I don't pretend to be an expert on Hiroshima or Japanese Culture but do admit to a long standing interest in Japanese cinema. A genre within Japanese cinema is "hibakusha cinema", that is, movies about the experience of atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their consequent effect on postwar Japanese culture and society. One source on this is Mick Broderick's edited volume "Hikusha Cinema: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Nuclear Image in Japanese Film". It appears to be out of print but is listed on Amazon; see: http://www.amazon.com/Hibakusha-Cinema-Hiroshima-Nagasaki-Japanese/dp/071030529X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281132976&sr=1-1-spell
One of the noteworthy chapters in the book is by Donald Richie, an American who came with the U.S. occupying military force after Japan's surrender and who has spent the rest of his life there. Richie is perhaps best known for his books on the films of Akira Kurosawa and Yasujiro Ozu but he has written extensively on Japanese film, culture, and society. Here is the link to Amazon's page devoted to Richie's books: http://www.amazon.com/Donald-Richie/e/B001HD1NZU/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 Richie's chapter in "Hikusha Cinema" is a 1961 article that is well-known in Japanese cinema: " 'Mono no aware: Hiroshima on Film". The phrase "mono no aware" refers to a Japanese attitude or aesthetic. There is no simple definition for the concept and the concept itself has changed over time. One way to view the concept is that it refers to "the Pathos of Things or Life" or the unavoidable sadness of living that cannot be avoided only accepted; the entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides context and more information; see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-aesthetics/#2 One of Richie's key points was that though many people outside of Japan saw the use of atomic weapons as an atrocity, the Japanese did not, at least initially, view it that way. Quoting Richie: | The West was quick to identify the bomb-dropping an an atrocity. |That the Japanese did not was due in part to the fact that it occurred |wartime, when anything might be expected; in part because, though |the destruction had been more spectacular, Hiroshima and |Nagasaki were just two of the many totally destroyed Japanese |cities; and also, in part, because the Japanese mind does not, unless |so directed, tend to think in those terms. NOTE: I think most people fail to realize that a good part of the cities of Japan had been subject to tradition aerial bombing which not only destroyed most of the physical structures but also resulted in huge civiliam casualties; one source on this point is: http://www.japanfocus.org/-mark-selden/2414 Continuing the quotation of Richie: | Had the war continued, the Japanese themselves would have |been told of the atrocity of the act and this would have made |excellent propoganda, something which the bomb-droppers |themselves feared. But the war ended and the bomb became |an 'act of God', one among many. Directly after the war, during |the Occupation, it seemed that occupying American and British |felt much worse about Hiroshima and Nagasaki than did the |Japanese themselves. And perhaps they did. (page 21) My point is that the notion that the Japanese deserved an apology for the atomic bombing was something that took decades to develop. I think that back when the bombs were dropped there was less concern about whether it was justified or not because it was accepted that these types of things happened during war (indeed, one could argue that the firebombing of Tokyo was worse; Quoting from Mark Selden's article available at the Japan Focus link above: |The full fury of firebombing and napalm was unleashed on |the night of March 9-10, 1945 when LeMay sent 334 B-29s |low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce |the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, |with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. |Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying |at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, |which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, |carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, |182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by |M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition |to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an |area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 |percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air |force planners. Whipped by fierce winds, flames detonated by the |bombs leaped across a fifteen square mile area of Tokyo generating |immense firestorms that engulfed and killed scores of thousands of |residents. I guess that one can argue about whether an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be given but one should remember that Japan had also engaged in atrocities which some feel it has not adequately apologized for; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes NOTE: read to the end, especially the section titled "Later Investigations" which reviews some of the ongoing investigations of war crimes. Quoting part of that section: |Sensitive information regarding the Japanese occupation of Korea |is often difficult to obtain. Many argue that this is due to the fact that |the Government of Japan has gone out of its way to cover up many |incidents that would otherwise lead to severe international criticism. |[104][105][107] On their part, Koreans have often expressed their |abhorrence of Human experimentations carried out by the Imperial |Japanese Army where people often became fodder as human test |subjects in such macabre experiments as liquid nitrogen tests or |biological weapons development programs (See articles: Unit 731 |and Shiro Ishii). Though some vivid and disturbing testimonies have |survived, they are largely denied by the Japanese Government even |to this day. On this date perhaps it is better to resolve not to engage in war but, when it becomes necessary to do so, we should behave ethically and consistent with international law and conventions. A point that seems to have been forgotten by some. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:30:58 -0700, David Epstein wrote: >>On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Beth Benoit went: >>I found this sentence in the Christian Science Monitor particularly >>interesting: >>Some Japanese still want an apology for the atomic bombings >>of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... > http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0806/Hiroshima-65-years-later-US-attends-ceremony-but-offers-no-apology > >> >>An apology for an act of war is a concept I don't think I've heard of often. > >An excellent book called _Hiroshima in America_ < http://www.amazon.com/Hiroshima-America-Robert-J-Lifton/dp/0380727641/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281119145&sr=1-1 > >has left me with the impression that an apology would not be out of >order. The book is also just as interesting from a psychological >perspective as from a historical one. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4040 or send a blank email to leave-4040-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
