A check on the “centenarians” who hadn’t received care under the Long-Term Care Insurance System has turned up more than 240 missing. It doesn’t look like many more will turn up, so it’s probably safe to say that the government failed to account for the deaths or exit from Japan of less than 0.001% of the 40 million people give or take a few million residents who were born between 100-127 years ago. I’ll leave it at that and hope that others will figure out how that compares with other countries. One of the implications of the figures is that there must be upwards of a couple of hundred people born between 80-100 years ago who are dead or have left Japan without such fact being duly recorded in the appropriate registries. It’s also safe to assume that some of them are drawing on the pensions of parents who have gone missing. So I guess my question is: Have they found good excuses for the occasion of a visit from the authorities inquiring about the well-being of their newly centenarian parents?
Notice: There’s a long and thoughtful comment from Jobi-One Kenobi on “The Apologies” here. I’ve tried to respond in kind.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Who Knew that Asia Consisted of China, South Korea, and Australia (and Japan)?
Oh wait, European and American colonies don’t count, except when they’ve exterminated the locals. (Sorry, my Australian friend, I just couldn’t let the irony go by without mentioning it.)
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Kan Statement on Japan’s Recent Past on the Korean Peninsula
The Kan Statement on the eve of the 100th anniversary of Imperial Japan’s annexation of the Korean peninsula has passed the Yomiuri test—which means that it will go down with the populist-nationalist wing of the Japanese political center. Sankei is coming out fiercely against it, but its smaller print circulation gurantees that active opposition will represent no more than a small minority of the national vote.
That said, it will only be success diplomacy if the Japanese authorities are able to put an end to apologies once and for all and south Korea to accept the latest one for what it’s worth. An apology repeated is an apology not accepted. That should be obvious to anyone.
That said, it will only be success diplomacy if the Japanese authorities are able to put an end to apologies once and for all and south Korea to accept the latest one for what it’s worth. An apology repeated is an apology not accepted. That should be obvious to anyone.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Meaning of Roh Moo-Hyun
Roh Moo-hyun, with his suicide leap, has become South Korea’s most recent and arguably most spectacular post-presidential flameout. For every South Korean President since Chun Doo-hwan (1980-1988) and Roh Tae-woo (1988-1993), the military generals who eased South Korea into its contemporary democratic era, and/or their families and familiars have been subjected to criminal prosecution. In fact, Roh Moo-hyung’s death makes you wonder if all this isn’t part of the local political culture—the South Korean equivalent of the multi-million-dollar Presidential library that ex-Presidents hit on their campaign contributors for and the six-figure fees they charge for giving pep talk to Moonie conventions and other less reputable audiences, doesn’t it? (Japanese Prime Ministers mainly but not exclusively opt for a more modest goal—bequeathing their Diet seats to their offspring.)
Yes, but.
Actually, Chun through Roh 2 are the analog of the one-off warlords who are destined to give way to a more permanent regime in exchange for a moment of historical glory as short-lived difference-makers. They and their successors (up to Roh 2) remind more me of bridesmaids Nobunaga Oda and Hideyoshi Toyotomi, who briefly held sway at the end of the Sengoku Jidai, or War-States Period, only to pave the way to three centuries of uninterrupted rule by the Tokugawa Dynasty. Korean (and, more so, Chinese) history must be replete with such precedents. From this perspective, Roh’s suicide should be seen as the latest manifestation of the search by the Korean body politic for an enduring protocol of succession as a constitutional democracy.
Yes, but.
Actually, Chun through Roh 2 are the analog of the one-off warlords who are destined to give way to a more permanent regime in exchange for a moment of historical glory as short-lived difference-makers. They and their successors (up to Roh 2) remind more me of bridesmaids Nobunaga Oda and Hideyoshi Toyotomi, who briefly held sway at the end of the Sengoku Jidai, or War-States Period, only to pave the way to three centuries of uninterrupted rule by the Tokugawa Dynasty. Korean (and, more so, Chinese) history must be replete with such precedents. From this perspective, Roh’s suicide should be seen as the latest manifestation of the search by the Korean body politic for an enduring protocol of succession as a constitutional democracy.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Our Different Trumans
Americans, what do you think of when you see the name Harry Truman? Got it? Now, let me translate a recent Kyodo wire for you.
U.S. President Bush, Disapproval Rate Post-WW II HighIs Kyodo expressing its disapproval of Truman when it juxtaposes Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Watergate. No, surely. But for better or worse, Truman is remembered as the guy who dropped the bomb on us. And not remembered in a nice way. We cannot help that, and we cannot help that it colors our view of history in a way that is different from yours, more generally a useful perspective as your thoughts cross borders.
U.S. President Bush’s “disapproval rate” reached 76%, the highest post-WW II level, according to a public opinion poll counduted by CNN TV and others and announced on [November] 10.
The highest up till now had been 67% recorded in 1952 by President Truman, who made the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed by 66% in 1974 for President Nixon, who resigned as the result of the Watergate Incident (ah, the magic word “incidents”, a translation into which some Western liberals read too much meaning where modern history is concerned). According to CNN, President Bush’s disapproval rate has climbed above 70% three times this year; his unpopularity is heads and shoulders above everyone else’s.
Friday, November 21, 2008
You Are There: How The Pilgrims Came to Stuff the Thanksgiving Turkey
It happened almost by accident, really. Remember, in those days, they had no electricity, no gas, no running water, and no undocumented aliens to do the dishes, so doing a Thanksgiving dinner was an even bigger chore than it is now. So by the time Mr. Allerton came home after "fooling around with the Indians" (Mrs. Allerton's words), turkey in tow, it was like… But see for yourself…
And please, Rondo, no taunting, we’re the Celtics.
“Fear honey, I'm home! I got the turkey!”True story. You can read the full transcript on the History Channel website. Note that Mrs. Allerton never takes the name of the Lord in vain. Very authentic.
“Well, Isaac Allerton, it's about time, I've only got four hours… whatthef@ckit'sstillalive! And I smell tobacco on thy breath, thou hast been smoking again, that's a f@cking sin!”
“…But I didn't inhale.”
“I don't care, get the f@ck outta here, kill that f@cking bird, pluck it f@cking clean, then bring it back ASAP, or it's thy f@cking neck I shall be wringing!”
…Thirty minutes later, Mrs. Allerton is getting ready to finish dressing the turkey…
“Stupid Issac *grumble grumble* Stupid bird *mutter mutter*... Hey stupid turkey! Isaac turkey! Yeah, thee! I'm talkin' about thee! Thou canst not even ‘dress’ thyself HAHA, canst thee? What hast thou got to say for thyself, buck naked HAHA in front of a lady HAHAHA! Won't answer, huh? Well I have half a mind to take that stupid head of thine and stick it where the sun dost not… W-a-a-a-i-t a minute, I've got an idea…”
And please, Rondo, no taunting, we’re the Celtics.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Hawaii: Un-American in More Ways than One
Timothy Noah asks: Why is Seward's Folly the "real America" and the Aloha State not? His explanation:
Having said that, let’s look at what other things that the contrast between the two states reveals. With its forbidding winters and the Klondike Gold Rush of 1897, Alaska is a fitting coda to the founding myth of America, How the West Was Won (bought it from Russia?), the often violent, always white, saga played out against the vast expanses of “no-man’s” land*. The facts of the Palins and their friends have the feel of a Western movie.
Hawaii is a chapter in the imperial phase of America’s expansion, a series of political and military maneuvers like many imperialist endeavors that culminated in the formal annexation of the territory—the aborigines and their culture largely intact, but gradually reduced to a small minority by subsequent waves of immigration, Japanese and Filipinos taking the place of the Indians of the British colonies, to serve the colonial masters alongside the ubiquitous Chinese. The Asian-Pacific aborigines and immigrants—like the Hispanics in the other parts of the empire—remained mere extras in the greater narrative.
Alaska delivers the White Man’s valedictory while Hawaii tells the immigrants’ tale. One is Republican while the other is Democrat.
There! It’s always more fun to write other peoples’ histories, isn’t it? Maybe I should do it more often.
* Coming as it did at the end of the 20th Century, Alaska’s conquest was relatively free of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that marked the takeover in the contiguous United States and territories.
Alaska leans Republican while Hawaii leans Democratic, and the GOP long ago intimidated the media into believing that only Republican strongholds represent the "real America." These Republican strongholds are usually sparsely populated, and I suppose the media's been sold on the idea that because the United States started out as an agrarian nation, rural areas are somehow more authentic than urban ones.There’s a certain truth to that, and Hawaii is more urban than Alaska, as Mr. Noah shows. But Texas and Utah were only 17.5% and 11.7% rural respectively, as this table based on the 2000 U.S. Census shows, and what two states could be redder than this pair? Mr. Noah is too discreet to point to the causation and not the correlation. But he doesn’t have to. For the reason is obvious. And it’s the one thing, together with the unforeseen mega-event—a massive terrorist attack or an Osama bin Laden takedown—that could turn the tide in John McCain’s favor in this election.
Having said that, let’s look at what other things that the contrast between the two states reveals. With its forbidding winters and the Klondike Gold Rush of 1897, Alaska is a fitting coda to the founding myth of America, How the West Was Won (bought it from Russia?), the often violent, always white, saga played out against the vast expanses of “no-man’s” land*. The facts of the Palins and their friends have the feel of a Western movie.
Hawaii is a chapter in the imperial phase of America’s expansion, a series of political and military maneuvers like many imperialist endeavors that culminated in the formal annexation of the territory—the aborigines and their culture largely intact, but gradually reduced to a small minority by subsequent waves of immigration, Japanese and Filipinos taking the place of the Indians of the British colonies, to serve the colonial masters alongside the ubiquitous Chinese. The Asian-Pacific aborigines and immigrants—like the Hispanics in the other parts of the empire—remained mere extras in the greater narrative.
Alaska delivers the White Man’s valedictory while Hawaii tells the immigrants’ tale. One is Republican while the other is Democrat.
There! It’s always more fun to write other peoples’ histories, isn’t it? Maybe I should do it more often.
* Coming as it did at the end of the 20th Century, Alaska’s conquest was relatively free of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that marked the takeover in the contiguous United States and territories.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Murayama Statement Erratum?
The most recent expression by a new Japanese Prime Minister of accession to the 1995 Murayama Statement on Japan’s wartime responsibilities (MOFA English translation here) urges me to find the time to collect my thoughts sufficiently to inflict you with yet another post regarding history issues—specifically, on the respective roles of government, civil society and the individual. In the meantime, let me do a riff on the words “errors” and “mistake” and its adjectival variant “mistaken” in the translation.
The English translation renders “過去のあやまち=ayamachi” as “the errors in our history”, “国策を誤り=ayamari” as “following a mistaken national policy”, and “未来に誤ちayamachi無からしめんとするが故に” as “In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future”.
The second example, where the translator replaces the verb “誤り” with adjective “mistaken” is the easy part, so let’s take care of it first. The root form of the verb “誤り” is “誤る”, which is translated in the online Kenkyusha dictionary as:
The second, mixed-orthography, ayamachi(=誤ち) poses a problem. It is nowhere to be found in the Kenkyusha or Sanseido dictionaries, online versions of two of the most widely used sets of hardcopy dictionaries in Japan. Instead, the only mixed-orthography version of ayamachi is “過ち”, and is coupled to “あやまり”, the hiragama version. In other words, two respected authorities (surely seconded by other publishers) recognize “過ち” and “過ち” alone as an acceptable mixed-orthography rendering of “あやまち”, or “ayamachi”.
The MOFA translators must have been aware of this difference, and reflected it by transposing the two words to “errors” and “mistake”, respectively. But why in the first place did the original drafters of the Murayama Statement render ayamachi, one of the most crucial concepts in the text, in the first instance in hiragana and switch to what is at best an unorthodox rendering in the second? My mind is not settled on this point, so I’ll leave it at that, for any of you that are interested to consider. I mention in passing that my thoughts were set off by what I perceived to be a gap between the emotive “ayamachi” on one hand and the less judgmental “error” and “mistakes” on the other.
* There is, in fact, a verb version of “ayamachi=あやまち, 過ち”, namely “ayamatsu=過つ”. It is no longer used except perhaps for some archaic and formal effect. Interestingly, it does not convey any inherent sense of moral or ethical failure. Thus, it has more or less the same meaning as “ayamaru” (but without the latter’s alternate meaning to apologize, which is expressed with a different Chinese character).
The English translation renders “過去のあやまち=ayamachi” as “the errors in our history”, “国策を誤り=ayamari” as “following a mistaken national policy”, and “未来に誤ちayamachi無からしめんとするが故に” as “In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future”.
The second example, where the translator replaces the verb “誤り” with adjective “mistaken” is the easy part, so let’s take care of it first. The root form of the verb “誤り” is “誤る”, which is translated in the online Kenkyusha dictionary as:
mistake; make a mistake; 《fml》 commit [make] an error; 《fml》 err; 〈誤解する〉 misunderstand; 〈しくじる〉 fail; 〈取り違える〉 mistake [take] 《A》 for 《B》.Here, there is no sense of inherent moral or ethical failure; the examples merely point out a variance with the correct action or understanding of things. Kenkyusha is even more concise with the noun form of “誤る ayamaru” —again, confusingly for the novitiate “誤り”:
a mistake; a slip; a blunder; 《fml》 an error ⇒→まちがいThis is not the case for the first, hiragana, ayamachi(=あやまち). Kenkyusha gives it following definitions:
〈過失〉 a fault; a blunder; 〈誤り〉 a mistake; 《fml》 an error; 〈罪過〉 an offense; 〈事故〉 an accident; a mishap.Note the word “offense”. Inherent, if implicit, is something that goes beyond mere correction, a legal, moral or ethical sanction, external and/or self-inflicted—retribution and/or atonement. If fact, this sense is so powerful that it is rarely used in a non-judgmental sense. Instead, “誤り ayamari”, that is, the noun form of the verb “誤る ayamaru” is almost always used to convey the generic sense of “error” or “mistake”.
The second, mixed-orthography, ayamachi(=誤ち) poses a problem. It is nowhere to be found in the Kenkyusha or Sanseido dictionaries, online versions of two of the most widely used sets of hardcopy dictionaries in Japan. Instead, the only mixed-orthography version of ayamachi is “過ち”, and is coupled to “あやまり”, the hiragama version. In other words, two respected authorities (surely seconded by other publishers) recognize “過ち” and “過ち” alone as an acceptable mixed-orthography rendering of “あやまち”, or “ayamachi”.
The MOFA translators must have been aware of this difference, and reflected it by transposing the two words to “errors” and “mistake”, respectively. But why in the first place did the original drafters of the Murayama Statement render ayamachi, one of the most crucial concepts in the text, in the first instance in hiragana and switch to what is at best an unorthodox rendering in the second? My mind is not settled on this point, so I’ll leave it at that, for any of you that are interested to consider. I mention in passing that my thoughts were set off by what I perceived to be a gap between the emotive “ayamachi” on one hand and the less judgmental “error” and “mistakes” on the other.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Selected Posts on Japan-China Relationship, History Issues, and the Right-wing Myth
My writing mentor is in Japan to do research for his upcoming book, and yesterday, we met for the first time. I promised to look through my blog for the posts most relevant to the points I made. It turned out to be a huge chore, so I’m posting the list here, just in case it might come in handy again. I also noticed that they, as well as many others that I omitted, tended to come in the form of critiquing the mainstream media. Just sayin’.
“
My writing mentor is in Japan to do research for his book, and yesterday, we met for the first time. I promised to look through my blog for the posts most relevant to the points I made. It turned out to be a huge chore, so I’m posting the list here, just in case it might come in handy again. I also noticed that they, as well as many others that I omitted, tended to come in the form of critiquing the mainstream media. Just sayin’.
1. Here is my fullest exposition to date on the convergence of Japanese and Chinese interests. I hadn’t developed the catchphrase “competitors, not antagonists” yet, but the basic argument is there.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/10/future-of-japans-relations-with-us-and.html
2. Here, following the Glocom link, is a more recent manifestation of my convergence-of-interests trope in a drive-by on Jim Hoagland. There’s brief outline of the change of heart on the part of the Chinese authorities after anti-Japanese demonstrations became a threat to domestic stability. I found another post where I conjectured that Mr. Abe must have cut the deal somewhere in the spring or summer of 2006 before he became Prime Minister, but I lost the link, and I’m too pooped to look for it again.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2008/05/jim-hoagland-swings-and-misses-mightily.html"
The poisoned Chinese dumplings issue shows the two governments struggling to contain the fallout with their respective domestic constituency in mind.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2008/02/media-online-community-governments.html
2. Here, I explain that constitutional amendment is not an issue in the 2007 Upper House election.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/07/bbc-takes-on-constitutional-amendment.html
Later, I explain how the LDP loss was not a rejection of Prime Minister Abe’s of nationalist/right-wing/conservative—your pick—politics:
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/08/ldp-loses-big-and-prime-ministers-no.html
3. Here, I take on the “history issue” issue. Bonus feature: diatribe on misuse of the word “Asia”.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/09/history-issues-trope-on-japanese.html
Speaking of history…
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-you-know-whats-most-amazing-line-in.html
“
My writing mentor is in Japan to do research for his book, and yesterday, we met for the first time. I promised to look through my blog for the posts most relevant to the points I made. It turned out to be a huge chore, so I’m posting the list here, just in case it might come in handy again. I also noticed that they, as well as many others that I omitted, tended to come in the form of critiquing the mainstream media. Just sayin’.
1. Here is my fullest exposition to date on the convergence of Japanese and Chinese interests. I hadn’t developed the catchphrase “competitors, not antagonists” yet, but the basic argument is there.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/10/future-of-japans-relations-with-us-and.html
2. Here, following the Glocom link, is a more recent manifestation of my convergence-of-interests trope in a drive-by on Jim Hoagland. There’s brief outline of the change of heart on the part of the Chinese authorities after anti-Japanese demonstrations became a threat to domestic stability. I found another post where I conjectured that Mr. Abe must have cut the deal somewhere in the spring or summer of 2006 before he became Prime Minister, but I lost the link, and I’m too pooped to look for it again.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2008/05/jim-hoagland-swings-and-misses-mightily.html"
The poisoned Chinese dumplings issue shows the two governments struggling to contain the fallout with their respective domestic constituency in mind.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2008/02/media-online-community-governments.html
2. Here, I explain that constitutional amendment is not an issue in the 2007 Upper House election.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/07/bbc-takes-on-constitutional-amendment.html
Later, I explain how the LDP loss was not a rejection of Prime Minister Abe’s of nationalist/right-wing/conservative—your pick—politics:
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/08/ldp-loses-big-and-prime-ministers-no.html
3. Here, I take on the “history issue” issue. Bonus feature: diatribe on misuse of the word “Asia”.
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2007/09/history-issues-trope-on-japanese.html
Speaking of history…
http://son-of-gadfly-on-the-wall.blogspot.com/2008/05/do-you-know-whats-most-amazing-line-in.html
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
But Are They War Crimes? － The Gitmo Trials
Anticipating international criticism over plans to seek the death penalty for accused September 11, 2001, terrorists, the State Department is advising U.S. diplomats to point out that Nazis were executed after their war crime trials.
－ CNN, 2008 February 13
Since the War Tribunals, the US military has rarely imposed the death penalty*. In fact, it last carried out a death sentence in 1961, when it hanged a certain John A. Bennett, Pvt. 1st. Class. His crime? Rape, and attempted murder, of an 11-year-old Austrian girl. No, there were no fatalities. In fact, the girl and her parents wrote letters to President Kennedy asking him to spare Bennettt's life.
What media reports on the new Gitmo trials do not tell you is that Private Bennett was an African-American.
ADD (February 14): The huge dissonance between the title and the substance is intentional, but I realize now that it is very confusing. My intent was to place the politicization of the military criminal procedure system (the Gitmo suspects in a constitutional limbo between the military and the civilian, Private Bennett falling in the societal abyss between the Jim Crow and post-Civil Rights Act worlds) as the backdrop to the many doors that the small historical footnote in the articles on the Gitmo trials opened. But it obviously does not work too well, as ross’s comment shows.
I still have a lot to learn about this craft. My only excuse: I’m new at writing for myself.
－ CNN, 2008 February 13
Since the War Tribunals, the US military has rarely imposed the death penalty*. In fact, it last carried out a death sentence in 1961, when it hanged a certain John A. Bennett, Pvt. 1st. Class. His crime? Rape, and attempted murder, of an 11-year-old Austrian girl. No, there were no fatalities. In fact, the girl and her parents wrote letters to President Kennedy asking him to spare Bennettt's life.
What media reports on the new Gitmo trials do not tell you is that Private Bennett was an African-American.
ADD (February 14): The huge dissonance between the title and the substance is intentional, but I realize now that it is very confusing. My intent was to place the politicization of the military criminal procedure system (the Gitmo suspects in a constitutional limbo between the military and the civilian, Private Bennett falling in the societal abyss between the Jim Crow and post-Civil Rights Act worlds) as the backdrop to the many doors that the small historical footnote in the articles on the Gitmo trials opened. But it obviously does not work too well, as ross’s comment shows.
I still have a lot to learn about this craft. My only excuse: I’m new at writing for myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)