TOKYO – In one of modern Japan's biggest changes to security policy, its government decided this week to reinterpret Article 9 of its constitution to allow greater use of military force to defend other countries. The move sparked street protests amid fears it marks a reversal of Japan's post-World War II pacifist principles.
Three experts shared their thoughts with The Associated Press about where Japan's military is headed and why it is such a sensitive issue: Jeffrey Kingston, head of Asian studies at Temple University Japan; Takeshi Iwaya, chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Research Commission on Security; and Narushige Michishita, director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. Quotes have been edited and condensed.
___
THE ANTIWAR CONSTITUTION
KINGSTON: Article 9 was part of the U.S.-written constitution that banned Japan from maintaining armed forces and resorting to war. Over the years, Japan has actually built up a fairly large and modern defense: navy, air force, army. Also, Japan has stretched the envelope of what's possible in terms of what it can do in the security realm. But this really is not seen by Washington as enough, and certain conservatives in Japan have long advocated for Japan to develop a more assertive defense posture. So Article 9 is seen to be a constraint on Japan's desires to up its security profile, and the fact is, Japan does live in a dangerous neighborhood.
___
UPPING JAPAN'S ROLE
IWAYA: We seek to play a more proactive role to ensure peace and stability in the region. It must have been difficult for the U.S. to serve as lone policeman for the world, and it might have faced calls from its people to step back. But we say, "America-san, please keep your presence here for the peace, stability and prosperity for the Asia-Pacific region. Japan will help more, so let's do it together." That's what we are trying to do.
___
PUBLIC FEARS
KINGSTON: A lot of analysts say, "Hey, you have North Korea lobbying missiles, China flexing its muscles, you have these disputes in the East China Sea. Why don't the Japanese people get with the program?" The thing is, pacifism is part of Japan's national identity. Postwar, the Japanese people have found in pacifism — redemption. All children, where do they go for their school trips? Hiroshima and Okinawa. Both places reinforce anti-war sentiments, which are further reinforced in Japanese textbooks. Look what happens when you go to war. Look at the devastation the Japanese people suffered during the war. Japanese people are very much aware of what happened the last time militarists were in control of their country. So there is an abiding fear of what might happen if Article 9's constitutional constraints are eased on what Japan can do militarily. They really fear that the alliance with the United States will somehow pull Japan into conflict. That's why it's so controversial.
___
POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS
MICHISHITA: We often see concern that Japan will take excessive military action if the country is allowed to exercise collective self-defense, but what we really should worry about is not going too far, but not being able to do anything. Collective self-defense is only a right, and whether to exercise it is a political decision. It won't be easy for Japanese lawmakers to decide to execute it while facing a risk of losing public support. Countries in the region are increasingly concerned about tension over China's high-handed approach, and showing high expectations for Japan's role. Previously, Japan could have said, "We cannot contribute to the region because we cannot exercise the right to collective self-defense." Japan now has lost that excuse, and the question is how much will Japan be able to contribute to security in the region.
___
THE FUTURE: AN ASIAN NATO?
IWAYA: In the long run, I think we should put a large security umbrella over the entire Asia-Pacific region, like the one in Europe. That's the direction we seek under the slogan that the Abe administration promotes: "proactive contribution to peace based on international cooperation." There will be a large free trade bloc in the region in the future, and in order to protect that I believe the establishment of a large collective security framework should be a long-term goal in the region.
I actually hope they do become a naval power. Their land forces are quite dedicated.
MacArthur must be spinning in his grave at these developments.
Personally, I don't believe China needs to dominate its neighbours with military force. When it becomes the world's largest economy, and neighbouring countries (like South Korea) become dependant on China's massive markets, I'm sure more subtle and non violent means will be used.
Afraid he's already lost his head They just wouldn't let him bomb China
Personally, I don't believe China needs to dominate its neighbours with military force. When it becomes the world's largest economy, and neighbouring countries (like South Korea) become dependant on China's massive markets, I'm sure more subtle and non violent means will be used.
This would probably be a contributing factor to rearming in Japan really. Before, they could say that a lightly equipped SDF was sufficient because any attack on them and the US Navy and the Marines come running. Times change.
LordofHats wrote: They've got China and North Korea for neighbors. They're actively engaged in territory disputes with China, but then who isn't?
And also Russia over the Kuril Islands
And also Korea. So, Japan was forced into “pacifism” because they went on an expansionist bloodshed, and would now use territorial disputes (with basically ALL their neighbors, including a country that is a staunch ally of the U.S. too, and could hardly be accused of being expansionist) as an excuse for getting some military back. What could possibly go wrong with that?
I doubt Korea, or Russia really, are who Japan is really worried about.
So, Japan was forced into “pacifism” because they went on an expansionist bloodshed,
They weren't forced so much as there really just wasn't anything to fight over anymore. Some countries, like the European powers, grow sick of constantly fighting with each other. Others like Japan end up with a distaste for fighting and nothing to fight over anyway. Others like America get into a fight and decide it was pretty good and that they want another
LordofHats wrote: They weren't forced so much as there really just wasn't anything to fight over anymore.
Was that constitution not literally written by the U.S.?
LordofHats wrote: Others like Japan end up with a distaste for fighting and nothing to fight over anyway.
Yeah, sure, seems like Japanese would totally not fight against all those little islands . Sorry, not buying it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Went to check on Wikipedia.
“Much of the drafting was done by two senior army officers with law degrees: Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney, although others chosen by MacArthur had a large say in the document. The articles about equality between men and women are reported to have been written by Beate Sirota.”
Yep, literally written by U.S. citizens, mostly from the military, rather than Japanese ones.
Was that constitution not literally written by the U.S.?
Yep. But I doubt we care much anymore, and really there's not much we can do if they up and want to chang eit.
Yeah, sure, seems like Japanese would totally not fight against all those little islands . Sorry, not buying it.
I mean immediately after WWII. Of the territory disputes, the ones with Russia and Korea are minor (not to mention legally they're firmly settled against Japan who really only seems to make them when a politician is trying to score some points with minority nationalists). The conflict with China is the one that is really going to matter.
Japanese nationalism has experienced a resurgence since the mid-90's but it's not really gaining steam and is mostly just a counter movement (kind of like the Libertarian party )
So, I stand by my point. Japan was forced into some “pacifist” constitution by the people that just used two nuclear bomb on them. This was the direct result of them going on an all-over invasion of the rest of Asia. Them saying they need to rearm over their many territorial dispute with all their neighbors is NOT a good sign.
So, I stand by my point. Japan was forced into some “pacifist” constitution by the people that just used two nuclear bomb on them. This was the direct result of them going on an all-over invasion of the rest of Asia. Them saying they need to rearm over their many territorial dispute with all their neighbors is NOT a good sign.
Why is it not a good sign?
Do you want Japan to be absorbed by other nations?
Japan re-arming is only a problem if they decide to return to the same mentality they developed in the years between WWI and WWII. Prior to that period, Japan had a military with as good a record and reputation as any European power of the time. The idea that a Japanese soldier would commit the kinds of atrocities that the IJA would later commit would horrify and offend a Japanese office of the pre-WWI era. Between the wars, however, Japan's military began to exert more and more control over the civil government leading to a series of coups that effectively put the military in charge of the country (the coups were always very careful to make clear that they were opposed to the existing civillian government, but were completely loyal to the Emperor). The mentality the military developed during that era was what encouraged and influenced the atrocities the IJA were responsible for during WWII.
As long as the Japanese military doesn't start down that path again, I see no reason why Japan shouldn't be allowed to strengthen it's millitary. After all, North Korea is awfully close by and the Chinese are still sore over what the Japanese did to them in WWII.
whembly wrote: Do you want Japan to be absorbed by other nations?
No, but then again, would Japan be absorbed by another nation without an army?
squidhills wrote: Japan re-arming is only a problem if they decide to return to the same mentality they developed in the years between WWI and WWII. Prior to that period, Japan had a military with as good a record and reputation as any European power of the time. The idea that a Japanese soldier would commit the kinds of atrocities that the IJA would later commit would horrify and offend a Japanese office of the pre-WWI era. Between the wars, however, Japan's military began to exert more and more control over the civil government leading to a series of coups that effectively put the military in charge of the country (the coups were always very careful to make clear that they were opposed to the existing civillian government, but were completely loyal to the Emperor). The mentality the military developed during that era was what encouraged and influenced the atrocities the IJA were responsible for during WWII.
But… why are you talking WW? There was two wars in Europe, yes. But in Asia? Japan took control of Korea in 1910, and they had started to bully their way into Korea for quite a bit of time. They had two wars with China, one before that, one that started in 1937. I do not think speaking about WWI and WWII is that relevant to understand the history of a country that never took part to any fighting in Europe. Especially with WWI. But maybe I am wrong.
squidhills wrote: After all, North Korea is awfully close by and the Chinese are still sore over what the Japanese did to them in WWII.
And why would they be? I mean, when the director of City of Life and Death receive death threats in China for being too kind with the Japanese troops, and yet had an extremely hard time getting any screenings in Japan for the exact opposite reasons, that is quite a good proof that Japan learned from its error and is deeply ashamed of its past. Or… not.
And it is not just Chinese that are sore about what the Japanese did to them. Both Korea do. Not that this whole Dokdo/Takeshima is likely to make the Japanese look any better. I mean, really, are they even trying?
But yeah, certainly they need a stronger military. I mean, after all, protection from the world's biggest military budget in the world, by a huge margin, is certainly not enough.
We don't use our military to handle their border issues. Our military is there to serve our own interests, and as a by product we provide a passive shield.
Just because China may not drop missiles on Honshu, doesn't mean it keeps their outlying territories safe, and a stronger Japanese Navy is something they'll need for that.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do not think speaking about WWI and WWII is that relevant to understand the history of a country that never took part to any fighting in Europe. Especially with WWI. But maybe I am wrong.
Technically, Japan did send ships to the Med during WWI. They just didn't do much WWI featured a single massive shift in politics when Japan took the isles that Germany held in the Pacific. This was a big deal. Once they held Manchuria, Korea, and those islands it put them in direct conflict with France and Britain. WWI played a big role in Japan's later entry into WWII.
WWI had less of an effect on Japan than other conflicts, but understand that the world didn't stop turning while Europe fought WWI. Japan wanted to be a 'modern' power. It was very close to the European powers as its Army often worked with France to keep itself modern while the Navy bounced between Britain and Germany. The Imperial Government was always more of a military dictatorship than anything, so naturally the military tended to pay a lot of attention to what its friends were doing.
Both Korea do. Not that this whole Dokdo/Takeshima is likely to make the Japanese look any better. I mean, really, are they even trying?
Japan and Korea are like the US and Britain. They might glare at each other angrily over the water from time to time, but today they have many more reasons to be friends than enemies.
But yeah, certainly they need a stronger military.
If they needed one they wouldn't debate it so much. People have noted for the last few years that rearmament is very likely, but building an military takes decades. Japan's not going to go from its small SDF to a full military power overnight and the people at large don't even support a move. Polls from a few years ago suggest that the populace is behind an expansion of the SDF's humanitarian capability, which to an extent is military capability, but they were quite against a full military rearmament.
djones520 wrote: We don't use our military to handle their border issues. Our military is there to serve our own interests, and as a by product we provide a passive shield.
Just because China may not drop missiles on Honshu, doesn't mean it keeps their outlying territories safe, and a stronger Japanese Navy is something they'll need for that.
We don't use our military to solve our border issues either
djones520 wrote: We don't use our military to handle their border issues. Our military is there to serve our own interests, and as a by product we provide a passive shield.
Just because China may not drop missiles on Honshu, doesn't mean it keeps their outlying territories safe, and a stronger Japanese Navy is something they'll need for that.
We don't use our military to solve our border issues either
LordofHats wrote: Japan and Korea are like the US and Britain. They might glare at each other angrily over the water from time to time, but today they have many more reasons to be friends than enemies.
Except England's grandfathers didn't spend the years of their early twenties enslaving and raping the USA's grandmothers. There is no love lost between the various nations of the Asian Pacific.
feeder wrote: Except England's grandfathers didn't spend the years of their early twenties enslaving and raping the USA's grandmothers. There is no love lost between the various nations of the Asian Pacific.
France and Britain and Germany and Spain were butchering each other for centuries. Time doesn't heal wounds so much as make people forget about them because there are new wounds to worry about.
feeder wrote: Except England's grandfathers didn't spend the years of their early twenties enslaving and raping the USA's grandmothers. There is no love lost between the various nations of the Asian Pacific.
France and Britain and Germany and Spain were butchering each other for centuries. Time doesn't heal wounds so much as make people forget about them because there are new wounds to worry about.
One of those problems being that Japan was seen as the 'Barbarian Hordes' to China and Korea for a long time, due to constantly trying to invade and butcher the mainland, it didn't help that Japan still denies much of the atrocities it has caused.
Japan invading Mainland Asia is a pretty recent thing. For most of it's history Japan has been on the receiving end, not the other way around.
Japan and (South) Korea probably have more drinking stories about all the times China has invaded them (or tried to in Japan's case) than they have to complain about the number of times they've fought each other. Anyone thinking that Japan and Korea are more worried about each other than an enemy they've historically both been in conflict with for over 2000 years doesn't know they're history very well. Especially when they have the US to arbitrate and North Korea as an additional "that guy" for them to both be leery of.
Though at the rate things are going for North Korea China will be joining Japan and South Korea at that drinking table
At least the Germans have repented of for their forefather's crimes and have become a more enlightened and inclusive society. Japan hasn't. I don't like Japan.
1) They consistently refuse to even acknowledge that they committed atrocities against other nations
2) They are still extremely xenophobic and racist. Have a non Japanese (specifically Chinese or Korean) ancestor despite being 3/4 or more Japanese? You'll be discriminated against. It's completely insane. I can at least understand (but I don't condone) racism against those that don't look like you or have extremely different cultural values, but the Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and possibly Mongolians as well, might as well be all the same ethnic group. Yes, there are differences, between them, but any discrimination is even more absurd to me than a Dane discriminating against a German. Seriously, wtf Japan? They still treat foreigners poorly and even if you've lived there for years, speak the language fluently, and completely embrace the culture you are still an outsider.
3) Still excessively misogynistic. When you have to establish women's only trains/subways/etc to prevent groping there is a serious cultural problem.
4) Strange and perverted. It is greatly exaggerated by the internet, but it is still there. This is the country that brought us tentacle porn and the other god forsaken crap in hentai. Thanks, that's a great contribution to global culture.
Germany needs to rebuild its military and establish itself once again as a military power for the good of the global community. I couldn't care less about who establishes dominance in Asia. It'll be Japan or China, and both of those countries have serious institutional problems. It's really aggravating how much people harp on Americans for being racist and sexist when the two countries vying for control of Asia are much worse. That isn't to say America doesn't have room for improvement, but I don't think we appreciate how good we Americans have it here in comparison to other nations.
trexmeyer wrote: At least the Germans have repented of for their forefather's crimes and have become a more enlightened and inclusive society. Japan hasn't. I don't like Japan.
1) They consistently refuse to even acknowledge that they committed atrocities against other nations
2) They are still extremely xenophobic and racist. Have a non Japanese (specifically Chinese or Korean) ancestor despite being 3/4 or more Japanese? You'll be discriminated against. It's completely insane. I can at least understand (but I don't condone) racism against those that don't look like you or have extremely different cultural values, but the Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and possibly Mongolians as well, might as well be all the same ethnic group. Yes, there are differences, between them, but any discrimination is even more absurd to me than a Dane discriminating against a German. Seriously, wtf Japan? They still treat foreigners poorly and even if you've lived there for years, speak the language fluently, and completely embrace the culture you are still an outsider.
3) Still excessively misogynistic. When you have to establish women's only trains/subways/etc to prevent groping there is a serious cultural problem.
4) Strange and perverted. It is greatly exaggerated by the internet, but it is still there. This is the country that brought us tentacle porn and the other god forsaken crap in hentai. Thanks, that's a great contribution to global culture.
Germany needs to rebuild its military and establish itself once again as a military power for the good of the global community. I couldn't care less about who establishes dominance in Asia. It'll be Japan or China, and both of those countries have serious institutional problems. It's really aggravating how much people harp on Americans for being racist and sexist when the two countries vying for control of Asia are much worse. That isn't to say America doesn't have room for improvement, but I don't think we appreciate how good we Americans have it here in comparison to other nations.
I lived in S. Korea for 4 1/2 years and Japan for 2 1/2; I can tell you with some authority that your opinion is incorrect in that your assumptions are based on obvious stereotypes and misinformation promulgated by other countries in the region about Japan and Japanese culture.
1. Apologies. There seems to be this desire by China and S. Korea for every new Japanese government to abase themselves to everyone in the region when in fact Japan has apologized and recognized their wrongs on numerous occasions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan It's kind of like your wife never letting you live down something you did. We let Germany get on with their lives but for some reason it's different for Japan.
2. You just described all of Asia. I had an old lady spit on my shoes in Daegu when I lived there and then yell at me for being an American (an assumption but correct one) in Korean. She was unprepared for my reasoned response in Korean and just huffed and walked away. I've been turned away from night-clubs in Pusan, refused services in coffee shops and just generally shunned for being not-Korean.
My point here is that there are "rednecks" in every country; when you start using a broad brush to paint an entire country because of the actions of a few, you're in danger of being a bigot yourself.
3. I'm not being condescending when I say this but you've never been around Asia have you? Look at India, look at China (killing daughters?), look at S. Korea; the list goes on. Not an excuse but in my personal experience, having visited nearly every country in Asia, women have more rights in Japan than most other places in Asia. I remember when I first lived in Korea women were not allowed to smoke in public; this started to change while I was there with the younger generation but it's still an example of how women are treated.
4. Again, broad brush much? Hentai is a sub-culture much like the one in Germany where people like to watch videos about other people defecating in other peoples' mouths. I think you will hard pressed to find people who say that a country's porn defines a nation's culture. Japan, like any country, has beautiful art, architecture, music...etc.
Interesting times in Japan under Abe. The country has been basically asleep at the wheel for almost 25 years, wandering between Liberal Democrat 'let's porkbarrel our way out of everything' and the various alternatives who've opted for various forms of 'do nothing'.
But it looks like Abe might actually be on to something. The revision of Article Nine is the one that's been picked up in international press, but there's a lot of long overdue reform going on in Japan. Abenomics debate has tended to focus on the monetary policy, but that's just one part of a move to lower taxes, expanded trade (and trade competitiveness) and deregulation. And then there's the increase in respect for women and their inclusion in the workforce.
I mean, there's nothing in place that can't be rolled back by another government, but it's likely Japan is finally reforming in some long overdue ways.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Personally, I don't believe China needs to dominate its neighbours with military force. When it becomes the world's largest economy, and neighbouring countries (like South Korea) become dependant on China's massive markets, I'm sure more subtle and non violent means will be used.
That's assuming China's ascent to world economic dominance is assured, and that nothing could possibly go wrong in China before then. But China has most of its economic growth tied up in some very wobbly property values, and a political system that is really dependent on the promise of economic growth eventually making things okay for everyone. If any of that falls down, well it isn't hard to see how they could resort to militarism pretty quickly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, I stand by my point. Japan was forced into some “pacifist” constitution by the people that just used two nuclear bomb on them. This was the direct result of them going on an all-over invasion of the rest of Asia. Them saying they need to rearm over their many territorial dispute with all their neighbors is NOT a good sign.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert some kind of permanence to Japanese culture, that militarism that once took over the country is somehow more likely to happen there again. Times change, Japan today is massively different to Japan in the 30s.
@Agnosto. Great post! Having lived in Korea for a few years myself, can say I share your experience (except for being turned away from a nightclub ).
Korea isn't a multi-racial and multi-cultural country, and as massively polite and good natured as most of the people are, most of the bad experiences westerners have there (the odd old person stood 1ft away staring at you, or a muttered comment) are more of a result of this than anything else.
1. Apologies. There seems to be this desire by China and S. Korea for every new Japanese government to abase themselves to everyone in the region when in fact Japan has apologized and recognized their wrongs on numerous occasions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan It's kind of like your wife never letting you live down something you did. We let Germany get on with their lives but for some reason it's different for Japan.
Hmm.. not sure I entirely agree with you here. Germany has been apologetic, almost to the point of embarrassment, Japan not so. I experienced a fair amount of ill will amongst the older generation in Korea (I say this as someone who lived amongst Koreans, had a Korean fiancé etc.) towards the Japanese. You can't imagine Angela Merkel visiting the grave of Rommel or Donitz and paying respects. I was in Korea when the Tsunami hit Japan, and the feeling I got (from the old) was definitely one of 'they had it coming', even though at the same time there was a massive charity movement within Korea and they did help out Japan a lot. I remember news stories of Korean charity/food boats being turned away, as though the Japanese didn't need them - it tied into the kind of feeling the Koreans have about the Japanese.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert some kind of permanence to Japanese culture, that militarism that once took over the country is somehow more likely to happen there again. Times change, Japan today is massively different to Japan in the 30s.
Is this the place for sweeping comments?
Every country has a history of warfare and aggression, but I think some more than most. Japan certainly more than most, and they took the role of plunderers in the far east for at least a 1000yrs or so. I don't know whether it is the result of being so well defined racially and culturally, or perhaps from being on a small island without much in the way of natural resources (and with some vast, plump paddy fields a relatively short boat ride away to the west) but they certainly have a bloody history.
If you think Europe is bad (and it is), a visit to Osaka castle (with its painted visual history of Japan) is basically a thousand years of warfare and bloodshed. I would certainly contrast this with Korea, who I think have done tremendously well to survive with such large, powerful, and (in the case of Japan certainly) aggressive neighbours.
Pacific wrote: Hmm.. not sure I entirely agree with you here. Germany has been apologetic, almost to the point of embarrassment, Japan not so.
While I note that Japan's apologies have often done a little bit of downplaying (hearing their version, the Rape of Nanking was an isolated incident), but really, what do people expect? Japan to bend over and kiss the ass of every single person upset about things that happened nearly a century ago (really, we're getting close to 100 years here).
Every country has a history of warfare and aggression, but I think some more than most. Japan certainly more than most, and they took the role of plunderers in the far east for at least a 1000yrs or so.
What history books are people reading? As a country, Japan was isolationist for nearly its entire history save a 75 year stretch from 1870 to 1945. Seriously. Japans history of warfare is profoundly internal. They were sending tributes to the Chinese dynasties for thousands of years. Traditionally Japan supported Korea in its conflicts with China, if off handedly. Japan could even be considered a client state of China until the end of the Tang Dynasty. They were never a particularly dominant force until the 20th century.
If anyone can be called the plunderer of the far east its China, not Japan. China has invaded Korea and Veitnam more times than I've had haircuts.
Pacific wrote: Every country has a history of warfare and aggression, but I think some more than most. Japan certainly more than most, and they took the role of plunderers in the far east for at least a 1000yrs or so. I don't know whether it is the result of being so well defined racially and culturally, or perhaps from being on a small island without much in the way of natural resources (and with some vast, plump paddy fields a relatively short boat ride away to the west) but they certainly have a bloody history.
But the behaviour of previous generations doesn't really have anything to do with predicting the behaviour of the current generation.
I just don't see how anyone can say that because Japan once wanted to form an Asian protectorate over which they would benevolently rule, that we can look at current Japanese society and say yep, that might just be where this proposed expansion is heading.
Pacific wrote: Hmm.. not sure I entirely agree with you here. Germany has been apologetic, almost to the point of embarrassment, Japan not so.
While I note that Japan's apologies have often done a little bit of downplaying (hearing their version, the Rape of Nanking was an isolated incident), but really, what do people expect? Japan to bend over and kiss the ass of every single person upset about things that happened nearly a century ago (really, we're getting close to 100 years here).
People expect the Japanese leadership to stop siding with rapists and murderers. You can't have it both ways - yes, it's been seventy years, so why is Abe still hellbent on carrying water for these donkey-caves? Germany, if anything, has gone too far in distancing itself from Nazi Germany, but Japan's current Prime Minister is literally saying that the victims of Imperial Japan's official rape system were asking for it.
Hmm.. not sure I entirely agree with you here. Germany has been apologetic, almost to the point of embarrassment, Japan not so. I experienced a fair amount of ill will amongst the older generation in Korea (I say this as someone who lived amongst Koreans, had a Korean fiancé etc.) towards the Japanese. You can't imagine Angela Merkel visiting the grave of Rommel or Donitz and paying respects. I was in Korea when the Tsunami hit Japan, and the feeling I got (from the old) was definitely one of 'they had it coming', even though at the same time there was a massive charity movement within Korea and they did help out Japan a lot. I remember news stories of Korean charity/food boats being turned away, as though the Japanese didn't need them - it tied into the kind of feeling the Koreans have about the Japanese.
I don't know that I agree with you here. There's a long list of instances where Japan has apologized for its past actions but there are those in the region who take every apology and say, "Yeah, I don't buy it." to the point where one organization contested the Japanese word used in the apology. Seriously, they said that the word obawe was not formal enough even though it's the most formal apology in the Japanese language and even says so in translation dictionaries. No, I believe this is a case of perception and culture. The Japanese government has made some questionable moves in the past (it's almost like they're a democracy and donkey-caves get elected now and again, that never happens in other countries..) and people collectively jump on anything seen as a potential slight to justify their ongoing hate.
As for food donations; I couldn't find anything on a quick search but did find this on Wikipedia:
South Korea was among the first foreign emergency rescue teams consisting of 5 rescuers and 2 rescue dogs who arrived in Japan on March 12, while another team of 102 rescuers arrived 2 days later.[88] In total, private donations originating from Korea amounted to 2.97 billion Japanese Yen (37.1 million US dollars in March 2011), the 5th largest foreign donation following USA, Taiwan, Canada and Germany.[89] In addition to human aid, Korea sent boric acid to weaken nuclear reactions and power sources for electricity.[90] Many provinces have offered aid as well. Gyeonggi-do offered US$1 million, and raised additional aid.[91] The South Korean consulate staffs in Sendai were crucial in escorting a Croatian citizen, Vinko Hut Kono, safely to the Akita Airport.[92] However, some government organizations in South Korea halted their fund drives and instead donated the money to nationalist organizations for political reasons.
LoneLictor wrote: Would someone tell me why Japan needs a military? Humor me for being stupid.
China...duh.
The Chinese are a peace loving nation who extend the hand of friendship to all. It is a long established goal of China's to help create the People's Republic of Texas, free from the influence of the great Satan in Washington and its Zionist lackeys
Indeed. The peace loving Chinese have now extended our benificense from Vietnam to the Phillipines. Just the other day we helped rescue some Vietnamese fishermen who's boats mysteriously sank in Our waters.
************************************************************
Am I the only person who sees the meeting between China and South Korea as a Big Freaking Deal and a major warning shot to China's client state?
Frazzled wrote: Indeed. The peace loving Chinese have now extended our benificense from Vietnam to the Phillipines. Just the other day we helped rescue some Vietnamese fishermen who's boats mysteriously sank in Our waters.
************************************************************
Am I the only person who sees the meeting between China and South Korea as a Big Freaking Deal and a major warning shot to China's client state?
It's not really a big deal, Frazz. Money talks, as you know, and the South Koreans are far more valuable to China than the north.
On the subject of economics, a question for everybody: Am I the only person thinking that Japan's re-armament has more to do with stimulating its economy (which has been flatlining since the 1990s) rather than standing up to China? Or am I being to cynical?
On the subject of economics, a question for everybody: Am I the only person thinking that Japan's re-armament has more to do with stimulating its economy (which has been flatlining since the 1990s) rather than standing up to China? Or am I being to cynical?
That's a big part of it I believe. I read an article yesterday about Japan setting up its first arms sale...
Edit: found one article...funny picture as well..http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/06/28/national/politics-diplomacy/tooling-war-can-japan-benefit-lifting-arms-export-ban/#.U7qoZIUo70w
On the subject of economics, a question for everybody: Am I the only person thinking that Japan's re-armament has more to do with stimulating its economy (which has been flatlining since the 1990s) rather than standing up to China? Or am I being to cynical?
I don't see why that couldn't be part of the reason they are doing it. Although, it won't do much for the economy if they buy foreign weapons. They will have to build their tanks and jets at home, rather than buy our cast-off junk (F-104 Starfighters, anyone?) and hand me downs. I know they have at least one fighter design and one tank design of their own, but beyond that, I don't know what home-grown designs their SDF is using.
Of course, designing their own military weapons and equipment is the perfect excuse for them to get started on that real-life giant anime robot I've always wanted.
On the subject of economics, a question for everybody: Am I the only person thinking that Japan's re-armament has more to do with stimulating its economy (which has been flatlining since the 1990s) rather than standing up to China? Or am I being to cynical?
I don't see why that couldn't be part of the reason they are doing it. Although, it won't do much for the economy if they buy foreign weapons. They will have to build their tanks and jets at home, rather than buy our cast-off junk (F-104 Starfighters, anyone?) and hand me downs. I know they have at least one fighter design and one tank design of their own, but beyond that, I don't know what home-grown designs their SDF is using.
Of course, designing their own military weapons and equipment is the perfect excuse for them to get started on that real-life giant anime robot I've always wanted.
They already build their equipment at home. Even their F-15's.
I think part of it is that WW2 is still very fresh and will be fresh in the minds of many nations for a while, especially as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) like to use Japan as a whipping boy when they need to divert attention from themselves. I think if Japanese politicians would stop going to the Warshines or at least move the bodies of the war criminals out of them it would give the CCP and others less ammunition to use on them. (And yes I know they have a right to honor their war dead as much as anyone else.) Same goes with getting the right wing to stop talking about comfort women and that they want to rescind on the apology that the government gave in 1993.
In Asia Japan is the easy target with decent reasons thanks to its actions in WW2. Even so it will be interesting to see if the younger generations will carry on the hate of Japan that thier grandparents and sometimes parents have.
I think a certain amount of good can come from Japan from rearming, though it could start a cycle of escalation with China. So caution needs to be had. In the end I think no matter what Japan does it is going to get criticized and it needs to do what it feels are in its best national interests. If Japan rearms we could see more Asian cooperation between Japan, ASEAN, and India in response to China.
guardpiper wrote: I think part of it is that WW2 is still very fresh and will be fresh in the minds of many nations for a while, especially as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) like to use Japan as a whipping boy when they need to divert attention from themselves. I think if Japanese politicians would stop going to the Warshines or at least move the bodies of the war criminals out of them it would give the CCP and others less ammunition to use on them. (And yes I know they have a right to honor their war dead as much as anyone else.) Same goes with getting the right wing to stop talking about comfort women and that they want to rescind on the apology that the government gave in 1993.
In Asia Japan is the easy target with decent reasons thanks to its actions in WW2. Even so it will be interesting to see if the younger generations will carry on the hate of Japan that thier grandparents and sometimes parents have.
I think a certain amount of good can come from Japan from rearming, though it could start a cycle of escalation with China. So caution needs to be had. In the end I think no matter what Japan does it is going to get criticized and it needs to do what it feels are in its best national interests. If Japan rearms we could see more Asian cooperation between Japan, ASEAN, and India in response to China.
The whole Yasukuni thing would be a valid point if it weren't for the fact that there are nearly half a million names on the rolls there and only a thousand or so are "war criminals" and the shrine's been around since the Meiji Era... It's an excuse to throw recriminations at Japan like any other.
Having lived in Korea, I can tell you that during the time that I lived there the younger generation was indoctrinated to hate Japan by teachers; it's a borderline state religion. I'm not saying there isn't good reason for ill feelings, the Japanese occupation nearly destroyed their entire culture, I'm just saying that wounds only heal if you let them and when people have a personal or political agenda... I can tell you that the prevailing attitude in Korea while I was there was one of "Never Forgive, Never Forget."
The feeling that I got from living in Japan is one of goodwill towards other nations in Asia. Japan has moved on. They have contributed to the overall wealth and success of other Asian countries and groups (and sometimes governments) continue to spit in their faces. It's funny that at the same time Japanese housewives were trying to learn Korean because of the popularity of Korean TV shows in Japan, the Korean government banned Japanese music and culture from the country (this was lifted while I lived in Korea).
The feeling that I got from living in Japan is one of goodwill towards other nations in Asia. Japan has moved on.
Of course it is. They lost big time and were occupied as a result.
If I were Korea or China I wouldn't be forgetting any time soon. Nor the Phillipines, Vietnam, etc. etc. Oh and us too.
People will forgive once they forget, and they will forget when everyone who remembers has died.
It's a bit more than that, a cultural thing. Most Koreans hold grudges like most people hold their wallets while walking through Grand Central Station. I don't know Chinese culture as well as Korean culture so I can't speak to them but the Korean concept of "han" won't allow them to forgive or forget, yes, they actually have a word for the "us against the world" feeling that sometimes permeates their society. It's a part of their cultural identity so much so that it's a big part of Pansori (Korean Shamanism) as much as "wa" (tranquility or peace) is with Japanese culture.
The great thing about being winners is that we don't have to apologize for killing several hundred thousand civilians in fuel-air and atomic bombings; how odd that the Japanese haven't demanded justice or an apology for the pointless killing of all of those women, children and non-combatants; technically they have just as much "right" to do so as the other countries have of them.
The great thing about being winners is that we don't have to apologize for killing several hundred thousand civilians in fuel-air and atomic bombings; how odd that the Japanese haven't demanded justice or an apology for the pointless killing of all of those women, children and non-combatants; technically they have just as much "right" to do so as the other countries have of them.
The great thing about being winners is that we don't have to apologize for killing several hundred thousand civilians in fuel-air and atomic bombings; how odd that the Japanese haven't demanded justice or an apology for the pointless killing of all of those women, children and non-combatants; technically they have just as much "right" to do so as the other countries have of them.
You seem to forget who invaded/attacked who.
And that totally justifies the deaths of countless innocents...
The great thing about being winners is that we don't have to apologize for killing several hundred thousand civilians in fuel-air and atomic bombings; how odd that the Japanese haven't demanded justice or an apology for the pointless killing of all of those women, children and non-combatants; technically they have just as much "right" to do so as the other countries have of them.
You seem to forget who invaded/attacked who.
And that totally justifies the deaths of countless innocents...
In order to stop said Japanese from killing millions, yes, yes it does actually.
These attacks initially targeted industrial facilities, but from March 1945 were generally directed against urban areas as much of the manufacturing process was carried out in small workshops and private homes.
The feeling that I got from living in Japan is one of goodwill towards other nations in Asia. Japan has moved on.
Of course it is. They lost big time and were occupied as a result.
If I were Korea or China I wouldn't be forgetting any time soon. Nor the Phillipines, Vietnam, etc. etc. Oh and us too.
People will forgive once they forget, and they will forget when everyone who remembers has died.
It's a bit more than that, a cultural thing. Most Koreans hold grudges like most people hold their wallets while walking through Grand Central Station. I don't know Chinese culture as well as Korean culture so I can't speak to them but the Korean concept of "han" won't allow them to forgive or forget, yes, they actually have a word for the "us against the world" feeling that sometimes permeates their society. It's a part of their cultural identity so much so that it's a big part of Pansori (Korean Shamanism) as much as "wa" (tranquility or peace) is with Japanese culture.
The great thing about being winners is that we don't have to apologize for killing several hundred thousand civilians in fuel-air and atomic bombings; how odd that the Japanese haven't demanded justice or an apology for the pointless killing of all of those women, children and non-combatants; technically they have just as much "right" to do so as the other countries have of them.
When I was in China, there is still a good amount of hate of the Japanese, like I said, Japan is still one of the their favorite whipping boys when they need to distract the people from their own screw ups. I see you point about the Shrine, I am not that familiar with it other than then the CCP yells when ever an Japanese official gets in 20 feet of it. I think for the Chinese the embarrassment factor of being beaten so badly by a former vassal state is what stings culturally, in addition the atrocities that where done to the civilian population by the Japanese military. I am no expert on Chinese cutlure nor do I claim to be, but after living there for a semester (6 months) and academic research that is my feeling of what it is.
Speaking to nationals from Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, India, and Mongolia, there is not much hate for the Japanese (especially with the Indians, Gurkhas not with standing) but right now everyone is more worried about China in the now than what happened in the past with Japan, once again that is my read with my experiences with the nationals of those nations and my own reseach and reading of the news.
I think that having suspicions against an island nation purely because it has a long history of piracy, pillaging, and invading neighbouring countries is entirely unreasonable. Britain would never start a world wa...wait, we're talking about Japan?
*coughs*
Damn those Japanese and their rampant militarist history! They'll destroy us all if we let them amend their constitution!
Ketara wrote: I think that having suspicions against an island nation purely because it has a long history of piracy, pillaging, and invading neighbouring countries is entirely unreasonable. Britain would never start a world wa...wait, we're talking about Japan?
*coughs*
Damn those Japanese and their rampant militarist history! They'll destroy us all if we let them amend their constitution!
*shakes fist*
They planned for the future by indoctrinating us with Mecha
The whole Yasukuni thing would be a valid point if it weren't for the fact that there are nearly half a million names on the rolls there and only a thousand or so are "war criminals" and the shrine's been around since the Meiji Era... It's an excuse to throw recriminations at Japan like any other.
Even the name of a single war criminal on those lists is one name too many that should never have been there. I don't get why Japan hasn't done anything about it yet. Surely if they have so much goodwill towards their neigbours, it would be a trivial matter to remove or strike out those few names? Imagine the outrage in Europe if Germany would have had such a shrine that included the names of Nazi war criminals.
Iron_Captain wrote: Even the name of a single war criminal on those lists is one name too many that should never have been there. I don't get why Japan hasn't done anything about it yet. Surely if they have so much goodwill towards their neigbours, it would be a trivial matter to remove or strike out those few names?
Imagine the outrage in Europe if Germany would have had such a shrine that included the names of Nazi war criminals.
What can I say, it's a cultural thing to some extent and also a historical view of things. The purpose of the shrine is to recognize those who died but supported Japan. It's a form of showing respect and "tatemai" for the dead. Trying to view it through a non-Japanese lens just doesn't work as well. The people listed contributed to the furtherment of Japan, even the non-Japanese names listes, it's more a recognition of their dedication to Japan than what they actually did. That's my understanding of it after talking to my wife and other Japanese people.
Seaward wrote: It'd be nice if both Japan and Germany got back in the saddle.
Germany will eventually follow suit, though admittedly they have far less reason to as they have (in a round about way) accomplished their cultural nationalistic and imperialistic ideals via peaceful social and economic means, and for the most part have seemingly forgotten or moved beyond their territorial ambitions (while I've met a few who still uphold the view that "Danzig ist Deutsch" and that Russia has no right to continue to maintain Kaliningrad as its own, they are definitely a very small minority). Still though, both Germany and Japan have long-standing militarist cultural traditions and histories, and even though the US did a good job of suppressing it (ESPECIALLY in Germany) I think its only a matter of time before that bubbles back to the surface.
Note, this doesn't mean a return to that 'evil' warlike expansionist mentality by any means, that is a separate thing in and of itself. Regardless though, I dont know if a resurgent Germany OR Japan is necessarily a good thing... especially Japan, as others have pointed out, on a national/cultural level there is just something 'off' going on over there societally speaking.
Regardless of this though, we really have no right to comment or judge either country if they want to arm/re-arm themselves, nor do we really have a right to enforce continued disarmament on either of them.
Japan and Korea are like the US and Britain. They might glare at each other angrily over the water from time to time, but today they have many more reasons to be friends than enemies.
This comment shows a huge lack of understanding over Japanese/South Korea relations. Massive hint: Their relationship is in no way, shape, or form like the US and Britain, and they are only 'friendly' with one another because they will need to rely on one another for collective security if sith hits the fan. I think for the most part the ill will lies more on the side of Korea than it does Japan, but y'know that kinda makes sense.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert some kind of permanence to Japanese culture, that militarism that once took over the country is somehow more likely to happen there again. Times change, Japan today is massively different to Japan in the 30s.
Militarism (perhaps thats the wrong word... martial traditions perhaps?) is something that is very deeply rooted in Japanese culture and not something that was 'beat out' of them after the war. While Bushido isn't as prominent in Japanese culture as it once was, many of the cultural traditions that sprung from it still hold prominence in mainstream Japanese culture. (Semi)Ritualized suicide, for example, is still far too common in Japan as a sort of penance for violating ones honor, more than a few politicians, executives, etc. and far too many students have taken their own lives as the result of failures (whether real or perceived) which reflected negatively on themselves or their families. Thats just one example, but trust me the 'foundation' of it all is still very much there.
What history books are people reading? As a country, Japan was isolationist for nearly its entire history save a 75 year stretch from 1870 to 1945. Seriously. Japans history of warfare is profoundly internal. They were sending tributes to the Chinese dynasties for thousands of years. Traditionally Japan supported Korea in its conflicts with China, if off handedly. Japan could even be considered a client state of China until the end of the Tang Dynasty. They were never a particularly dominant force until the 20th century.
What history book are *you* reading. While you're correct that 'official' military history was very much internally focused, that kind of ignores the centuries of piracy and raiding carried out by fringe elements of Japanese society (amongst others). You may think of this as a relatively minor threat, but banditry and piracy in Eastern cultures was a very different threat than it was here in the West. We think of pirates, etc. as isolated small groups, etc. In Asia, bandits/pirates/raiders formed entire armies that challenged military/government authority directly. The Chinese fought *battles* against Japanese pirates with hundreds of ships and tens of thousands of men on each side. I mean, I suppose thats technically kind of unfair since a majority of the wokou/other groups were actually *not* Japanese, but historical revisionism over the past few centuries has changed that to make the Japanese the 'enemy'.
I don't see why that couldn't be part of the reason they are doing it. Although, it won't do much for the economy if they buy foreign weapons. They will have to build their tanks and jets at home, rather than buy our cast-off junk (F-104 Starfighters, anyone?) and hand me downs. I know they have at least one fighter design and one tank design of their own, but beyond that, I don't know what home-grown designs their SDF is using.
Of course, designing their own military weapons and equipment is the perfect excuse for them to get started on that real-life giant anime robot I've always wanted.
Most of Japan's world war 2 era/pre-war defense industry has survived relatively intact (Mitsubishi, Toyota, Kawasaki, IHI, Subaru, etc. all built or descended from companies that built military hardware for Japan) and maintains a lot of the industrial capacity to design, develop, and produce military hardware domestically. We think of most of these companies as being suppliers of civilian hardware, but in reality most of them still crank out gear for the JSDF. IHI & Mitsubishi produce Kongo Class Destroyers (variants of the Arleigh Burke) & Mitsubishi produces variants of the F-15/16 for example. They might not necessarily be 'up to par' with the American defense industry (at least in terms of technological advancement/R&D, since most of their equipment is derived from American gear), but they are easily capable of matching most (if not all) other NATO members domestic defense industries, and are probably a near competitor to Russias and still a good bit ahead of Chinas.
chaos0xomega wrote: Their relationship is in no way, shape, or form like the US and Britain, and they are only 'friendly' with one another because they will need to rely on one another for collective security if sith hits the fan.
Ketara wrote: I think that having suspicions against an island nation purely because it has a long history of piracy, pillaging, and invading neighbouring countries is entirely unreasonable. Britain would never start a world wa...wait, we're talking about Japan?
*coughs*
Damn those Japanese and their rampant militarist history! They'll destroy us all if we let them amend their constitution!
*shakes fist*
They planned for the future by indoctrinating us with Mecha
chaos0xomega wrote: Are you trying to say that the US/UK doesn't have a 'real' friendship?
But we love you guys... :C
I think our friendship was originally based on you lending us money, and us paying it back, plus a bitchin' amount of interest. Or something like that.
They're still fighting over that? And here I thought Argentina was the only country with attachment issues
Because of the ongoing dispute over these islands, Russia and Japan never formally declared the end of hostilities, which has been going since they declared war on each other during WWII.
While others have mentioned stuff about Japanese militarism, and whether it will see a resurgence or not, I doubt the Japanese would give in to something so extreme. The last time that happened, the US threw two nukes at their cities. And by that time, their entire economy was in shambles, their military only a fraction of what they had at the start of 1937, and if the bombs didn't work, they would have to defend their country against an all-out invasion.
Then again, if it wasn't for the bombs, Japan would have fought to the last man, anyways, such was their determination not to surrender.
Either way, the Japanese people would be hard-pressed to go full-blown militaristic again, considering what happened 70 years ago. Maybe we might see some sword-waving and bombastic statements in the near future, but nowhere near what was said or done back then.
The whole "de-militarized" thing was never really enforced in Japan, because of the Cold War. Japan still has one of the larger and more powerful militarys to this day, and that's with the gloves still on. Germany seems to have taken the "no armies, no war" thing a lot more seriously, apparently even down to a cultural level.
I think it has something to do with the manner of the defeat and how the clean up was handled. Germany fought long and hard and in the end was completely vanquished, right down to soviet soldiers hoisting the flag over the reichstag. That has a profound impact on a people. Japan on the other hand was not invaded in the traditional sense, and never suffered the final Armageddon that Germany did. Many of the senior echelons of command still wanted to fight and the emperor had to actually go on radio and tell everyone that they had lost. In the occupation the US pretty quickly about faced on the military issue after the korean war and many former members of the militarist regime were placed into position of power. In germany, not only were the Nazis completely removed and the people made to face what they had done but three out of the four occupying countries had an interest in keeping the germans down.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the subject of economics, a question for everybody: Am I the only person thinking that Japan's re-armament has more to do with stimulating its economy (which has been flatlining since the 1990s) rather than standing up to China? Or am I being to cynical?
You're not being cynical. Direct stimulus of the economy is a stated goal of Abenomics*, including expanded military spending. I thinks it's a case of looking to enjoy both the economic benefit, and also to be able to place a check on China without needing as much US support.
*This is the new economic approach championed by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It's kind of an interesting mix of Keynes style stimulus alongside structural reform ala Thatcher & Reagan. It seems to me to be a best of both worlds approach, and basically puts Abe head and shoulders above any other leader in the world for his economic policies. Whether it's enough to counter the Japanese demographic issues will be seen in time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: It's a bit more than that, a cultural thing. Most Koreans hold grudges like most people hold their wallets while walking through Grand Central Station. I don't know Chinese culture as well as Korean culture so I can't speak to them but the Korean concept of "han" won't allow them to forgive or forget, yes, they actually have a word for the "us against the world" feeling that sometimes permeates their society. It's a part of their cultural identity so much so that it's a big part of Pansori (Korean Shamanism) as much as "wa" (tranquility or peace) is with Japanese culture.
Yeah, it's the one thing that I fuond really tiresome among the Koreans I've known. Everything was seen in terms of how poor and unfortunate Korea was, and how much they personally suffered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: And that totally justifies the deaths of countless innocents...
If you want to win a major war, you will likely have to do some nasty gak. That doesn't mean that any and all nasty gak is okay, but it does mean that some nasty gak is fine when it helps to end the war sooner.
Despite having basically zero chance of winning another major engagement, let alone holding the American advance and forcing a cease-fire, the Japanese kept fighting. And as they did so, hundreds of thousands more died in China and other occupied territories.
The destruction of Japanese cities by fire attacks and atomic weapons was certainly some nasty gak, but it was necessary to end the war. The only alternative was invasion, and that was believed to have killed even more. So what would you have done?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Germany will eventually follow suit, though admittedly they have far less reason to as they have (in a round about way) accomplished their cultural nationalistic and imperialistic ideals via peaceful social and economic means, and for the most part have seemingly forgotten or moved beyond their territorial ambitions
The Luftwaffe was used in overseas operations a decade ago (I think it was the Balkans...). It caused some interested commentary much like this is, but nothing more. Anyhow, the point is that your comment that Germany will catch is mistaken, it is Japan who is finally catching up to Germany.
Also, Japan achieved their nationalistic ideas through economic progress 30 years ago. That Japan later fell in to their lost decade means the period from 1950 to 1990 is often forgotten about, but it remains the same.
Regardless of this though, we really have no right to comment or judge either country if they want to arm/re-arm themselves, nor do we really have a right to enforce continued disarmament on either of them.
It isn't that we don't have the right, in both cases we are talking about liberal democracies that are a positive economic force in the world. It is good that they are willing to play their part in ensuring global stability.
Militarism (perhaps thats the wrong word... martial traditions perhaps?) is something that is very deeply rooted in Japanese culture and not something that was 'beat out' of them after the war. While Bushido isn't as prominent in Japanese culture as it once was, many of the cultural traditions that sprung from it still hold prominence in mainstream Japanese culture. (Semi)Ritualized suicide, for example, is still far too common in Japan as a sort of penance for violating ones honor, more than a few politicians, executives, etc. and far too many students have taken their own lives as the result of failures (whether real or perceived) which reflected negatively on themselves or their families. Thats just one example, but trust me the 'foundation' of it all is still very much there.
I see far more celebration of the military in the US. It doesn't bother me though because, well, stereotyping whole political and democratic institutions on the basis of a couple of national quirks just isn't very useful.
Sebster, the US is different though, in the sense that our 'militarism' (again, not sure thats the appropriate word) basically revolves around a general pride in the military and our military history (whether its really warranted or not is another question). We don't have a 'bushido' code, we don't have a martial tradition that permeates the country at a deeper societal level. There is, in general, a deep divide between the military and civilian populations in this country, to the point that some consider the growing divide to be the basis for the foundation of a caste system within American society. In fact, the general civilian attitude towards the military is seemingly one of "us and them". The "Support Our Troops" movement has an implication that the "troops" are a separate entity from the American populace, otherwise it would be a "Support Our War Effort" campaign, implying that the civilian sector is a stakeholder in the outcome as well as the troops.
I can't really comment too much on Germany in that regards, but in Japan at least, while the military may not be 'celebrated' like it is in the US, many of the cultural traditions which still hold some relevant in Japanese society stem from Japanese martial tradition and militarism of yesteryear. Not *ALL* of them or even a majority of them mind you, but many of them.
chaos0xomega wrote: Sebster, the US is different though, in the sense that our 'militarism' (again, not sure thats the appropriate word) basically revolves around a general pride in the military and our military history (whether its really warranted or not is another question). We don't have a 'bushido' code, we don't have a martial tradition that permeates the country at a deeper societal level. There is, in general, a deep divide between the military and civilian populations in this country, to the point that some consider the growing divide to be the basis for the foundation of a caste system within American society. In fact, the general civilian attitude towards the military is seemingly one of "us and them". The "Support Our Troops" movement has an implication that the "troops" are a separate entity from the American populace, otherwise it would be a "Support Our War Effort" campaign, implying that the civilian sector is a stakeholder in the outcome as well as the troops.
I can't really comment too much on Germany in that regards, but in Japan at least, while the military may not be 'celebrated' like it is in the US, many of the cultural traditions which still hold some relevant in Japanese society stem from Japanese martial tradition and militarism of yesteryear. Not *ALL* of them or even a majority of them mind you, but many of them.
I'm sorry, but what? By your definition all the kids who take Judo or Karate in the US are paying homage to Japan's military past...
People need to realize that this has nothing to do with a rising wave of militarism in Japan but is all about economics and national self-interest in containing China who thinks the entire Pacific theater belongs to them. Japan is building stronger military ties with Australia and other regional powers and setting themselves up as an arms exporter (money).
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201407090062
US based martial arts are a bit of a joke IMO, heavily watered down money making schemes, but I get the point you're trying to make, but still not what I was referring to.
Shinto has some of its roots in ancient Japanese martial traditions for example (and was believed by the Allies, perhaps erroneously, to have been an element of Japanese ultra-nationalism during WW2), and there is a movement in Japan to restore it as the state religion.
The Japanese educational system is heavily regimented and based on a military structure, from the uniforms the students wear to the respect that teachers command from their students. Japanese education also features 'moral education' amongst other things, which has been described as indoctrination and/or nationalistic brainwashing by many in the west.
The Japanese educational system is heavily regimented and based on a military structure, from the uniforms the students wear
I wore a uniform at school.
to the respect that teachers command from their students.
I'm not sure that showing respect to your teacher is an inherently militaristic trait.
Japanese education also features 'moral education' amongst other things, which has been described as indoctrination and/or nationalistic brainwashing by many in the west.
We had PSE at school, which was something similar. It was there to teach us how awesome the EU was, not to do drugs, and not to sleep around. Sounds similar.
And then there is Bo-Taoshi...
As opposed to Tug of War?
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your key point chaos, but I view absolutely none of the above as supporting it in any way, shape or form. You only look at those things and go, 'Aha! A cultural predilection for warfare!' if you're looking for it already. I could do exactly the same thing with just about any school in any Western culture.
The Japanese educational system is heavily regimented and based on a military structure, from the uniforms the students wear
I wore a uniform at school.
Was your uniform specifically modeled after French military uniforms in use during Meiji-era Japan (or in the event you are female, western style Naval uniforms)?
I'm not sure that showing respect to your teacher is an inherently militaristic trait.
Again, it's a different sort of respect in Japan than it is in the West (well, at least in the US), the relationship is more of that of a military officer/superior and a subordinate than it is a western style teacher/student relationship.
We had PSE at school, which was something similar. It was there to teach us how awesome the EU was, not to do drugs, and not to sleep around. Sounds similar.
No idea what PSE is, but if its anything like 'Health' and 'Civics' in America, then Japanese moral education is not quite the same, especially as of recent reforms, it heavily emphasizes civic duty and how to be a productive member of Japanese society, and increasingly preaches a sort of borderline nationalism.
As opposed to Tug of War?
Oddly enough I've never played it... so I don't quite see what your point is here...? I mean, I've played dodgeball, which I guess would be a better comparison... but I didn't even do that until I reached college and was an ROTC cadet, in which case, I have to say "well duh, I was training to be a military officer" (and as an aside, that was completely voluntary on my part and not something that is a government mandated element of our educational system).
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your key point chaos, but I view absolutely none of the above as supporting it in any way, shape or form. You only look at those things and go, 'Aha! A cultural predilection for warfare!' if you're looking for it already. I could do exactly the same thing with just about any school in any Western culture.
I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.
*This is the new economic approach championed by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. It's kind of an interesting mix of Keynes style stimulus alongside structural reform ala Thatcher & Reagan. It seems to me to be a best of both worlds approach, and basically puts Abe head and shoulders above any other leader in the world for his economic policies. Whether it's enough to counter the Japanese demographic issues will be seen in time.
We're going off topic here, sebster, but reheated economic policies from the 1980s are not going to stimulate Japan's economy. You probably know as well as I do that Japan has a declining population and a less than friendly approach to immigration. All the defence spending in the world won't change this.
Anyway, back OT.
One of the most interesting aspects of the whole Japan Vs China debate (I nicked this from a newspaper ) is the historical revisionism that is going on in China.
Nobody disputes Japan is guilty as hell for its atrocities in the 1930s, but the role of the Communists is coming under the spotlight.
As most dakka members probably know, the nationalists were ruling China in the 1930s, and it is them who bore the brunt against China. This has led to many people questioning the official history (that paints the Communists in a better light) and there seems to be more of an appreciation of Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang.
Chiang Kai-shek was kind of a bastard, so I'm not really sure he warrants 'appreciation'.
BTW, not really relevant but was reminded of this by his mention, in my Senior year of High School I was the only person who had any idea who Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang were. In fact, according to the teacher, I was the first student she had had in 20+ years who had any idea who they were lol. Not sure if that is a positive reflection on me or a negative reflection of Americans.
I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.
I would certainly agree that Japanese culture places more importance on uniformity and doing what's best for the 'greater good' as it were, than Anglo-Saxon culture. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's an instant leap from that to 'inherently militaristic'.
The feeling that I got from living in Japan is one of goodwill towards other nations in Asia. Japan has moved on.
Of course it is. They lost big time and were occupied as a result.
If I were Korea or China I wouldn't be forgetting any time soon. Nor the Phillipines, Vietnam, etc. etc. Oh and us too.
People will forgive once they forget, and they will forget when everyone who remembers has died.
I'm all about the health benefits of forgiveness and letting go of negativity -- both at a personal and community level.
But then I've also heard stories about some of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII -- not simply killing of innocents, but really gruesome stuff -- and I understand how it's hard to easily let go of those feelings.
The guilty party usually wants to move on, while the victims tend to want to never forget. The problem with your last point is that the stories get passed down, and so things are never really forgotten.
I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.
I would certainly agree that Japanese culture places more importance on uniformity and doing what's best for the 'greater good' as it were, than Anglo-Saxon culture. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's an instant leap from that to 'inherently militaristic'.
How about this: Japanese society is structured in such a manner that makes it more conducive towards militarism. Is that a more valid/better phrased analysis?
chaos0xomega wrote: Chiang Kai-shek was kind of a bastard, so I'm not really sure he warrants 'appreciation'.
BTW, not really relevant but was reminded of this by his mention, in my Senior year of High School I was the only person who had any idea who Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang were. In fact, according to the teacher, I was the first student she had had in 20+ years who had any idea who they were lol. Not sure if that is a positive reflection on me or a negative reflection of Americans.
Appreciation was probably the wrong word to use. Acknowledgement would have been a better word in hindsight. As you probably know, thousands? hundreds of thousands? of nationalist troops died fighting the Japanese invasion and of course, more died in the civil war afterwards.
I've long argued that modern China would not exist without the Kuomintang's sacrifices, something the modern Communist regime has only grudgingly acknowledged in recent years. But we're getting a bit off topic now.
Oh, on that I agree with you on, and I believe in the past its been said by even ardent communist party members that Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintangs greatest success was making the CCP successful.
I disagree. Again, I understand the point you're trying to make, but Japanese society tends to be more regimented and uniform than most western cultures are. The old proverb ' The nail that sticks out gets hammered down' is a Japanese proverb, whereas 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is a western one. Contrast the implications of each of those proverbs and you can draw some pretty good conclusions about the differences in Japanese and Western society.
I would certainly agree that Japanese culture places more importance on uniformity and doing what's best for the 'greater good' as it were, than Anglo-Saxon culture. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's an instant leap from that to 'inherently militaristic'.
How about this: Japanese society is structured in such a manner that makes it more conducive towards militarism. Is that a more valid/better phrased analysis?
Better phrased, certainly.
I'm still not completely convinced of its validity, but most of my doubts would be based on semantics, and a debate over what exactly being 'militaristic' would entail. So I'll bow out there.
chaos0xomega wrote: US based martial arts are a bit of a joke IMO, heavily watered down money making schemes, but I get the point you're trying to make, but still not what I was referring to.
Shinto has some of its roots in ancient Japanese martial traditions for example (and was believed by the Allies, perhaps erroneously, to have been an element of Japanese ultra-nationalism during WW2), and there is a movement in Japan to restore it as the state religion.
The Japanese educational system is heavily regimented and based on a military structure, from the uniforms the students wear to the respect that teachers command from their students. Japanese education also features 'moral education' amongst other things, which has been described as indoctrination and/or nationalistic brainwashing by many in the west.
And then there is Bo-Taoshi...
etc. etc. etc.
I'll contest the Shinto point. Your average, modern-day, Japanese person's take on religion in general is very laissez faire; they think nothing about visiting a Christian church in the morning, a Shinto shrine in the afternoon and a Buddhist temple in the evening. For an interesting read on a mostly-scientific study completed by an online community, check out:
http://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0002.html
The findings very closely match my own experiences while living in Japan and interacting with Japanese people.
I can speak volumes to the Japanese educational system. I worked in it for over 2 years, teaching English at high-schools in the Saitama region. I can tell you that there is very little nationalistic indoctrination occuring in the Japanese public school system, unlike in the US where we start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, the uniforms have a common root but the same types of school uniforms are worn in Chine and S. Korea as well, and around the rest of Asia now that I think about it. It's a tradition and no different these days, regardless of how it started, than wearing uniforms in Europe or even the U.S.
I never saw Bo Taoshi, maybe it's a regional thing. On sports days in the high schools that I taught at it was more a mini-olympics than anything else. Teams of students from different classes competed informally against each other (some might say lethargically) There's even a relay race at the end of the day where teachers run against students; I was conned into it by another teacher and pulled a hamstring 1/4 of the way through. ugh, I never lived that down.
If you want to talk indoctrination and scary practices, I'd look more at the practice of shoving Kindergarteners outside, 1/2 naked and in shorts on the coldest day of the year with a towel because it will make them tougher, Daikan I think it's called.
In my time in Japan I never saw anything on a prevalent level that involves anything close to the chest-thumping nationalism that occurs daily in the U.S. In fact, while I was there, there was a big debate on even playing the national anthem at schools. There's been quite a bit of hooplah over it and there's even record of the crazy guy that somehow got elected to be Mayor of Tokyo requiring teachers to sing the anthem but in Saitama people just stood and mostly didn't talk during the playing of the anthem at the few events where it was played.
The inherent conformity or lack there of in a culture is not going to predict militarism or warlike behavior. The role of war in the culture will.
For Japan, prior to the end of WWII, its history was dominated by celebrated warriors who clashed for control of the country. Their struggles were heavily romanticized in fiction and folklore.
At the end of WWII, Japan was a country that had been ravaged by war on a scale beyond belief. In the post war period disease and famine furthered the misery.
While the children of Japan are taught a rather slanted view of the war and the actions of their country within it, the dominant narrative of their war history is now the utter waste and tragedy that their nation went through. I think this narrative will do well to tamp down the fires of militarism for a few generations yet.
I'll contest the Shinto point. Your average, modern-day, Japanese person's take on religion in general is very laissez faire; they think nothing about visiting a Christian church in the morning, a Shinto shrine in the afternoon and a Buddhist temple in the evening. For an interesting read on a mostly-scientific study completed by an online community, check out:
http://www.japan-guide.com/topic/0002.html
The findings very closely match my own experiences while living in Japan and interacting with Japanese people.
Interesting, i'll concede the point.
I can speak volumes to the Japanese educational system. I worked in it for over 2 years, teaching English at high-schools in the Saitama region. I can tell you that there is very little nationalistic indoctrination occuring in the Japanese public school system, unlike in the US where we start each day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Sure, the uniforms have a common root but the same types of school uniforms are worn in Chine and S. Korea as well, and around the rest of Asia now that I think about it. It's a tradition and no different these days, regardless of how it started, than wearing uniforms in Europe or even the U.S.
I stopped hearing the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem at the start of the school day in the 4th grade, is that something that is still done? As for uniforms, while I did wear one in the 6th and 7th grades, it was in a private school, and not at all close to a military uniform (I'm talking a polo shirt and khaki slack, very business casual). As for education, you are aware that the 'moral education' was revised just recently, I believe just this year as of February, from what I understood it sparked some controversy.
I never saw Bo Taoshi, maybe it's a regional thing. On sports days in the high schools that I taught at it was more a mini-olympics than anything else. Teams of students from different classes competed informally against each other (some might say lethargically) There's even a relay race at the end of the day where teachers run against students; I was conned into it by another teacher and pulled a hamstring 1/4 of the way through. ugh, I never lived that down.
ouchies.
In my time in Japan I never saw anything on a prevalent level that involves anything close to the chest-thumping nationalism that occurs daily in the U.S. In fact, while I was there, there was a big debate on even playing the national anthem at schools. There's been quite a bit of hooplah over it and there's even record of the crazy guy that somehow got elected to be Mayor of Tokyo requiring teachers to sing the anthem but in Saitama people just stood and mostly didn't talk during the playing of the anthem at the few events where it was played.
Like I stated previously, the chest thumping in the US is largely (to me) misconstrued. In general the whole "'Merica" attitude is done in a bit of parody of itself, or maybe I'm just looking at it too cynically lol.
Ketara wrote: It could be argued that Japanese culture could be inherently militaristic, and the American culture even moreso. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I would argue the reverse. While American society is perhaps heavily militarIZED, its not necessarily militaristic (again, im not sure if these are the appropriate terms for what I am trying to describe), in the sense that while the military holds some prominence in American culture, society and culture as whole in this country is not derived from it IMO. At the very least, Americans tend to (or at least did) have a general (but healthy) disdain for obedience to authority, something essential for a militaristic society (again, IMO), whereas in Japan obedience is generally expected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jefffar wrote: The inherent conformity or lack there of in a culture is not going to predict militarism or warlike behavior. The role of war in the culture will.
For Japan, prior to the end of WWII, its history was dominated by celebrated warriors who clashed for control of the country. Their struggles were heavily romanticized in fiction and folklore.
At the end of WWII, Japan was a country that had been ravaged by war on a scale beyond belief. In the post war period disease and famine furthered the misery.
While the children of Japan are taught a rather slanted view of the war and the actions of their country within it, the dominant narrative of their war history is now the utter waste and tragedy that their nation went through. I think this narrative will do well to tamp down the fires of militarism for a few generations yet.
Thats a fair point, however to me it seems that the concepts of nuclear devestation and war have been somewhat split gradually over the past few decades, so while the pain of being nuked (twice) is still strong in the Japanese psyche, it doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with pacifism.
Also, conformity does predict militarism (or at least it is accepted that it does in many popular theories regarding the rise of militarism in various societies). Strictly regimented and conformal societies have a tendency towards militarism as a result of general obedience towards authority, which (generally speaking) tends to be more heavily centralized (and thus more politically powerful) in such societies (and Japans government is certainly heavily centralized in many aspects), which in turn tends to skew towards more aggressive behavior.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now that I mention it, there was an interesting article I read about 5 years ago while researching a semi-related topic, written in post-war Germany (I believe it was in the 50s or maybe early 60s) that basically discussed this exact topic (in regards to both Germany and Japan). The article in question pointed out a number of things that most people wouldn't even realize were derived from military traditions, etc. and spoke to a sort of cultural mindset that was conducive towards it, and concluded that both countries would gradually (but eventually) return towards that same sort of mind set as a result of deeply rooted cultural traditions, etc. It acknowledged that Japan was more likely to see this outcome as a result of the geopolitical realities which allowed it to avoid the situation Germany found itself in, and that even though Germany was increasingly 'liberalized' (again, terminology) some of those 'old ways' continued to survive.
I'll see if I can find it floating around somewhere.
One large difference between Japan and the U.S. is that the concept of owning a gun is completely foreign to most Japanese people whereas in the U.S. we have people walking into grocery stores with rifles on their backs. My wife was terrified the first time she saw someone with a shoulder rig and I told her he probably wasn't a police officer.
Casual violence is soup de jour in the U.S. and though it does happen in some horrific ways in Japan, it's not nearly as common-place.
Another factor to consider is that the Japanese society is a graying one and unless they're going to stock geritol on the ships, they're going to have trouble even maintaining the 225,000 or so that are serving now.
The age issues and population demographics in that country, I think, are kind of irrelevant IMO (although definitely worthy of discussion in a separate thread, theres a lot going on in Japan as it pertains to social perceptions of sex, relationships, procreation, etc.).
As for casual violence in the US, etc. thats not indicative of militarism unless you equate militarism and violence as being one and the same, which they aren't. If anything, American gun culture (and the loosely associated 'casual violence') would be indicative of an outlaw mentality, lawlessness, and (especially as of late) a disregard for authority (considering the relative upswing in firearm sales over the past few years due to the perception of an increasingly authoritative and tyrannical government).
chaos0xomega wrote: If anything, American gun culture (and the loosely associated 'casual violence') would be indicative of an outlaw mentality, lawlessness, and (especially as of late) a disregard for authority (considering the relative upswing in firearm sales over the past few years due to the perception of an increasingly authoritative and tyrannical government).
chaos0xomega wrote: The age issues and population demographics in that country, I think, are kind of irrelevant IMO (although definitely worthy of discussion in a separate thread, theres a lot going on in Japan as it pertains to social perceptions of sex, relationships, procreation, etc.).
Actually, the age of the population in Japan is of particular importance to this discussion. Historically speaking, nations with large numbers of young men tended towards violence (internally and externally). Especially if there was a corresponding shortage of women. Nations that had a lot of young men tended to be aggressive, because they had plenty of guys to do the fighting. Japan is getting older. The population is graying, because they are a developed nation with families having fewer children and next to no immigration to offset the lower birth rate. Japan can re-arm all it wants, it can even become beligerant and aggressive all it wants, but it won't matter if, in a few decades, it doesn't have sufficient young people to send to war.
chaos0xomega wrote: If anything, American gun culture (and the loosely associated 'casual violence') would be indicative of an outlaw mentality, lawlessness, and (especially as of late) a disregard for authority (considering the relative upswing in firearm sales over the past few years due to the perception of an increasingly authoritative and tyrannical government).
Okay, your point is? Oddly (or maybe not) the American public sees the military as being a separate entity from the government, politicians, government institutions, government bearacracy, and (oddly enough) law enforcement (including those at the state and local levels). The number of people I see raging against the government and law enforcement (ESPECIALLY state/local law enforcement) while continuing to proudly 'support the troops' is staggering.
And again, part of that has to do with a sort of 'us and them' mentality that has developed in this country, wherein military personnel are a separate and distinct entity from the average American citizen or its political leadership, ala a caste system.
Actually, the age of the population in Japan is of particular importance to this discussion. Historically speaking, nations with large numbers of young men tended towards violence (internally and externally). Especially if there was a corresponding shortage of women. Nations that had a lot of young men tended to be aggressive, because they had plenty of guys to do the fighting. Japan is getting older. The population is graying, because they are a developed nation with families having fewer children and next to no immigration to offset the lower birth rate. Japan can re-arm all it wants, it can even become beligerant and aggressive all it wants, but it won't matter if, in a few decades, it doesn't have sufficient young people to send to war.
Thats a great point I hadn't considered, and gorgon beat me to the punch line lol, although one of the population/demographic trends of past militant societies was an increasing birth rate, often a result of heavy state incentives to promote population growth/reproduction. Theres a bit of a chicken/egg situation there I suppose, were they militant because of the increasing birth rate and having more young people available, or were they reproducing faster because of hightened nationalism/positive outlook as a result of milatantism?
Thats a great point I hadn't considered, and gorgon beat me to the punch line lol, although one of the population/demographic trends of past militant societies was an increasing birth rate, often a result of heavy state incentives to promote population growth/reproduction. Theres a bit of a chicken/egg situation there I suppose, were they militant because of the increasing birth rate and having more young people available, or were they reproducing faster because of hightened nationalism/positive outlook as a result of milatantism?
Interesting point in that Japan is subsidizing birth (to a lesser extent) but really the society is in such turmoil regarding two-earner households and lack of child-care services that it's been largely ineffective in increasing the birth rate.
Well, I think the issue in Japan is something that the government *can't* fix, I'll have to try to find it because it was a *very* interesting article, but it was basically about how Japan is transforming into a pseudo-asexual society. It is increasingly common for both Japanese men and women to have no interest in sexual intercourse with other human beings, preferring instead the company of pornography and sex toys, but NOT other human beings.
agnosto wrote: One large difference between Japan and the U.S. is that the concept of owning a gun is completely foreign to most Japanese people whereas in the U.S. we have people walking into grocery stores with rifles on their backs. My wife was terrified the first time she saw someone with a shoulder rig and I told her he probably wasn't a police officer.
Casual violence is soup de jour in the U.S. and though it does happen in some horrific ways in Japan, it's not nearly as common-place.
Another factor to consider is that the Japanese society is a graying one and unless they're going to stock geritol on the ships, they're going to have trouble even maintaining the 225,000 or so that are serving now.
So there I was in Safeway in uniform getting steaks to grill for dinner.
Guy "Hey, so how was your hunting?"
Me "Say again?"
Guy "Hunting. How was it?"
Me "You serious?"
Guy "You hunt right?"
Me "........."
Bystander "Think you need to take his order and not ask him that again."
That and cultural norms. Most Japanese people will shut down if someone acts aggressively or shouts around them. Conversely, Korean culture is more "in your face" and you'd be in for a shouting match or worse.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, I think the issue in Japan is something that the government *can't* fix, I'll have to try to find it because it was a *very* interesting article, but it was basically about how Japan is transforming into a pseudo-asexual society. It is increasingly common for both Japanese men and women to have no interest in sexual intercourse with other human beings, preferring instead the company of pornography and sex toys, but NOT other human beings.
That and cultural norms. Most Japanese people will shut down if someone acts aggressively or shouts around them. Conversely, Korean culture is more "in your face" and you'd be in for a shouting match or worse.
The "in your face" South Korean vice versa to whoever usually involve Soju
That and cultural norms. Most Japanese people will shut down if someone acts aggressively or shouts around them. Conversely, Korean culture is more "in your face" and you'd be in for a shouting match or worse.
The "in your face" South Korean vice versa to whoever usually involve Soju
Ooh. Bringing back some bittersweet memories there of kettle houses and nights camped around a trash can with a barbeque grill on it.
Edit for those who don't know what I"m talking about:
And soju "kettle"....they still used real kettles to serve the stuff in the winter when I fist visited Korea in '94..we still had to land with the plane's window shades down because of spying as well because Kimpo airport housed military aircraft as well as domestic traffic....and there was a nationwide midnight curfew for everybody and it was your ass if you were caught outside after midnight. BIG changes since '94.
Good memories. They just need to stay buried The Juicy Girls, Hooker Hill, Thunder Runs, midnight noodle, deep fried larvae in a bag at 0300, and the stay out all night because we missed the curfew to get back on post .......wife has gone through my photo album of my tours there heck at that time it was the closest thing to combat one can get. Also did thelast full rotation at 4Papa3 A live artillery base
chaos0xomega wrote: Sebster, the US is different though, in the sense that our 'militarism' (again, not sure thats the appropriate word) basically revolves around a general pride in the military and our military history (whether its really warranted or not is another question). We don't have a 'bushido' code, we don't have a martial tradition that permeates the country at a deeper societal level.
I'm not going to argue about modern Japanese culture, partly because I'm out of my depth but also because there's no need. We just need to look at the capabilities of Japan - when they decided to try and take over Asia the first time it was pretty stupid and doomed to failure. There simply aren't the resources in Japan to fuel a war of expansion. And since then all that's changed is that China is no longer a war torn backwater but a major economic power.
Even if Japan decided it wanted to reform its Asian empire, it simply can't. It's as scary as Sweden deciding it wanted another crack at taking over Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We're going off topic here, sebster, but reheated economic policies from the 1980s are not going to stimulate Japan's economy.
The point is that these aren't reheated '80s policies. That was the concern a lot of people had - that Abe was basically using big claims to dress up the same old pork barreling efforts, but there are massive substantive differences.
You probably know as well as I do that Japan has a declining population and a less than friendly approach to immigration. All the defence spending in the world won't change this.
Well you might have noticed I already mentioned Japanese demographic issues, so yeah I am as aware as you are. But note that in addition to the increased spending there's also pretty significant efforts to include women in the workplace, on top of economic and structural policies to improve export competitiveness. It isn't just throwing money to boost demand.
I agree (as you hinted at) that a new approach to encourage immigration needs to be made.
As most dakka members probably know, the nationalists were ruling China in the 1930s, and it is them who bore the brunt against China. This has led to many people questioning the official history (that paints the Communists in a better light) and there seems to be more of an appreciation of Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang.
I remember being taught in high school that the Nationalists were mostly corrupt and ineffective, and it was the Communists who were more effective against the Japanese. I think it was actually the dominant opinion among Western academics for a long time, though probably not when I was taught it in highschool (curriculums change slowly, especially when the current narrative is so much easier for highschool kids to understand).
It's interesting that reality might be starting to set in in China.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Chiang Kai-shek was kind of a bastard, so I'm not really sure he warrants 'appreciation'.
We're talking about 20th century Chinese history, outside of Sun Yat-sen they were all bastards.
But when it comes to fighting the Japanese, Chiang Kai-shek's was fairly maligned, while Communist efforts vastly overstated. Partly this is because Chiang Kai-shek had to underake operations or lose American support (and even then he was limited in effectiveness by corrupt generals), but the point still remains that most effective resistance to the Japanese came from the KMT. Meanwhile the Communists just waited, and built their strength.
The point is that for a long time history reported the opposite as true, and it's interesting if that reality is finally now reaching China.
Hazarding a guess. They're a very select all volunteer military (using military and not defense force being that their damn military) are they not. So if they expand they would have a experience cadre to build around. Last nation that did something similar was Pre WWII Germany. I am in no way saying they're Hell bent to take over Asia or anything.
chaos0xomega wrote: Well, I think the issue in Japan is something that the government *can't* fix, I'll have to try to find it because it was a *very* interesting article, but it was basically about how Japan is transforming into a pseudo-asexual society. It is increasingly common for both Japanese men and women to have no interest in sexual intercourse with other human beings, preferring instead the company of pornography and sex toys, but NOT other human beings.
Even if Japan decided it wanted to reform its Asian empire, it simply can't. It's as scary as Sweden deciding it wanted another crack at taking over Europe.
Well, not to insult the rest of Europe, but I think that might actually be pretty scary. They seem to be a bit better prepared when it comes to military matters, at least by way of comparison to European nations that aren't the UK, Germany, or Russia.
I remember being taught in high school that the Nationalists were mostly corrupt and ineffective, and it was the Communists who were more effective against the Japanese. I think it was actually the dominant opinion among Western academics for a long time, though probably not when I was taught it in highschool (curriculums change slowly, especially when the current narrative is so much easier for highschool kids to understand).
This is both true and false. The Communists *were* more effective against the Japanese, but the KMT were the ones doing most of the fighting.
But when it comes to fighting the Japanese, Chiang Kai-shek's was fairly maligned, while Communist efforts vastly overstated. Partly this is because Chiang Kai-shek had to underake operations or lose American support (and even then he was limited in effectiveness by corrupt generals), but the point still remains that most effective resistance to the Japanese came from the KMT. Meanwhile the Communists just waited, and built their strength.
Not at all what I'm referring to, you are familiar with the various atrocities and war crimes he committed following his retreat to Taiwan, yes?
chaos0xomega wrote: This is both true and false. The Communists *were* more effective against the Japanese, but the KMT were the ones doing most of the fighting.
To use an analogy, it's like saying that guy corner camping the room on the edge of the map with 12 kills and 1 death helped the team more than the guy who died 20 times but scored more objective points. Sure 12-1 is a great score, but we're not playing TDM here
I agree (as you hinted at) that a new approach to encourage immigration needs to be made.
Except that's a major issue due to Japan's current xenophobia towards immigrants, it is one of the major reasons they are trying to use Robots in several major positions.
It would require a different mindset on outsiders.
Both the Commies and the KMT were holding out for the civil war after the Japanese War. The KMT had well trained and equipped divisions who could stand against the Japanese but they spent most of the war doing nothing, same for the Commies. We hear more about the corruption and inn ineffectiveness of the KMT because the western allies had to deal with them more than the Commies.
I agree (as you hinted at) that a new approach to encourage immigration needs to be made.
Except that's a major issue due to Japan's current xenophobia towards immigrants, it is one of the major reasons they are trying to use Robots in several major positions.
It would require a different mindset on outsiders.
See this is what I don't get, isn't Ameriphilia a thing in Japan (not Okinawa, but "mainland" Japan), at least among the 25% or so of the population under 30 years of age?
They just wouldn't let him bomb China 
).
