Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#61

Post by JoshTriplett »

happyscrappy wrote: post #58
JoshTriplett wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think the quote supports the idea of evil persisting out of balance, but rather that to advance the greater good one must balance the need to oppose the notionally evil things (which nonetheless contain good) with the need to oppose the evil contained in things which are notionally good. That much is absolutely true; conflicts and war are evils in themselves, even when some would consider them "necessary".

If you have the luxury of considering war unnecessary then someone else is likely carrying your water.

I didn't say it was; sometimes it might be the lesser evil. Still evil, though.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#62

Post by DanSanchezV »

smegel wrote: post #54
ectoplasm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like 9/11 was awesome then?

Sadly, and somewhat paradoxically, many of those who lament the bombing of Japan probably feel that way. For example, quoting the article, how do you think the author of this passage would respond to your question? > the Israeli blockade of Gaza, US sanctions on Iran, and the new Saudi blockade of Yemen, as the infanticidal atrocities they are.

>how do you think the author of this passage would respond to your question?

I am the author, and I would respond that 9/11 was a despicable act of mass murder committed under the same terrorist rationale and collective guilt fallacies under which the above listed crimes are also committed. Two wrongs do not make a right, and neither do two atrocities. For more along these lines, see this other essay of mine: https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/the-symbiosis-of-savagery-68d...

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#63

Post by happyscrappy »

Nadya wrote: post #34
bionsuba wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment was going so well until that last sentence. Yes, the Japanese government committed atrocities. But I have a hard time seeing how that somehow justifies the US killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that had nothing to do with it when Japan was basically begging to surrender. Yes begging to surrender, but the US only wanted unconditional surrender, which they knew to a society based on pride…

The only hint of surrender was the Japanese approaching the Soviets to broke a negotiation of surrender, to which the Soviets essentially ignored. That's hardly "begging". They wanted to keep all the land they had gained imperially (Taiwan and some other land, I forget offhand). Which was essentially an "OK, we lose. But we get to keep everything we took before we lost." which was denied by the Soviets and would have…

"Those little sweethearts will face German bullets or they'll face French ones!"

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#64

Post by smegel »

rwallace wrote: post #57
smegel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does portraying a criminal war aggressor as a victim support an anti-war message?

If the author had portrayed the Imperial Japanese government as an innocent victim, I would be the first to despise the article. But he didn't. He mentioned the campaign of mass murder in China, the insane stupidity of the decision to attack Pearl Harbor and then to fight the war to the bitter end. In no way does he suggest any of these things are excusable. The people he portrays as innocent victims are the civilian…

> Nobody is more familiar with what a curse airplanes can be when deployed for evil than the Japanese. Airplanes dropped the canisters that burned their cities, the mines that starved their children, and the nukes that instantly made vast irradiated graveyards out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — for the first time in history visiting solar-temperature hell upon human habitations, and hinting at mankind’s full capacity for suicidal madness. But their intimate familiarity with the “cursed dream” of airplanes also stems from the Japanese state’s own misuse of the great invention for its imperial dreams.

So the bombing of Japan was "evil", Japan's own bombings were just a "misuse" in pursuit of a "dream". How very neutral.

> The economic sanctions against Iraq that condemned hundreds of thousands of children to starve to death were an atrocity just about exactly as bad as the rape of Nanking. Just about exactly as inexcusable. We need to get to the point where we stop looking for excuses for such actions.

Economic sanctions are an alternative to war. Are you suggesting we should have bombed Iraq instead at the time? Or just let Saddam do what he pleased? Ironically, when the USA does nothing (Rwanda, Pol Pot, North Korea, Srebrenica) they are accused of complicity in inaction, yet when they do something, they are war criminals. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#65

Post by timr »

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #8
panic wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent comment should be downvoted. It makes some good points, even if you disagree with them. I think you're misunderstanding what "war-bringer" means in this case. It's not America vs. Japan: it's the governments vs. the people. Both the American government and the Japanese government brought war, but the people of the countries (especially Japan) were forced to suffer for their governments' decis…

It should be down voted because it seems obvious the poster didn't read the whole article. There are later sections, for example those covering Jiro Horikoshi, that address how Japan brought much of their pain on themselves. Also, the comment missed the entire point of the article, as you established. Just because Japan attacked Pearl harbour doesn't mean an unnamed mother deserved to burn to death, nor that her chil…

I read the whole article, and I thought the same thing as the parent. I appreciate a pacifist sentiment, but outside of the critical analysis of the films, this essay was fairly insipid.

There's such a thing as "pacifism", where you believe that violence should always be the final alternative. Then there's the sophomoric thinking of defining "pacifism" as "we should never go to war, ever". Sometimes, you have to fight.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#66

Post by smegel »

DanSanchezV wrote: post #62
smegel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, and somewhat paradoxically, many of those who lament the bombing of Japan probably feel that way. For example, quoting the article, how do you think the author of this passage would respond to your question? > the Israeli blockade of Gaza, US sanctions on Iran, and the new Saudi blockade of Yemen, as the infanticidal atrocities they are.

>how do you think the author of this passage would respond to your question? I am the author, and I would respond that 9/11 was a despicable act of mass murder committed under the same terrorist rationale and collective guilt fallacies under which the above listed crimes are also committed. Two wrongs do not make a right, and neither do two atrocities. For more along these lines, see this other essay of mine: https:/…

> the same terrorist rationale and collective guilt fallacies

Collateral impacts on civilians is not the same as collective guilt. When did the US or Israel say they wanted to punish ordinary Gazans or Iranians for the crimes committing by their leaders? The unfortunate reality is that dealing with difficult international problems like this often lead to actions that impact the innocent - be it through bombs or sanctions. Yet the guilt should be attributed to those who create the problem, not those forced to take action. Or are you actually siding with Hamas and the Mullahs?

It's easy to point the finger of blame at those trying to resolve some of the most tricky and difficult problems in the world, coming up with solutions that work is an entirely different matter.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#67

Post by rwallace »

smegel wrote: post #64
rwallace wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the author had portrayed the Imperial Japanese government as an innocent victim, I would be the first to despise the article. But he didn't. He mentioned the campaign of mass murder in China, the insane stupidity of the decision to attack Pearl Harbor and then to fight the war to the bitter end. In no way does he suggest any of these things are excusable. The people he portrays as innocent victims are the civilian…

> Nobody is more familiar with what a curse airplanes can be when deployed for evil than the Japanese. Airplanes dropped the canisters that burned their cities, the mines that starved their children, and the nukes that instantly made vast irradiated graveyards out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — for the first time in history visiting solar-temperature hell upon human habitations, and hinting at mankind’s full capacity fo…

> Economic sanctions are an alternative to war.

And frankly one of the reasons I think they should be taken off the table entirely is because they are far too easy an alternative. At least in war, some of the victims have their faces broadcast on television. The victims of economic sanctions are never heard of except as dry statistics.

> Are you suggesting we should have bombed Iraq instead at the time? Or just let Saddam do what he pleased?

Saddam had already been stopped from doing what he pleased. He had been comprehensively kicked out of Kuwait. It should have stopped there.

> Ironically, when the USA does nothing (Rwanda, Pol Pot, North Korea, Srebrenica) they are accused of complicity in inaction, yet when they do something, they are war criminals. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is only a contradiction if the two kinds of accusations come from the same people.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#68

Post by krapp »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #51
krapp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of, then yes, you might believe that balance is the healthier option. Belief in either extreme can lead you to a dehumanizing view of people, and a lot of evil has been done in the world in the name of ridding it of a greater evil, for the sake of an unques…

> If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of A world of "no"; that's a kind of "balance" I want no part of.

Arguably, from that point of view, it's a part of you whether or not you want to be a part of it. Every human life suffers, and brings suffering to others, that can't be avoided. We're limited by hate, fear, greed, hunger, mortal terror, the need to survive and see our children survive, and our own point of view.

But perhaps the center path is itself evil if you refuse to stray from it. That would lead many Western minds to the parable of the Good Samaritan, after all. Who would refuse to feed the hungry because hunger is just part of human nature, or refuse to clothe the poor because poverty is just the result of bad luck and bad decisions?

Well... plenty of people who fall prey to the just world fallacy, but that's digressing.

All of the suffering of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done in the name of good, and people were slaughtered until it was decided good was done, because the greater evil had to be opposed at any cost, and it was thought to be the lesser of all conceivable evils. But when you oppose evil with evil, where is the good to be found?

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#69

Post by JoshTriplett »

krapp wrote: post #68
JoshTriplett wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you believe that 'good' and 'evil' are fundamental and inseparable aspects of humanity, meaning evil can never truly cease because it's part of what we're made of A world of "no"; that's a kind of "balance" I want no part of.

Arguably, from that point of view, it's a part of you whether or not you want to be a part of it. Every human life suffers, and brings suffering to others, that can't be avoided. We're limited by hate, fear, greed, hunger, mortal terror, the need to survive and see our children survive, and our own point of view. But perhaps the center path is itself evil if you refuse to stray from it. That would lead many Western m…

> Arguably, from that point of view, it's a part of you whether or not you want to be a part of it. Every human life suffers, and brings suffering to others, that can't be avoided. We're limited by hate, fear, greed, hunger, mortal terror, the need to survive and see our children survive.

I have no idea what message you're trying to convey here. No, none of those qualities (other than survival) are innate, and if you believe they are, you'll do less to stop them. We can be better.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#70

Post by bane »

grownseed wrote: post #12

It makes me deeply happy to see this here. Miyazaki's mind is truly unique (and by extension most Ghibli films too), nothing else quite compares (and as the author points out, certainly not Disney & co. despite being Ghibli's distributors in the West). I've introduced many people to Ghibli, a lot of whom would have never even considered watching an animated film (even less so a foreign one), and most came away truly…

Spirited away is probably one of the most creative, beautiful films I've ever seen. Part of what makes it so rewarding are the fantastic landscapes it paints and the amazing adventure it portrays, but there's also an entire other level of symbolism in it that you don't have to know to thoroughly enjoy it.

http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol8No2/boydShinto.htm

Post reply on HN