Notes on Japanese Revisionism and WW2

It is important to see U.S.-Japan relations and Pearl Harbor in the context of Japan's drive for regional supremacy/domination and autarky. The U.S. oil and steel embargo, financial freeze, etc. were all reactions to that Japanese drive.

I don't necessarily see Japan's unsuccessful pursuit of what it perceived as its national interests to be a moral failing. That would be holding Japan up to an unreasonable standard of moral state behavior (one could fault them in terms of administrative coordination and realistic planning, however). Machiavelli would agree, I suppose.

The problem is that Japanese historical revisionists are trying to engage in this debate on liberal terms, blaming some sort of conspiracy of great powers to keep Japan down or claiming that Japan was trying to liberate Asia (frequently both). The reality is that it was the trend of the times, to some extent, the great depression, exclusive trade blocs, and breakdown of the Anglo-American maintenance of the post-WWI international order (Washington System) that encouraged and enabled Japan to embark on its quest. Japan was in too deep in China, the international system hadn't prevented it from becoming so, and the options presenting themselves to Japanese leaders were all
unpalatable. As Prime Minister Tojo said, sometimes you just have to close your eyes and jump off Kiyomizu Temple.

Japan (and Germany) lost the war, and the world may be a "better" place for it, but the revisionists are really fighting the wrong historiographical war, one that they're bound to lose, which seems familiar somehow...

Machiavelli is not popular (probably because he still tells the truth), and we live in a world, Japan included, that believes that states should act in a moral fashion. Japan has crafted its postwar national identity as a victim and a peaceful economic power. Japan trying to liberate Asia fits with that, it harmonizes the past with the present; Japan being a normal, brutal state does not. It forces a violent and masochistic disconnect with the "prosthetic" past.

--

For a recent, controversial example of revisionism, please see the paper linked from this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshio_Tamogami

This was written by General Tamogami Toshio, then Chief of Staff of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, and was published on October 31st, 2008. Two weeks later, he was removed from his post by the Defense Minister and forced to retire.

going part-time

It seems that the grand transition from lifetime employment and the nanny corporation to indefinite part-time work with no benefits has impacted the 'Ndrangheta of Nippon, the yakuza, mirroring trends in the larger economy.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070209a4.html

virginia tech and gun control

Amidst all of the commentary surrounding this tragic event, it seems that there is one practical thing that can be done to help reduce the risk of such things happening in the future. It is not radically changing our gun control laws, which the states rightly have considerable power over. It is simply to include checks for mental illness in the background check process. Mr. Cho did not have a criminal record, but he did have a record of mental illness that was accessible after the fact. So let's just include those sorts of records in background checks. I think that people on all sides of the gun control debate can agree on that, aside from those who believe that all background checks are unwarranted and/or against the spirit of the Second Amendment. Obviously there is the risk that people who are simply suspected or accused of having some sort of mental illness will be denied the right to own guns. However, I do not think that denying the mentally ill or those suspected of mental illness the right to own guns will severely damage the Second Amendment. I believe in the right of the people to bear arms; reasonable restrictions are by and large accepted by the vast majority of gun owners.

for the love of cricket and the hatred of america

NY Times, March 23rd. Shashi Tharoor's op-ed about the lack of interest in cricket amongst Americans is mean-spirited and uncalled for. I appreciate the fact that it must be frustrating to try to get Americans interested in cricket, but does one have to be so ill-tempered about it? It seems he simply wanted to vent his spleen about America (you obviously have other issues with the U.S., Dr. Tharoor) and somehow sees American indifference to cricket as a symbol of all that is small-minded, homogenized, and impatient about our country. "You may as well learn to accept that there are some things too special for the rest of us to want to waste them on you." I have no desire to play that sort of ad hominem game with you, Dr. Tharoor. I find cricket fascinating and have enjoyed learning about it as well as playing it, but the sports marketplace is rather crowded in this country. Barriers to entry are quite high, especially with the (not always massive) popularity of cricket's little brother baseball. Cricket's lack of popularity is not due to some inherent flaw in the American character, but rather its late-comer status and relative similarity to a previously existing game.

If I have been misreading this, and in fact it is an example of extremely dry sarcasm, I will be happy to be corrected. But the tone did not feel that way to me. The fact that a man of such bile and bitterness very nearly became UN Secretary-General must give one pause.

making a point about islam?

The March 22nd NY Times article "German Judge Cites Koran, Stirring Up Cultural Storm" discusses the ruling made by a German judge (a woman, which may or may not be relevant) that a Muslim man can be allowed to beat his wife in Germany. The article seemed to be accusing the judge of an excess of cultural sensitivity, but could it not be that the opposite is in fact true? The judge could be making a point about the unassimilability of Muslims in German society and ruled in this fashion to publicize the barbarism she perceives in Islamic law.