I don’t know if this goes in the pit or here but I thought I might start here and see if the discussion can remain civil.
So a major US law firm is representing people who are suing to remove a memorial to comfort women Comfort women - Wikipedia because
There is an ongoing denial of war crimes by Japanese nationalists, particularly with respect to comfort women. This has been a sore spot for China and Korea.
Its arguable that 7th generation Japanese in Southern California probably have nothing to apologize for (even if most of them probably would).
These Japanese are a very small minority compared to Chinese and Korean and are probably the subject of a noticable amount of hostility by the more recent immigrant groups.
Given this background are the actions of this law firm in representing the plaintiffs in this suit as disgusting as this article suggests? Is it really comparable to suing to have holocaust memorials removed because it hurts German-Americans?
My take is that the only reason it harmful to Japanese Americans is because of the revisionism that Japan is trying to pull off. If there was no attempt at revisionism, a memorial wouldn’t evoke hostile feelings any more than the holocaust museum makes people want to attack Germans.
In the vast majority of cases, certainly. There is the story of a black athlete (NFL, I think, but I don’t recall) who went to western Africa and took a tour of the old slave forts, from which slaves were sold to the people who shipped them across the “Middle Passage” to the Caribbean or the Colonies/U.S. He was so moved, that, when he arrived back home, he hit the first white guy he saw.
That said (and almost immediately dismissed) I can’t see any real legal “harm” done by a memorial of this nature. It isn’t defamatory and probably won’t be inflamatory. We put up memorials to our own sins – Wounded Knee, Mountain Meadows, Fort Pillow. “Never Forget” is a part of “Never Again.”
It’s just two Japanese Americans and some odd corporation.
I suspect the overwhelming majority of Japanese Americans wouldn’t object to this anymore than most German Americans would object to a Holocaust memorial.
I guess he didn’t quite get it then - or he would have also punched out the people in Africa whose ancestors rounded up neighboring tribes and sold them. There is plenty of blame to go around, but hating people TODAY is not a solution.
In regards to the OP: In my opinion, the lawsuit is foolish. You’ll find someone offended by something almost anywhere. I guess we should shut down tours of the Pearl Harbor Memorial because it makes people feel bad.
Likewise, please close down the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, because it makes me feel guilty, and might make any Americans in Japan have “feelings of exclusion, discomfort, and anger”
It’s just ridiculous, and I suspect that money (for the complainers and the law firm) is probably at the root of it. Give them enough cash, and they’ll probably feel much better.
Glendale putting up the monument and weighing in on the question of the comfort women violates the Supremacy Clause, because determining US foreign affairs is a federal question.
The existence of the monument interferes with the ability of the plaintiffs’ honest enjoyment of city facilities because it’s biased portrayal of the issue causes feelings of exclusion, discomfort and anger in the plaintiffs.
The monument violates Glendale’s municipal code because Glendale requires that all new business, to pass, be debated and voted on by the city council, the wording of the plaque on the monument was never debated or voted on by the city council, and that it is significantly different than the language the city council approved.
Of the three propositions, only the third I believe ought to have any merit. (I say “ought to” because there are several American jurisdictions, California being a notable example, which take seriously claims which I believe “ought to” be considered frivolous.)
This lawsuit is an example of what the American legal system has degenerated into. It’s an unholy marriage of money-grubbing lawyers and preposterous identity politics. I sincerely hope that whatever judge hears the case tosses out the lawsuits with prejudice and penalizes the plaintiffs for wasting the court’s time with utterly frivolous nonsense.
It’s also worth noting the absurdity of suing on the basis of “feelings of exclusion, discomfort and anger”, but this is hardly the first lawsuit supposedly claiming that the government is required to care about feelings. The government exists to protect rights, not feelings.
The Supreme Court ruled they way they did in Brown v. Board of Education in part because it was shown that segregation was psychologically damaging to black children. While I’m certainly not going to defend this particular suit courts have shown in the past that they do care about feelings and give them some sort of weight.
That’s true, although they did cite several academic studies in support of the claim. If the judges here were to search for academic support that Japanese-Americans do in fact suffer “irreparable injury” from war crime memorials, I suspect they would come up empty.
Interesting, and thanks for the link. I think the complaint qualifies as a nice try, but is without merit. Not sure that plaintiffs have standing to raise the issue of whether the plaque was properly approved–seems like the City Council would be the proper party there, and they do not appear to be objecting.
Agreed. I don’t think Glendale should but creating the memorial the way they are, but I don’t think there’s much that can be done since the city council is evidently okay with everything.
I didn’t mean the government. I meant the revisionists that we are seeing in Japan (and its politicians recently). The thought is that the weird corporation is a front for Japanese revisionists.
The law firm has a substantial Asia practice largely in China (they don’t seem to have a Tokyo office).
I think it depends on how different the wording on the plaque is. Anyone have any idea what the wording might be? If it was inflammatory, I am sure it would have been in the article.
The only description of the wording given during the meeting was that it would be "commemorating and in honor of the comfort women”. The text on the statue is:
The wording doesn’t really bother me. What does leave a sour taste in my mouth is that (at least according to the suit) the part of the park where the monument was placed was designated for sister city-related monuments and memorials, which this is clearly not, despite its official name of “the Korean Sister City ‘Comfort Women’ Peace Monument”.
I was a sex slave of Japanese military
[ul]Torn hair symbolizes the girl being snatched from her home by the Imperial Japanese Army.
[li]Tight fists represent the girl’s firm resolve for a deliverance of justice.[/li][li]Bare and unsettled feet represent having been abandoned by the cold and unsympathetic world.[/li][li]Bird on the girl’s shoulder symbolizes a bond between us and the deceased victims.[/li][li]Empty chair symbolizes survivors who are dying of old age without having yet witnessed justice.[/li][li]Shadow of the girl is that of an old grandma, symbolizing passage of time spent in silence.[/li]Butterfly in shadow represents hope that victims may resurrect one day to receive their apology.[/ul]
I was a sex slave of Japanese military
[ul]Torn hair symbolizes the girl being snatched from her home by the Imperial Japanese Army.
[li]Tight fists represent the girl’s firm resolve for a deliverance of justice.[/li][li]Bare and unsettled feet represent having been abandoned by the cold and unsympathetic world.[/li][li]Bird on the girl’s shoulder symbolizes a bond between us and the deceased victims.[/li][li]Empty chair symbolizes survivors who are dying of old age without having yet witnessed justice.[/li][li]Shadow of the girl is that of an old grandma, symbolizing passage of time spent in silence.[/li][li]Butterfly in shadow represents hope that victims may resurrect one day to receive their apology.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
There seems to be something lost in translation there.