Should Japan's leader apologize for Pearl Harbor?

[OldJourno]

I saw the headline that Japan's leader won't apologize for Pearl Harbor. Didn't read the story because the headline said it all.
Don't know the name of Japan's leader and don't much care. But why the man should apologize for something he had nothing to do with is beyond me. It was 75 years ago and yes, I'm sure we all regret what followed.
Why even bring up the topic of apology?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I heard Jill Stein and Hillary went to court for a surrender do-over.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There WAS a precedent: Robert E. Lee never apologized for the attack on Ft. Sumter.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

ROBs mom should apologize.

 

[about_average]

I couldn't care less one way or the other.

 

[OldJourno]

I couldn't care less one way or the other.

I have a solution. I will apologize for Pearl Harbor.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think it's far, far more important that they should apologize to China for the Rape of Nanjing and a great deal besides. The Germans have long since owned up to their collective guilt for all the suffering and destruction they caused in that war, but the Japanese persist in denial.

 

[Sean]

I think it's far, far more important that they should apologize to China for the Rape of Nanjing and a great deal besides. The Germans have long since owned up to their collective guilt for all the suffering and destruction they caused in that war, but the Japanese persist in denial.

The Japanese teaching of the history of that period is somewhat...edited.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have a solution. I will apologize for Pearl Harbor.

Someone should. Silly Pearl. It never fails, two drinks and she's acting like a whore.

 

[oggbashan]

... but the Japanese persist in denial.

It depends what you mean by an apology. The term in Japanese is covered by several different words. It is impossible for modern Japanese politicians, who weren't even born in 1941, to apologise for the acts of a previous government. Only those who took the decisions then could issue a full apology.

The modern Japanese government can, and has, expressed regret for the war in China and for Pearl Harbor.

I can't apologise for burning the White House during the War of 1812 nor for eating the President's dinner. I didn't do it. I can regret that it occured but only those who were actually there could apologise - and they wouldn't because they were reacting to the US's acts of burning towns in Canada.

It is the same for the Japanese government. They can regret but not apologise for historic acts.

We British have fought wars in almost every country in the world in the last 300 years. Should I, or my government, apologise for the acts of 18th and 19th Century governments? We can't. We can regret, and there are acts that we should regret, but we can't rectify what happened.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It depends what you mean by an apology. The term in Japanese is covered by several different words.

I did not know that, and am not surprised to learn it. I have read that if Italian is the language of the romantic, Japanese is the language of the penitent.

 

[ishtat]

It is more important that the Japanese apologize, not for the "Rape of Nanking," but that they do so for the lies that they tell their children today in history class textbooks. They assert that it simply did not happen.

 

[oggbashan]

It is more important that the Japanese apologize, not for the "Rape of Nanking," but that they do so for the lies that they tell their children today in history class textbooks. They assert that it simply did not happen.

That is true. The Japanese have always had difficulty accepting the reality of the brutality of their military rulers in China.

But we Brits can't be complacent. Our history books stayed silent about the Opium Wars until recently. Now? That period isn't on the National Curriculum so is still not covered.

How did we end up with Hong Kong? That isn't mentioned either.

The Boer War? What Boer War?

And so on...

 

[oggbashan]

It is more important that the Japanese apologize, not for the "Rape of Nanking," but that they do so for the lies that they tell their children today in history class textbooks. They assert that it simply did not happen.

Only in some textbooks used by a few and it is controversial even in Japan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

As I said above, we are just as guilty of whitewashing our history. At least UK schools now regard Henry VIII

<---

as a BAD King.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How did we end up with Hong Kong?

"In a fit of absence of mind," is the usual answer, I believe, for how the Brits acquired their Empire.

 

[Libsam]

http://i.imgur.com/Z5FrCJ6.png?1

 

[about_average]

That is true. The Japanese have always had difficulty accepting the reality of the brutality of their military rulers in China.

But we Brits can't be complacent. Our history books stayed silent about the Opium Wars until recently. Now? That period isn't on the National Curriculum so is still not covered.

How did we end up with Hong Kong? That isn't mentioned either.

The Boer War? What Boer War?

And so on...

Not many Americans know of the destruction (during a German air raid) of the SS John Harvey (loaded with chemical weapons) in Italy that was such a secret "deterrent" that many US soldiers were left to suffer and die because higher command refused to tell the doctors treating them what was actually wrong with them.

 

[kilometers]

I saw the headline that Japan's leader won't apologize for Pearl Harbor. Didn't read the story because the headline said it all.
Don't know the name of Japan's leader and don't much care. But why the man should apologize for something he had nothing to do with is beyond me. It was 75 years ago and yes, I'm sure we all regret what followed.
Why even bring up the topic of apology?

Americans need to stop making a big deal out of this. All ships matter.

 

[nerfhearder]

Not many Americans know of the destruction (during a German air raid) of the SS John Harvey (loaded with chemical weapons) in Italy that was such a secret "deterrent" that many US soldiers were left to suffer and die because higher command refused to tell the doctors treating them what was actually wrong with them.

Italy didn't know what mustard gas was?
I'm finding that difficult to believe.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think everyone needs to get the fuck over it.

Shits over and done the better part of a century ago and nearly everyone who had anything to do with it is dead.

Like slavery in the US, yes it was bad, but that was a long fucking time ago and no one today perpetrated or lived under it so move the fuck on.

 

[hashtag4]

It is more important that the Japanese apologize, not for the "Rape of Nanking," but that they do so for the lies that they tell their children today in history class textbooks. They assert that it simply did not happen.

Why should the Japanese be expected to behave any differently than others?
Most politicians and history books manipulate facts to bring history in line with their agenda.

On a similar note, it would be interesting to put side by side different description of the wars in the Middle East.

American politicians would describe them as "Wars by which we tried to rid those countries of terrorists or oppressors, and bring in peace and democracy".
Middle Eastern and Russian politicians would call them "Wars driven by economic or geopolitical interests, wars which led to genocide as in millions of lives lost".

 

[oggbashan]

Why should the Japanese be expected to behave any differently than others?
Most politicians and history books manipulate facts to bring history in line with their agenda.

On a similar note, it would be interesting to put side by side different description of the wars in the Middle East.

American politicians would describe them as "Wars by which we tried to rid those countries of terrorists or oppressors, and bring in peace and democracy".
Middle Eastern and Russian politicians would call them "Wars driven by economic or geopolitical interests, wars which led to genocide as in millions of lives lost".

The link in my post #14 above states that the most significant controversy was caused by inaccurate press reporting, not the reality of Japanese textbooks.

A comparative study begun in 2006 by the Asia–Pacific Research Center at Stanford University on Japanese, Chinese, South Korean and US textbooks describes 99% of Japanese textbooks as having a “muted, neutral, and almost bland” tone with little chance of engaging students in critical thinking. The project, led by Stanford scholars Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider, found that less than one percent of Japanese textbooks used provocative and inflammatory language and imagery, but that these few books, printed by just one publisher, received the greater media attention. As well, the minor viewpoint of nationalism and revisionism gets more press than the prevailing majority narrative of pacifism in Japan. Chinese textbooks were found to be the most nationalistic, with South Korean textbooks focusing on oppressive Japanese colonial rule. US history textbooks were found to be overly patriotic, although they invite debate about major issues.


There was an extensive apology after diplomatic pressure from China and Korea:

In response, on August 26, 1982, Kiichi Miyazawa, then the Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan, made the following statement:

The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated. Japan has recognized, in the Japan-ROK Joint Communiqué of 1965, that the "past relations are regrettable, and Japan feels deep remorse," and in the Japan-China Joint Communiqué, that Japan is "keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war and deeply reproaches itself." These statements confirm Japan's remorse and determination which I stated above and this recognition has not changed at all to this day.

This spirit in the Japan-ROK Joint Communiqué and the Japan-China Joint Communiqué naturally should also be respected in Japan's school education and textbook authorization. Recently, however, the Republic of Korea, China, and others have been criticizing some descriptions in Japanese textbooks. From the perspective of building friendship and goodwill with neighboring countries, Japan will pay due attention to these criticisms and make corrections at the Government's responsibility.

To this end, in relation to future authorization of textbooks, the Government will revise the Guideline for Textbook Authorization after discussions in the Textbook Authorization and Research Council and give due consideration to the effect mentioned above. Regarding textbooks that have already been authorized, Government will take steps quickly to the same effect. As measures until then, the Minister of Education, Sports, Science and Culture will express his views and make sure that the idea mentioned in 2. Above is duly reflected in the places of education.

Japan intends to continue to make efforts to promote mutual understanding and develop friendly and cooperative relations with neighboring countries and to contribute to the peace and stability of Asia and, in turn, of the world.


By Japanese cultural standards that was a grovelling apology. The reporting of the textbooks was wrong. That didn't matter. It was the offence caused by the report that led to the apology.

 

[about_average]

Italy didn't know what mustard gas was?
I'm finding that difficult to believe.

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of US Soldiers were taken to the many civilian hospitals that existed in Bari at the height of the war in southern Italy.

 

[ishtat]

Only in some textbooks used by a few and it is controversial even in Japan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

As I said above, we are just as guilty of whitewashing our history. At least UK schools now regard Henry VIII

<---

as a BAD King.

I agree that Henry8 would not have won too many plaudits on Domestic violence issues but he did a decent job with economic management. By taking over and redistributing the monastic house's land he redistributed a vast amount of capital into secular hands - not fairly perhaps, but it helped minimize taxation and kept the foreign influence of the Papacy at minimal levels and specifically, reduced debt to foreign(Italian) banks.

The fact that he pruned his spouses and courtiers with a degree of vigour never diminished his popularity.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, they got their ass kicked and had to surrender unconditionally.



Like Hillary Clinton, they paid the appropriate price for their malfeasance...