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

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#171

Post by nihonde »

krapp wrote: post #167
nihonde wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guarantee you that "Japan is ostensibly pacifist" because the people who live here right now have no interest in war. The only signals of war and conflict here are American. No normal people in Japan are interested in the territorial conflicts with China, or constitutional debates about self-defense, or where to stage American military hardware, except that they would like all of that nonsense to end so that they c…

The ironic thing is that I agree with you far more than I disagree with you, and I'm anything but "programmed to see America as the great liberator of the world". I would like nothing more than for the US to reduce its global military presence, because I think the age of nuclear superpowers and the "Pax Americana" is coming to an end, and, as you said, the US is becoming the problem. However, you seem to be incapable…

To be honest, I enjoyed this conversation, even though I probably project some unfair assumptions onto you. I'm an American myself, so I'm also well aware of the beautiful side of American life. I guess we're ultimately in agreement that the best of America happens when we look after ourselves and our own homestead, and the same is true of Japan. I just get so damn frustrated when America can't seem to resist the urge to own everyone and everything, which is basically a destructive impulse. At the end of the day, national boundaries are not important, and the most useful qualities for the long-term preservation of our human race are humility and thoughfulness.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#172

Post by nihonde »

animeweedlord wrote: post #94
rangibaby wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Japan would be the first country to selectively remember history to make itself look good. I doubt they teach much about Dresden in the UK, or the extermination of Indians in America, or killing literally every Aborigine in Tasmania, or the British forcing the Chinese to buy opium. I went to school in Japan and we didn't learn a sugar-coated version of history. We went to Hiroshima and listened to a tal…

In American schools an overwhelming amount of time is spent teaching about the sins of our country and other white people. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, the genocide of Native Americans. In a unit on WWII, a week would be spent on the entire war, and the other 3 specifically dedicated to the Holocaust. All in all I'd say we spent over half of our history lessons and a third of our English lessons covering subjects like the…

Very true, and a great point. There are still gaps, though. How many schools teach you the reasons that Germany turned against Jewish people after WWI? In fact, how many schools teach the history of WWI in any kind of detail at all? And what about the reasons for the Southern resistance during the Civil War? My recollection (and I went to an expensive private school) was that these wars were characterized as simplistic, binary good/evil conflicts, where a bunch of "bad" people went nuts and had to be sorted out by "good guys" who were obviously right. If someone asked a question like "why did National Socialism focus on Jewish people", that person would be immediately shunned and the question would be offensive——again my experience. If you don't let people ask difficult questions, and provide answers for them, it isn't so much an education as a program.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#173

Post by nihonde »

engi_nerd wrote: post #87
rangibaby wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Japan would be the first country to selectively remember history to make itself look good. I doubt they teach much about Dresden in the UK, or the extermination of Indians in America, or killing literally every Aborigine in Tasmania, or the British forcing the Chinese to buy opium. I went to school in Japan and we didn't learn a sugar-coated version of history. We went to Hiroshima and listened to a tal…

The eradication of Native Americans was discussed extensively during my public school education in the US. Make of this anecdote what you will.

I'm encouraged by that, actually. It's a morbid and uncomfortable topic, but those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#174

Post by nihonde »

sukilot wrote: post #95
rangibaby wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Japan would be the first country to selectively remember history to make itself look good. I doubt they teach much about Dresden in the UK, or the extermination of Indians in America, or killing literally every Aborigine in Tasmania, or the British forcing the Chinese to buy opium. I went to school in Japan and we didn't learn a sugar-coated version of history. We went to Hiroshima and listened to a tal…

The USA just kicked President Jackson off the front of the $20 bill, and his genocide was part of the reason he was the least respected money face. The "Trail of Tears" is a major unit in several years of K-12 education.

Sounds like progress. We shouldn't forget the oppressors, but we also shouldn't honor them.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#175

Post by travmatt »

nihonde wrote: post #143
krapp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I removed the last sentence, but I stand by the snideness nonetheless. If nihonde wants to contrast Japan's pacifism with America's violence, they would do well to remember how much easier it is to remain pacifist when someone else has to take the bullets for you.

Please elaborate. I'd like to know which of America's wars or conflicts since WWII were fought on Japan's behalf?

You're employing a strawman in suggesting open military conflict is the only way in which Japan is a benefactor of America. In reality, America's dominance of the ocean's secures Japanese commerce and frees up money they would otherwise have to spend on defense - indeed, Japan's sophisticated economy benefitted a great deal by essentially having it's sovereignty guaranteed with no investment in a standing military. American power in the Pacific protects the Japanese from the ascension of China and probably somewhat from the belligerence of Russia - if America withdrew it's implicit military support of Japan, do you think the Japanese have the power to keep the Senkaku Islands from being annexed by China?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#176

Post by nihonde »

bluejekyll wrote: post #66
mevile wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans may not hide their actions, but they certainly paint the actions in a light favorable to the American self-image. Germany on the other hand exhibits complete contrition and there is no denial of the wrongness of the actions that happened. There are extreme and fringe holocaust denial beliefs in some sub-groups in Germany, but as a government policy what I've said is true.

As an American, this is a question I struggle with. The the atomic bombs did what they were meant to, a swift end to the war with a full capitulation by the Japanese, before the Russians were able to mount an invasion of their own. This is generally forgiven because it in theory saved the lives of American soldiers who would have had a hard fight to take Japan. But all of this was done, and with an understanding that…

My view is that the people who made those difficult decisions are all dead now. Let's study their reasons in the coldest, least judgmental light and try to make some sense of their dilemma. From there, maybe we can do a better job of avoiding the situations that lead people to have to make those hard choices.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#177

Post by travmatt »

Aeolun wrote: post #137
travmatt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea the snideness of that last sentence is a bit much, seeing as its current pacifism was bought with American blood and is secured by the Pax Americana.

You are saying that the Japanese didn't pay for their current pacifism with the blood of all _their_ soldiers that died in that war?

That'd be accurate. I suppose my stance would be that Japan's current pacifism was imposed on them at the cost of all their soldiers. In my mind 'bought' assumes intentionality, and I don't believe that pacifism was the goal of Imperial Japan.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#178

Post by nihonde »

bluejekyll wrote: post #118
sukilot wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never noticed the opposition to the Vietnamese war? It is the primary cultural feature of the 1960s-1970s, and then in movies through the 1980s

I should be more clear, there are many idividuals in the US who believe these actions were wrong, but the government continues to report civilian deaths as irreleveant in most cases. Also, I'd say those movies you're referring to were much more from the perspective of the unjustly forced into war soldier, than the plight of the Vietnamese. I was not alive then, my knowledge of Vietnam is all books and information fro…

Life is so strange. The other day, I joined a new Japanese language class. The only other person who was starting that day was a young Vietnamese man. So here is an American and a Vietnamese man in Japan, speaking to each other in broken Japanese. Fifty years ago, we might have been killing each other. Thank goodness we found our peace and became friends with a common goal instead.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#179

Post by nihonde »

ksou32 wrote: post #169
sangnoir wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Added additional context to your question: > Say as an armed soldier, you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. > Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon on civilians to end the war ? I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you…

Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted. In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910 In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machin…

Truman's duty was to humanity, not "American boys".

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#180

Post by nihonde »

tiredwired wrote: post #56

It's ok, everything worked out in the end. US & Japan turned the whole relationship thing around.

Well, that is actually a good point. As President Obama said in anticipation of his historic visit to Hiroshima this year (paraphrasing): the relationship of Japan and the United States should serve as an example of how we can build a lasting peace from bitter enmity.

It's also worth noting that President Obama and the G7 will be meeting on Ise Shima, near Japan's most sacred Shinto site, Ise Jingu. It's significant because the most important shrines of Ise Jingu are rebuilt on the site every twenty years. I've visited Ise Jingu a few times, and the incredible craftsmanship of the buildings is jaw-dropping. Every piece of ancient Hinoki cedar used in the buildings is chiseled and sanded to perfection. They've been re-building the shrines every 20 years for almost a thousand years. Among other things, it's a metaphor for this whole conversation about forging a new tradition.

Post reply on HN