Here I go jumping in with my usual politics of the moment view on a current thread.
Brad wrote that the Japanese public would have appreciated an admission of responsibility (before they got a forced formal apology) for the fishing boat tragedy. Likewise, doesn't our military high command undermine the authenticity of our massive military commitment in Afghanistan by continuing to refer to civilian casualties as part of the package? I just don't understand this "tin ear" that seems so prevalent with anyone associated with Bush-Cheney. And trying to brush under the rug as "the vetted past" does not make Bush and/or Cheney knights who can carry the flag of honor on a new crusade. Acknowledgement and apology, as Bill Clinton learned, are much better political moves than lying, denial and hiding behind the big desk. However, sometimes its just a matter of timing. The official line is so often lags far behind what public sentiment becomes that a sincere effort to establish credibility by acknowledging an error, ie. Civilian deaths, earlier corporate behavior that now is unacceptable, etc. that Johnny-come-lately officials are exasperated when they cannot please the public and/or media hangmen at the end of the day. It contributes to the disconnect between officialdom and public opinion. I'm sure that Koreans and Chinese would like for the Japanese to bear more responsibility for their atrocities in the Pacific War before the rest of the world was paying attention, i.e. when the Allies got involved. Though PM Koizumi has attempted some maverick political moves with limited success, the Japanese official line in textbooks and formally is still that they did nothing but defend themselves and protect all Asians from the menacing reach of Western warlords. Incidentally, Patrick Smith wrote an excellent book Japan: A Reinterpretation that unmasks some of the Western perceptions of Reischauer's "Chrysthanthemum Club" influence on our foreign policy, and certainly was a provocative book for me, since I still carried some youthful perceptions of Japan into adulthood that needed updating. In Japan there is popular sentiment building to buy history textbooks that outline Japanese military imperialism and atrocities associated with warfare, since Japanese school districts do buy their own books. However, the central government influence is such that it remains an opposition movement, and thus, in my opinion, further undermines modern Japan's credibility among great nation states as it so desperately wants to be known. Perhaps, with all respect due, the remnants of the war generation will have to finish passing away before there is a true Modern Japan. For those who are interested and do not already have these, please check out: Japan Echo http://www.japanecho.com/ Japan Today http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=home Japan Information Network http://jin.jcic.or.jp/ Japan Info and Culture Center http://jin.jcic.or.jp/ Japan Embassy http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/ US CIA World Factbook link via Washington Post Asia/Japan pages http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html And finally, in possible overload, the Daily Yoimiuri and Mainichi online (Eng) http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/index-e.htm http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/ Soreja, "Ke re n" des. Christoph Reuss wrote: > > Wrong subject line, Brad. > > Vice-Admiral Onishi was not a hypocrite because he was not a CEO. > > Can you give us one example of a CEO who committed suicide instead of > just reaping _his_ benefits and laughing all the way to the bank ? I can't. But I do seem to recall the Captain of a Japanese merchant ship maybe 20 years ago who delivered a shipment of automobiles and they were rusted and he accepted responsibility. The "danger" with all forms of individuals "taking responsibility for their actions" is "scapegoating", where a lower person takes the fall as a red herring to distract both the public and boards of inquiry from examining the people above them, not just their direct orders, but the "atmosphere" they generate for their underlings. Also, do you mean to imply that military experisnce should not carry over to double-dipping time, i.e., to the military officer retiree's later civilian career? I thought that their experience of command in difficult situations was part of what made these persons so valuable to industry and civilian government (and not just their "connections" for potential new government contracts for their new civilian employers). And, while we're about it, American military people don't follow the Vice-Admiral's exampole either, even when their negligence results in innocent Japanese civilian casualties, e.g., COmmander Waddle of the submarine Greenville (or his "superiors"!). Even if Americans would not have understood, I think the Japanese would have appreciated the genuine expression of acceptance of responsibility by Waddle or one of his "superiors" -- it would also have been instructive and edifying for all the persons below. /brad mccormick
