to intern residents of Japanese ancestry.

Regardless of the historical example, the question remains the same: how would the U.S. Government have reacted if the legislature of some other nation had condemned our historical actions in World War II?

Diplomatic protocol among friendly nations and allies calls for consideration and sensitive handling of such matters.

In the case at hand, I respectfully suggest that the Government of Japan, through six of its Prime Ministers, and through two acts considered by its House of Representatives, has issued statements of acknowledgement and apology since 1994.

I would suggest that so many apologies should suffice.



As a final matter, it may be interesting to note that a Gallup Poll conducted in February and March 2007 sets forth the following: 74 percent of the general public, and 91 percent of opinion leaders thought of Japan as a dependable ally or friend. 48 percent of the general public, and 53 percent of opinion leaders considered Japan to be the most important U.S. partner in the Asia region, followed by China, which scored 34 percent among the general public, and 38 percent among opinion leaders. 67 percent of the general public, and 86 percent of opinion leaders described U.S. relations with Japan as ``good'' or ``excellent.'' 87 percent of the general public, and 88 percent of opinion leaders supported the maintenance of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

Finally, when asked whether Japan shared common values with the United States, 83 percent of the general public, and 94 percent of opinion leaders agreed. The only country that received a higher score was the United Kingdom, by only 2 percent for each group.

These numbers and responses to the Gallup Poll should suggest our relationship with Japan is excellent. The general public believes it, and our Government has said so as well. Why should we involve ourselves in a legislative act that would jeopardize a relationship as good as we share with Japan?

Is this how we Americans should conduct ourselves with the Japanese, our friends and allies?

END