I fully understand that the South Koreans are upset by that, and I fully understand why they are. But its not the job of the priesthood of the Yasukuni shrine to keep South Koreans happy. It’s the job of the priesthood of the Yasukuni shrine to honor those who died fighting for the Emperor, even those who did so unwillingly.
Besides, if the enshrined kami can’t be separated, they can’t be separated, and nothing can be done anyway.
Besides Dissonance’s good post, I’ll add that you’re not keeping a single thesis here. As noted, it’s not conscription alone that’s the problem. It’s not a monument alone that’s a problem (though I already showed there are problems with your counter-examples anyway). It’s the combination that’s a problem, and you’ve only tried to address each separately.
The problem of the combination is memorializing conscripts as part of a larger monument glorifying the regime that oppressed the conscripts’ home nations.
Korean and Taiwanese were conscripted to serve the Japanese. Ok. So what? Are you arguing any significant number of these men wanted to be memorialized (worse - mostly as an afterthought) in a shrine that glorifies the very people who repressed their home nations? Or argue that it is an honor at all? It simply adds insult to injury.
That’s some BS post-hoc rationalization.
Basically go back to the Confederacy example.
If there was a memorial that happened to include slave conscripts to the Confederate army, do you believe that throwing up hands and saying “it can’t be helped” is acceptable at all? Brazen would be one word (among several unprintable words) for anybody who tried to make that argument.
I realize that you’re an atheist, and so think their beliefs are a bunch of bullshit. So am I. We could bulldoze it, with nary a care, beyond caring about the loss of historically significant buildings. But in this post, you display incredible ignorance of their beliefs.
If they did what you suggest, then according to their beliefs, it would ‘explicitly’ leave out all the 2.466 million other ‘kami’ enshrined there, most of which are not ‘war criminals’, by anyone’s definition. The ‘replacement’ would start over from zero, and leave no home for the millions who are not war criminals, thus not ‘replacing’ it at all.
Can you not see that your suggestion is utterly idiotic, and solves nothing at all, from their point of view?
Just to put this in context, what is your opinion on the Mormons “enshrining”/baptising Jewish dead?
I’m not particularly atheist, but I think that some behaviour is indefensible, and I’ve always thought it odd that some people continue to defend the indefensible.
Anyway, in my opinion religion doesn’t justify the behaviour of the Japanese Prime Minister: rather, it makes it more sensitive. My grandparents witnessed the beatings and persecution associated with the Japanese state religion in Korea. It is something that the Japanese should be ashamed of, just as they should be ashamed of war crimes.
Tangentially, I’ve sometimes wondered if Japanese condemnation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a covert way of condemning the firebombing of Chinese cities? Not that I’ve seen any evidence of that.
It is, but it’s also more than that.
Yasukuni is - or has become, perhaps ? - a beacon and symbol for Japanese nationalists and revisionists of the “we were right all along” kind. Actual blackshirts regularly hold actual rallies there (in fact, it’s quite rare that there aren’t a few hanging about at all hours). It’s not *just *a war cemetery.
So that’s one bit of context for the PM’s visit.
Another bit of context is that Shinzo Abe is a scary, revisionist, nationalist bastard himself ; one who’s made noise about wanting to redraw the constitution, put the Emperor and “tradition” back at the top, rescind the notion that Japan shouldn’t have an aggressive military force and so on.
So when *that *guy goes to Yasukuni, it means a bit more than just honouring the fallen. And I for one can’t blame the neighbours for being ever so slightly pissed, or even kinda worried, about it.
When we get over visiting the USS Arizona should the people of Japan get over the visiting the Yasukuni. Just because we won the war does not mean we where right, just because we won the war does not equate that we are better today.
We all were doing the best we know given our circumstances.
Hey, we had to use those interned Japanese-Americans at Manzinar for biological warfare experiments (at least, the ones too ugly to gang-rape)
Yes kanicbird, everything is love and verb tense disagreement. While obvious, I do feel compelled to point out that this is the worst form of moral relativism. The USS Arizona Memorial is built directly over the sunken hull of the USS Arizona which still contains the remains of 1,102 sailors and marines killed by the Empire of Japan in an attack without the bother of a declaration of war. That there is no longer an Empire of Japan ruled by militarists attacking and subjugating its neighbors to the worst forms of brutality by military force and the present day Japanese constitution renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation doesn’t mean things changed or we are better today.
But hey, you’re right, it’s all the same thing. They were all doing the best they knew given their circumstances. We shouldn’t condemn the IJA for the Rape of Nanking, or the members of Unit 731 for vivisecting prisoners of war either. They were just doing the best they knew.
Same way I feel about this situation. It’s their religion, they can do as they please behind closed doors, since it has no real effect. Rubbing non-believers noses in it, however, is a dick move. Which the Mormons and Abe did.
I am not denying the possibility that Shinzo Abe is a major league asshole. Expanding that to accuse the entire Japanese nation and people to saying ridiculous falsehoods like “they’ve never apologized” is simply not fair.
Dick Cheney is a war criminal, but I don’t extrapolate from that that all Americans are bad people.
It isn’t just Shinzo Abe, I have already made the point, that the remainder of his political group have also visited this shrine in an organised event.
Rather than saying, perhaps, that Cheney is an arsehole and represents only his views, the fact that the ruling party has made this an issue they can ride makes this a different matter.
Abe was originally lauded when he appeared on the national political scene in Japan as representing a new generation that was uninvolved in the war. The change in outlook seems to mean that future generations will simply ignore inconvenient history, and even worse,it appears to be trying to absolve their ancestors of blame.
This behavior and attitude is totally unique to Japan.
Yet we still see certain resentments over such denials and oversights in many other countries, I can’t see how this is likely to be helpful.
The US, Australia, Great Britain, France and others have done the same, perhaps not quite as large a scale but pretty disreputable all the same. The indigenous populations that were adversely affected are still pursuing legal remedy to this day.
…and we need to add to this list?
Let’s not go too far, here. Amending Article 9 doesn’t mean the same thing as having an “aggressive military force”, unless that’s the way you’d characterize virtually every other nation in the world has.
(and I’ve never run into an activist at Yasukuni, though I’ve always gone in the middle of the day)
I don’t remember anyone “lauding” Abe as anything when he first became PM. He’s long been associated with the conservative wing of the LDP (as was his grandfather) and he made his name banging the anti-North Korea drum as chief cabinet secretary under Koizumi (something that kind of bit him in the ass the first time he was in power).
He may be prime minister, but I don’t take that as that great of an endorsement. He did a lot during the period between becoming party president and the election to emphasize his economic plans and not his more controversial views, though to be honest the DPJ had failed so miserably that there was no way the LDP could have lost. I don’t think he’s even all that popular within the party. It came as a bit of a surprise that he was elected party president last year, since it came almost entirely on the backs of the Diet party members. He’d only gotten the votes of 29% of the local party leadership, IIRC.
The Yomiuri Shimbun had an interesting article (in English) showing some of the behind the scenes stuff for Abe’s visit. I recommend it.
As for politicians in general visiting Yasukuni, I think that’s a more complicated issue. I wouldn’t necessarily assume that every LDP Diet member who makes the “pilgrimage” is in lockstep with Abe’s historical views and the same goes for the average citizen who supports such visits. Right now contemporary anti-Chinese sentiment is more relevant than views on historical issues. There’d likely be less support for such visits if not for recent clashes with China over the East China Sea.
Kyodo News (a major Japanese wire service) released the results of a public opinion poll they took on the visit. 43.2% approved and 47.1% disapproved of prime ministerial visits and 69.8% thought that diplomatic relations should be taken into consideration in such visits.
There was also a Asahi Shimbun poll on the war, though it’s behind a pay wall so I can only find a few excerpts. Asked the question “Do you think the Pacific War was a war of aggression?”, 33% of those in their 20s answered “no”, compared to 24-28% in other age brackets. I think that a lot of Japanese consider the war with China to be a separate conflict from the “Pacific War”, though, so that should be kept in mind.
The fullest survey I was able to find on Japanese perceptions of the war was from 2005. In that one, 34.2% felt “both the war with China and the war with the US (including the UK, Netherlands, and other Allies) were wars of aggression”, 33.9% felt “the war with China was a war of aggression, but the war with the US was not.”, 10.1% felt “neither were wars of aggression”, and 20.7% didn’t answer. Perhaps the most interesting result was that when asked “Which of the following do you feel bear great “war responsibility”? Select any number”, only 5% selected “the general public” (and only 19.3% chose the Emperor).
That’s indeed how I would characterize them, yes. Just because they don’t use them aggressively, doesn’t mean their militaries aren’t by nature aggressive. You don’t need “force projection” for defence, do you ?
And that’s a privilege that Japan has, so far, explicitly not been granted or allowed by other nations, but wishes to grant itself for no immediate or discernable purpose. You may well argue that it’s unfair that Japan doesn’t get it when everyone else does, but they lost a war of aggression and a nuclear bombing campaign, so there. 
Now, I don’t think, or rather (because when all is said and done I’m not that well wersed in Japanese politics) I don’t expect the reason Mr. Abe’s government is supporting this notion is that they’ve found a new, immediate appeal to the whole Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere business. I shouldn’t think he and is government are *that *much of a bunch of cunts.
Nevertheless, Japan is not under any military threat right now. It hasn’t been for a while, either. And, were it threatened, I should think it could depend on the might of NATO regardless of its national pride. So why should Japan need so much green-and-tan toys as would run contrary to its current constitution ? It plainly doesn’t.
Therefore, I can only conclude that Abe’s will to greater militarization is an appeal to Japan’s *internal *nationalist, pro-militarist sentiment. And that’s worrying in and of itself, isn’t it ? It always starts that way.
Fair enough, though I don’t think that’s the most neutral way to put it.
I don’t know about that. The only restrictions on Japan’s military are the ones self-imposed in the (nominally) Japanese-written constitution. Now, sure, we know that Article 9 (and the rest) was actually the work of MacArthur and his staff, but given that the US has been pressuring Japan to get with the program and change the constitution since 1950, I don’t think that’s that much of an issue.
I think Abe’s a true believer. It burns him up that Japan isn’t a “normal country”, to use the regular parlance. Unfortunately for him, he’s got a long way to go before a national referendum on constitutional revision that includes changes to Article 9 will pass (not that he could get it through the Diet).
But Abe’s goals aside, Article 9 causes problems for even a peaceful Japan.
The first is that no one can honestly look at the Self-Defense Force and not conclude that it is unconstitutional. The constitution says “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained”. That’s a pretty definitive statement that the Japanese government has had to desperately twist and stretch over the past 60 years in attempt to assuage domestic and international demands.
The second is that ever since the 80s there has been pressure (domestic and foreign) for Japan to make international contributions in accordance with its economic strength. This really came home following the first Gulf War in which Japan was humiliated for its “checkbook diplomacy”. Every time the SDF gets involved in peacekeeping and other international activities like reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is an absurd amount of handwringing and arguments in the Diet about what weaponry it is allowed to have and what the rules of engagement should be. This is what led to things like the SDF contingent in Iraq being guarded by Dutch troops because it was essentially defenseless.
As for military threats, I’m not sure. While I don’t think conflict with China or North Korea is particularly likely, I don’t think they’re completely outside of the realm of possibility, either. The only country that has pledged to defend Japan in the case of an attack is the US (Japan has limited treaties with other countries, but the restrictions of Article 9 prevent any mutual defense treaties). The NATO treaty doesn’t apply to Asia and China would veto any UN action.
Are we saying all slaves/colored who fought for the Confederacy were conscripted? I’ve heard there were quite a few who volunteered to fight Yankee invaders… Or how about the last Confederate general to give up the fight - he was a Native American, no? Or are all the textbooks in Oklahoma filled with falsehoods?
Did you just refer to African-Americans as “coloreds”?