Late night ramblings/musings . . .
Talk of all the rotten luck . . . not but a week-and-a-half after returning to work from my surgery, I injure my right knee and sprain my right ankle!
:auch: So now, I find myself unable to sleep (even after taking the prescribed 'happy-sleepy drugs') and figuring there is no time like the present to continue this present dialogue. Being as late as it is and sleepy as I am, please, forgive me if there are more typoes or strange sentence constructs than usual. Anyway, on to the continuing saga of this present debate . . .
lastmagi said:
There've been worse, if you think this is bad.
If anything, there's always the adrenaline rush.
Heh . . . Well, I'm glad that things aren't the worst, and I'm glad that we can still joke about it. In the heat of debate and argument, if we can still laugh I feel relieved! Thank you for your levity!
lastmagi said:
Since you refuse to point out specifics, it becomes hard to see where you're coming from.
The reason that I don't want to go into specifics about it is that I neither want to engage in a debate about whether my feelings were justifiable or not, nor is that the main point. And, I think I may have been in error to bring up my feelings because it may have clouded the issue, which is the problems I see with a certain type of repetitive criticism of Japan.
I brought up my feelings mainly to explain why I feel so strongly about the issues I am currently addressing. The reference to that particular thread is so that anyone can go see an example (only in part, to be sure) of the type of criticism to which I refer and attempting to problematize.
lastmagi said:
Where are the impassioned, poorly supported responses?
lastmagi said:
I just want to know what you perceived as impassioned and/or poorly supported arguments that ultimately contributed to your pummeling.
I will provide examples . . . but, only because it applies, I think, towards my concerns about problematic criticism of the Japanese. Mind you, these are examples only; I am not trying to be exhaustive in their listing. Also, I am leaving out names, because I don't want anyone to feel like I am trying to pick on them.
Discussion is impossible without generalisations, especially when it comes to differences between cultures or national groups.
Actually, I can tell you as a graduate in the field of anthropology, that we are expected to be very specific when discussing cultural differences. It may be difficult, but it is not impossible. That I spent four years meeting that standard of expectation set by my professors leads me to disagree with this statement.
As to why I might feel this statement is not supported, it (and the parts before and after) do not make clear whether this person has tried to discuss a culture or national group in specific. In addition, I can problematize generalizations all day long. For example, when I asked are Americans also considered racists because of the prevelance of racial epithets (sp?) I hear used day-to-day, I received:
This might get slightly off topic but I would have to say, no. Americans in general are not racist. But is racism still a major problem in the US? I'd say yes. If you disagree, you're probably white.
So, a distinction is made that there are Americans who are and are not racist, and thus one cannot generally apply the term racist to Americans. But, then this is followed up with the "probably white" comment. According to what study or survey? OK, OK, I realize that often people are just writing their opinion in forums. That's fine. But, if you just write your opinion without something to back it up (references from scholarly texts, accurate surveys, what have you), it is inherently unsupported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokusu
1) Japanese are individuals and not all are racist!
I think this is a moot point. This erases the role of culture and institutions influencing individual attitudes. Of course not all are racist. But can we really assume that individuals exist independently of each other?
Um . . . no. I never said that culture or society does not have an impact on the individual or that existence is completely independent. I would say, don't read into what I said, just read waht I said: Japanese are individuals and are not all racist. This is true. As for individuality in Japan or any culture, you need only look at how law is applied. If you speed, for example, the individual is given a speeding ticket. Individuals are accountable for themselves. In the Nuremberg trials of Nazi Germans and in the trials of Japanese war criminals following Allied victory in the Pacific, the argument that, "I did it because I was part of the group! I am not individually responsible!" was not accepted. Therefore, I would say that we do expect people to be individuals even as they are members of a greater social network.
That all Japanese are not racists is not a moot point, either. It is a very important point, because it shows that there are Japanese who are progressive and understanding, who are working for positive change as individuals and within their culture. For example, there is the SGI
Nichiren Daishonen buddhist sect and their president Ikeda Daisuke-san who actively promote global and multicultural understanding and peace between all peoples. You are talking about an organization begun in Japan that is millions strong. So, apparently a Japanese person can be a part of Japanese society and culture and yet not end up reacist. Thus, the role of culture and institutions in not necessarily uniform nor all-consuming in its effect. Thus, why cultural generalizations are problematic. This then, to me, represents an unsupported argument.
I hope these couple of examples are illuminative. I still get exhausted by the whole cut and paste from one place to another (though, yes, I will agree with you that there is sometimes the need or value in doing so). I am not sure that someone who already read what was said who disagreed with me before will agree with me now. And, by cutting and pasting selections, I feel I run the risk of messing up the context, which will only serve to confuse the issue, not resolve it.
I did the cut and past thing this post as an experiment to see if it helped in this debate. If comes back and bites me in the hind quarters, I can't imagine that I will want to do so again. I really do advocate just going and reading the original posts.
Oh, criminy . . . where was I? . . .
Oh, as for the scare quotes, this is from the article you make reference to:
The phrase in quote marks is not a quotation from anyone in particular, but merely a term which is used by some people . . .
I consider myself a someone in particular, since it was my post to which you were replying.
Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason.
Well, I am glad you wished to distance yourself from the words "Japan bashers" as well. But since I didn't use the word or phrase, I don't see as you distancing yourself from anything I said specifically.
Anyway, I would invite a more careful reading of the article regarding scare quotes, because I am not certain this was an intended or appropriate use of them.
lastmagi said:
You seem adept at taking everything literally, even punctuations!
I would like to think that I am attempting to take everything accurately.
lastmagi said:
Thanks for putting unwarranted (and, of course, completely unfounded) words in my mouth.
Eh? Which words are those? First I am too literal and then I am putting words into people's mouths! You will, please, address this, because if I quoted something, it
was written. As for putting words into someone's mouth . . .
lastmagi said:
But words such as fervor and vehemence are indicative of irrationality, or at least clouded, spur-of-the-moment, uncontrolled thinking (which is what I was getting at anyway with the word irrationality). Again, you're being way too literal, so much so that you're missing the point while you're busy triumphantly claiming "See! I didn't say that!" at every chance that you get (which of course you didn't say explicitly).
I am being way too literal? I am being way too literal?!? If I didn't say something, I didn't say something! That isn't being too literal, that is being accurate! I have even taken the time to go back an explain what I have written when it has been apparently unclear for you.
I would ask that you question my credibility less, because, yes, it is aggravating to have to spend half of my posts and time defending myself before I can even begin to approach the questions that I raised. Why do you do this?!? Are you trying to invalidate my questions by invalidating me? The first thing you have addressed in the last couple of responses to my posts is my style of debate, not the issues that I ask be answered to. You know what, I get it. You and I write and debate differently. I cannot tell you to not go after my style of writing and debate, because what is valid to you is valid to you for discussion. But, Ic an say, personally, it aggravates me to no end! It isn't that I cannot handle being questioned; I got that all the time from my professors. But, I am trying very hard to discuss broader issues, not the semantics of every single post I make. Does it seem that way? Hm . . . that is a thought that I have had. Well, then, how about I just stop taking the time to defend myself and stick to the main issues with dogged single-mindedness? Maybe that is what I should do. It'll be hard; when I feel like my credibility and veracity are being questioned, it seems but natural for me to want to defend myself. But, I guess, as I would say to someone else, this perhaps clouds the issues. Fine, I will take a risk and stop defending myself, hoping to be understood by what I say the first time, and in so doing, hopefully draw attention back to the questions and issues at hand.
===
So, now, you'll pardon me if I jump straight to those questions and issues.
lastmagi said:
Quote:
1) What are you trying to accomplish by determining who is more evil?
This assumes that I am trying to determine who is more 'evil' in the first place.
What exactly do I find 'evil'? Perpetuated denial and an unwillingness to accept responsibility.
"Japan acted worse than Germany during WWII" - it would seem by its very title that this thread is actually about determining who is worse (germany or Japan). And I did not ask what do people find evil, I asked what is trying to be accomplished by ranking the Japanese and Germans as such. So, this question remains unanswered.
lastmagi said:
Quote:
2) Would you consider it constructive to tell your Japanese friends their country ranks worse than Nazi Germany?
Ranks worse in terms of what?
In terms of "Japan acted worse than Germany during WWII". But, again, the question is whether or not you view this as constructive. So, this question, too, remains unanswered.
lastmagi said:
Quote:
3) Why not use the slaughter of Native Americans by European colonists? I bet some of you are of European descent; I am on my father's side. Where do we rank with Nazi Germany?
By 'we' do you mean the present-day 'we' who have conducted numerous historical studies that have acknowledged and have accepted our roles in the forced migration and slaughtering of Native Americans, or the past 'we' who were in the process of slaughtering them?
Have 'we' acknowledged and accepted our roles so much? As far as I am aware, Native Americans still have only claim to small reservations in comparison to what was taken from them. Perhaps this topic is worthy of its own thread elsewhere. But, my question had to do with our ranking with WW II Germany and Japan. Since Japan the present is measured by Japan of the past (and I am not saying this is without merit on certain issues), I am wondering why not measure present-day America for its past as well? And, do you consider the atrocities commited by European colonists better or worse than those atrocities commited by Germans during WW II? I ask this to brign to light the problem with trying to make such comparisons; I question their constructiveness. This question remains unanswered.
lastmagi said:
Quote:
4) Do European-descended Americans deserve forgiveness for the atrocities commited against Native Americans? If so, why us (I say 'us' because I am at least in part of European-descent) and not the Japanese?
You've completely ignored one important aspect. I won't answer this until you actually address WHY people are so upset about the subject matter these days.
Well, you can certainly choose to answer my question or not. But, as it stands, this question remains unanswered.
lastmagi said:
Quote:
5) Do you never want to forgive the Japanese? Can you state in concrete terms what it would take for you to forgive the Japanese and move on?
See above.
https://jref.com/society/sino-jap...elations.shtml
So, Japan will be forgiven if:
1 Apologise formally to China for its war crimes, and not as a part of another speech. Ideally the Emperor should be the one to apologise.
2 Change history books used in schools and explain clearly and neutrally what happened during WWII, including the Nanjing massacre.
3 Prohibit politicians from making racist comments or negate actual facts (about WWII).
4 Prohibit politicians from going to Yasukuni-jinja, or move war criminals somewhere else.
5 Avoid sanctioning or over-taxing Chinese products
6 Make it easier for Chinese people born in Japan to be naturalized, (and possibly also for Chinese tourists to visit Japan).
Thank you for answering this question. Sometime I think I would like to discuss this in more depth . . .
lastmagi said:
Quote:
6) What is the point of the numerous threads rehashing the same topics of Japanese guilt over and over? (This is a critical question for me!!!)
1. The Japanese as a whole have not yet fully acknowledged their role in WW2 and, in fact, actively deny the more serious war crimes. I assume you've checked out news sources about this, so you probably should know this already. There have, in addition, been numerous members of the JRef forum who have exemplified this attitude.
2. Their social institutions give them a dangerously slanted view of their position with the rest of the world.
3. It's a big subject for people.
Thank you, again, for answering the question. I am not certain that these reasons justify the multiplicity of threads that overlap in their criticisms. But, when I have more energy, at least we have an answer to a question to move forward in our debate.
lastmagi said:
Quote:
7) Does anyone . . . ANYONE understand why I am so depressed about all this!? (
Yes. You're frustrated by the perception that the Japanese are being constantly demonized and that people are saying they're all like that.
Yep. Though, I would say repeatedly versus constantly. I do give credit for people having other things to say about the Japanese here in the forums.
OKies. So questions 1 through 4 still need answers, and 5, 6, and 7 can now be debated regarding the answers provided. I think progress is being made, though it has been painful.
I'm spent for now, so I will just have to post later about the issues I wish to address. Thanks for replying, and if you can, please, look at questions 1 through 4 again.