tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post3095766807314865607..comments2023-10-20T18:03:01.821+09:00Comments on GlobalTalk 21: The "History Issues" Trope on Japanese Leadership Is a CrockJun Okumurahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00291478225274759649noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-83474240874600283522007-09-10T11:08:00.000+09:002007-09-10T11:08:00.000+09:00Garret, Bryce: Thank you for your comments.So wher...<A HREF="http://www.transpacificradio.com/" REL="nofollow">Garret</A>, Bryce: Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>So where did the 62 years go? That's a good question, one which all three of us address here in one way or another.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the Japanese government "officially [does] its utmost to downplay such issues"; it's the "<I>un</I>official" downplaying, hedging, and parsing of official statements and addresses by public officials and the subsequent backtracking that is the problem. And this is unhelpful. The controversies are not entirely of their own making, but they do have a lot of responsibility. Not that the Chinese and South Korean governments don't have a lot to do domestically to give their people a better understanding of what post-WW II Japan is all about though. In any case, my point is that these controversies are not preventing Japan from projecting its armed forces beyond its borders.<BR/><BR/>Do I personally believe that the "history issues" <I>should</I> be a low priority issue? Perhaps I should have <I>hedged</I> my original post a litle bit more and concluded with something like<BR/><BR/><I> Having seen the awful outcome of international intervention in the Middle East, I'm think that the disinterested attitude of the Japanese public has something to recommend itself for. Be careful what you wish for; isn't that how the saying goes?</I>Jun Okumurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00291478225274759649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-49737833914627182032007-09-10T06:36:00.000+09:002007-09-10T06:36:00.000+09:00"detail" means "details of Japan's wartime history..."detail" means "details of Japan's wartime history"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-15883628161365574042007-09-10T06:35:00.000+09:002007-09-10T06:35:00.000+09:00Do you really think that issues of history are "lo...Do you really think that issues of history are "low priority" for the Japanese public? I tend to think that although most Japanese don't know much about the detail, there is a still a latent feeling that Japan can't really be trusted in matters of war. Despite all the commentary about a "new generation" ready to bust out of the post-war constraints, I've generally found that most Japanese, young and old have a "all war is bad" attitude that doesn't really present itself elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32776756.post-47629206490896995812007-09-10T04:44:00.000+09:002007-09-10T04:44:00.000+09:00Well put as always, sir. One pedantic point and o...Well put as always, sir. One pedantic point and one question, though. On the pedantic side: Isn't "more than 90 years" an odd way to refer to 154 years? (Perry's black ships arrived in 1853, right?)<BR/><BR/>The question: In terms of issues related to WWII and the wars leading up to it, does Japan stand to gain anything at all by, officially, continuing on this tack of doing its utmost to downplay such issues. North Korea is going to continue to be nutty no matter what, it seems, but wouldn't Japan stand to gain more, from at least a PR standpoint, by making a show of contrition of WWII-related issues?<BR/>China and South Korea probably don't want the kerfuffle over wartime issues, but, especially in the case of China, protesting against Japan is a pretty handy way to diffuse domestic unrest. Couldn't Japan reduce that by putting itself in the position of being able to say it had done everything that could be asked of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com