Sunshine Textbook (3rd Grade) Program 4 - Is this offensive?

[Staticnz]

I watched Otoko-tachi No Yamato the other day. It's the story of the battleship Yamato sunk by the Americans off Kyushuu during WWII. It was really weird. The whole film basically omits any context as to why the war is happening, and spends the whole time telling you emotional stories about the soldiers, their families, etc.

So by the end of the film you're still wondering: 'wait, why'd the Americans attack those poor soldiers?'

However, to be fair, America has it's own crop of bone-headed patriotic films that totally omit historical context and just display soldiers as these selfless, heroic individuals locked in a struggle against an 'evil' foe. ('We Were Soldiers' anyone?)

Taking away historical context dehumanizes the fighting and turns it into a kind of manipulative propaganda, in my opinion. And it is a rare case where it is fair to say that 'both sides do it'. I think films like 'Saving Private Ryan' still spend too much time going on about how soldiers are grand heroes, rather than exploring the context for the war, and shining a critical eye on the events and social aspects of the countries and the military.

That's why in my opinion Oliver Stone's war films are the best, because they show everything, but never glorify it.

[histgirl]

Japan's relationship-building with nations of the former Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere need a lot more help that American-Japanese relations. Speaking of movies, didn't anyone see the movie Gung Ho? That's what we need to be talking about.


As for the OP....

Yes, it is offensive because not because of the story itself, but because it is one of many things that make an ethnocentric curriculum. A couple of highlights from other English textbooks:

- the wonderful effect Japanese culture has had on the world, nothing about the world's effect on Japan
- the trouble a foreign exchange student has when coming to Japan, not about a Japanese person going abroad
- the OC lesson talking about Kabuki theatre... wtf?
- history book that says the poor Japanese people who emmigrated to Manchuria in the 1930s were mistreated
- the elementary book that teaches French/American/German/other culture with cartoon-character stereotypes
- all pictures of foriegners have blond hair and blues eyes

We can't be surprised when the kids are clueless about the rest of the world. Even in the FOREIGN LANGUAGE class they are still being taught about their own culture, not others. I wouldn't talk about this in class, but I have had very frank discussions with some Japanese friends who are parents of a good student.



Also, movies are made for entertaining, audiences care about the characters more than context, why waste time explaining background with "yet another" WWII movie.

[Staticnz]

Well, I think war movies are all about what they choose to focus on. You don't need to have boring exposition about history and context, but you can show the side of the war that isn't glamorous.

That's why Oliver Stone is so good. Born On The Fourth Of July focuses almost exclusively on what war does to people, as opposed to just a whole lot of explosions and carnage. Same with Deer Hunter. Once you explore the psychology of war it becomes almost impossible to glamorize it.

Also, Heaven And Earth is amazing...about an American soldier that marries a Vietnamese woman and how war trauma and culture differences tear them apart.

I don't think the characters in Otoko-Tachi No Yamato went far beyond like, they love their mother, they have a childhood sweetheart...they've been through so much with their comrades...they are naive. But no look at the group-think of the military, or the strains on the psychology of soldiers, not one look at what society was up to...they don't even show you any Americans.

At the end of the film this old man looks into the sunset and goes..."now I know, what we were fighting for". And I was like...wait...what?? What were you fighting for? Could someone explain!?!? But then I realized that Japanese audiences are just to take it as a given that Japan was fighting for all the right reasons, so the line is supposed to just make sense.

It's like they were fighting some fantastical war, not World War II.

[word]

Sometimes people want to glamorize things that weren't all that glamorous, and sometimes audiences want that sort of experience. 300 was a pretty popular movie, but it was as melodramatic as war movies get. Very little real history, a great deal of glamorizing.

I don't really care for most war movies, either, but I'm a pretty big fan of Band of Brothers (as are most human beings who've seen it). It's a pretty real look at war, but there is an element of patriotism, bias, and glory in there.

Or how about Glory? I mean, the title is the word "glory." Things totally suck for everyone in the story, but it's still sorta glamorized in the end.

I dunno, I'm just sayin', this is the sort of thing that I can forgive in media, 'cause human beings have an element of animalistic savagery that we sometimes embrace in odd ways. Enjoying a melodramatic war movie seems more forgivable than some of the other ways in which this oft-suppressed characteristic is revealed.

[isitatomic]

- the wonderful effect Japanese culture has had on the world, nothing about the world's effect on Japan
- the trouble a foreign exchange student has when coming to Japan, not about a Japanese person going abroad
- the OC lesson talking about Kabuki theatre... wtf?

I had to laugh (with you, not at you) here because sometimes it does feel almost like these textbooks are dual-use technology, cramming English sentences into little minds and exposing ALTs to Rakugo and Kabuki and whatnot, eheheh. Anyway, it shouldn't come as toooo much of a surprise that young folks are often learning English that way, with a focus on how it as a global language can be used as a loudspeaker for little ole' Japan.

And don't forget that even though on the government funding receipts JET is supposedly stated to be a language education program, the most efficacious and long-term results have little to do with that.

Consider a very interesting recent study: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publicati ... 3_2012.pdf

Then consider the shifting focus in national policy:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120515i1.html

And voila! There you have it.

With China having already stolen the economic miracle thunder and a host of other global goings-on, the race to fend off irrelevance is in full swing.


Anyway, since we've moved on to cinema chat.... "The World Sinks Except Japan" is a really interesting if campy/terrible movie about that fear completely inverted. Best viewed under the influence of uronhai or atsukan, or just... not sober

[word]

Consider a very interesting recent study: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publicati ... 3_2012.pdf

Interesting stuff; I hadn't seen this before. Thanks for the link!

[OsakaAmerican]

Consider a very interesting recent study: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publicati ... 3_2012.pdf

Interesting stuff; I hadn't seen this before. Thanks for the link!

Ditto. And hey -- it's from my alma mater!! Bonus.

[rufustfirefly]

What the original poster was concerned about was the depiction of the Americans as aggressors without historical context in a simple story about the destructiveness of war. Given that the authors could have easily omitted mention of the nationality of the bombers and Japans well known reluctance to face war guilt in history text books, there does seem to be a whiff of political chauvinism about it.
Some posters have played the moral equivalency card and suggested that the original poster should feel shame for U.S War actions and this will somehow get the Japanese admitting an equal culpability. I`m sorry I can`t let that one pass.
I know most Jets living here have developed an empathy with the Japanese people but this shouldn’t blind them to some harsh tuths about Japanese conduct in WW2
So here is a reminder…
Japan was the aggressor, invading numerous Asian nations. Japan captured and proceeded to slaughter and rape 200-300 0000 civilians in Nanking, China. Japan enslaved conquered civilians forcing them (along with POWs) to labour for the war effort. Japan forced thousands of women into being comfort women – prostitutes for Japanese soldiers.Japan carried out germ warfare experiments on Chinsese civilians.
Yes to stop all this and given estimates of 500 0000 dead and 18 months more battle if Japan was to be invaded, the US did drop 2 A bombs. But as a Kiwi whose country was to be one big rice paddy field in the glorious Japanese Empire if they had won, I think it was the right thing to do.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Yeah...I don't think most of us who actually live here are quite as one-eyed as that, hey. Going by the JETs I know, we usually recognise and acknowledge the not-so-nice aspects of our host country as well as the good points.

What the original poster was concerned about was the depiction of the Americans as aggressors without historical context in a simple story about the destructiveness of war. Given that the authors could have easily omitted mention of the nationality of the bombers and Japans well known reluctance to face war guilt in history text books, there does seem to be a whiff of political chauvinism about it.
Some posters have played the moral equivalency card and suggested that the original poster should feel shame for U.S War actions and this will somehow get the Japanese admitting an equal culpability. I`m sorry I can`t let that one pass.
I know most Jets living here have developed an empathy with the Japanese people but this shouldn’t blind them to some harsh tuths about Japanese conduct in WW2
So here is a reminder…
Japan was the aggressor, invading numerous Asian nations. Japan captured and proceeded to slaughter and rape 200-300 0000 civilians in Nanking, China. Japan enslaved conquered civilians forcing them (along with POWs) to labour for the war effort. Japan forced thousands of women into being comfort women – prostitutes for Japanese soldiers.Japan carried out germ warfare experiments on Chinsese civilians.

Oh wow, you're going to be real popular at enkais.
Not to deny that the Japanese military/government has done a lot of really dodgy stuff over the centuries, or that there's a strong tendency to either pretend it didn't happen or whitewash it here, but as far as war crimes go I don't think we really want to start a blame game here. There was a lot of rape going on by the occupying forces post-WW2 here too.
As far as this goes...

Yes to stop all this and given estimates of 500 0000 dead and 18 months more battle if Japan was to be invaded, the US did drop 2 A bombs. But as a Kiwi whose country was to be one big rice paddy field in the glorious Japanese Empire if they had won, I think it was the right thing to do.

...I dunno, hey. It's just a theory but if you think about it it makes sense.

[Staticnz]

Hmm, I think every country commits crimes during war, it's a natural part of war itself which is a violent and inhumane activity. It's sad that to take down aggressors like the Nazis and Imperial Japan, you of course have to turn to war yourself, and every man has a point where war can turn him into a violent animal. US soldiers did all kinds of disgusting things when they took Japan, particularly rape.

But genocide is another level, and much of what imperial Japan did was as bad, or even WORSE than the Nazis. Imperial Japan was as racist, as violent, and as hideous as Nazi Germany. That's just a sad fact that I think Japan itself couldn't face. It couldn't deal with the idea that they were pretty much Nazis themselves. The Nazis were more systematic about it, but the Japan were...omg...so unBELIEVABLY brutal. Really. How can you look past that. The Imperial Japan war crime record is VAST. Perhaps we don't even know all the truly vile things they did.

And when I'm in this society in this day and age I appreciate all the people around me for being individuals, and I don't begrudge anyone if they either don't know or don't care to make a judgement about that time. I can separate history from where I am now and who I am with. I don't think it has anything to do with Japanese people, but a complex and very confusing relationship between the various bodies of power, and the mixed messages of religion and history. But if you are in an environment where you can talk openly about it (and of course, at an enkai is the worst idea ever), how can you fully equate what Japan did with the USA.

Though still, in reflection dropping the bomb was kind of...hmmm..fuzzy to me...I mean...it ended the war...but you don't kill civilians!! So, damn. I can't make a call on that one. It seems kind of sick to attack the most innocent to end the war, or to justify stopping more violence later that can hardly be quantified. That judgement call is FAR above my pay grade, thank goodness.

Just cos Japanese troops were massacring innocent people, how could you possibly think that means you should hurt THEIR civilians. Leave civilians of any race or creed ALONE!!!

Stuff is too complicated.

I also hope nobody is offended by what I said. I'm stating basic truths...and some of these truths are the ones people don't want to see because it's too hard. But any sane person can totally separate all that from modern day Japan, which is an entirely different beast...with ups and downs, but not like Imperial Japan! It's so different!

[EhimeDave]

At least Americans warned the Japanese they were going to blow up their cities. Including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

[positivity]

I think the difference between Japan and other countries in regards to their view of their wartime activities at home and abroad is that while in say America/UK and other western powers (current or old) there is a contingent of people who patriotically turn a blind eye and deny their countries crimes -- there are also a sizeable number, probably in the majority, who accept their country did some AWFUL things to others in their recent history.

Whereas, I feel like almost all Japanese either: do not regard their country to have behaved appallingly during its Imperial history or when questioned react in a way of "Well, yeh I guess there were some bad things we did... BUT..."

[EhimeDave]

Do you think the war would have been shorter if the US didn't bomb Japanese cities?

[rufustfirefly]

` in conclusion, if this topic makes you feel uncomfortable and ashamed then congratulations, you have a fine conscience and are a fully signed up member of the human race. My advice, for what it's worth is to just be honest about how you feel, how what your government did, and is still doing, makes you ashamed and not try to dodge the issue. Setting an honest and forthright example, as opposed to trying to defend the action or play it down, might be the example that is needed for the Japanese students and teachers to take a long, hard, look at what their own government did during WW2 and admit their own feelings of shame at their government's actions in China during the same period. `

Mr Macdonald, It seems like you are suggesting a certain moral equavalency here but If I got you wrong I apologize. However I`ll go further and suggest the poster shouldnt feel ashamed for American bombing of civilians in WW2. It it easy for those of our generation to blithely pronounce judgement on the actions of the Allies while having grown up in the relative peace and prosperity that their bravery assured us. Bombing of civilians can not always be morally wrong it depends what is at stake. if you are fighting for the the future of civilization itself which many would concede is what WW2 became about then surely as terrible as it is, it is morally defensible. The fire bombing of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo is justifiable given what Europe and Asia would have looked like given an Axis victory - the elimination of the Jews from Europe for example.It is not really relevant that with the perfect hindsight of history we conclude that the bombings did not in fact end the war (although this is debatable) but that given what the men making those hard decisions at the time knewthat they thought that they would end the war.

[EhimeDave]

Do you think you could get rich faster by mugging people or by going to work everyday?

What I'm getting at is that you're asking the wrong question. This isn't a question of expediency, but rather a question of morality.

I'll bite though, just as an academic exercise. The stated purpose of the bombings was to destroy, "military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods.". ... but by that point in the war Japan had no navy, was so short on metal they didn't have enough for bomb casings and they were melting down temple bells and household implements for metal. Just how much do you thing the "military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods." were turning out by the time that the U.S. got within range to conduct fire bombings of Japanese cities? Nil. Zip. Nada. The allies even knew this since their first bombing raid over Tokyo, the capital city only met light anti-aircraft fire and a few fighters. The Japanese military only had one thing going for it, lots of soldiers.

Over 36% of Japanese industrial production was destroyed by US bombing raids. The idea that Japanese production was dropping before the US bombers got into range doesn't match with the historical facts. Japanese war production peaked in 1944 just before US bombers got within easy range of Japanese cities and then production was rapidly destroyed. The first raids on Tokyo were not met by anti-aircraft fire and fighters because the Japanese didn't believe the US had the ability to strike Tokyo in 1942...

Anyway, this book will give you the raw economic figures if you want that sort of thing.
The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison

I'll post them anyway since it's interesting.

Japanese Production
Rifles
1940 - 449,000
1941 - 729,000
1942 - 440,000
1943 - 634,000
1944 - 885,000
1945 (until August) - 349,000

Machine Guns
1940 - 21,000
1941 - 43,000
1942 - 71,000
1943 - 114,000
1944 - 156,000
1945 - 40,000

Artillery
1940 - 3,000
1941 - 7,000
1942 - 13,000
1943 - 28,000
1944 - 87,000
1945 - 23,000

Major Naval Vessels
1940 - 30
1941 - 49
1942 - 68
1943 - 122
1944 - 248
1945 - 51

Combat Aircraft
1940 - 2,200
1941 - 3,200
1942 - 6,300
1943 - 13,400
1944 - 21,000
1945 - 8,300

If the U.S. had just stood off and waited the result would have been exactly the same. Russia would have invaded Manchuria and Japan would have surrendered. Even if Russia hadn't invaded Japan would have been starving within a few more months and would have been reduced to throwing stones are U.S. aircraft flying over and delivering food and medical supplies. The U.S. gained absolutely nothing strategically from the bombings, and in fact just supplied Japan with desperately needed metal in the form of bomb fragments, inflamed the populace against them and created a deep emnity that has taken decades to heal.

Are we still assuming the US never bombed Japanese cities?

Soviet invasion alone wouldn't have put enough pressure on Japan to surrender without significant losses (ie. China and Korea liberated by the Red Army) and a Japan that didn't experience extreme aerial bombardment would not have been on the verge of starvation. Basically, you would have the Battles of Manila and Okinawa repeated all over Japanese occupied Korea and China.

Okay, so some people may think I'm being unfair on the U.S. by poking this sensitive issue, and to a certain extent I will admit that I am, however I do have a purpose. What I'm trying to illustrate is that for a LOT of people on these forums the U.S.'s actions during WW2 still trigger a strong defensive reaction. The OP's original question was whether something was offensive, and his main thrust seemed to be that he wanted a more balanced story told where Japan took responsibility for its own part in the conflict. I deliberately poked a lot of people here to get a reaction, and to illustrate that expecting this is unreasonable. The people on these forums are at minimum university educated and a lot of you took instant offense at any suggestion that your country could in any way be guilty of any wrong-doing. Why should you expect better behaviour from others?

You still assume we think that the bombing of Japanese cities was wrong or that the US government is morally responsible for it. After all, Japan was the aggressor nation and the Japanese citizens were given ample opportunity to evacuate and/or end the war before the bombs fell.