| Subject: Re: Japan in WW2 |
Author:
Adrian
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08:42:07 04/29/03 Tue
In reply to:
Dena
's message, "Re: More talk!" on 07:03:32 04/29/03 Tue
>Er, that would be Emperor HIROHITO... now known as
>Showa...
Thanks Dena, you saved me from consulting my history book for a general named Hotohori and scratching my head.
> The message here is the very belief that Oe criticizes the American government for holding, that the bomb would create hell, but not one from which humanity would be unable to recover.
This sentence is too convoluted. You need to split it up into two sentences. Otherwise it confuses the reader and stops the entire flow of the paragraph.
In fact, several of your sentences are too convoluted. I would suggest shorter paragraphs and shorter sentences. Your points get lost in a tangle of words, and the reader is forced to go back up and reconstruct them at the end of each paragraph.
> Grave of the Fireflies shows more respect for the viewer's ability to determine the significance of events for himself.
Actually, it could be argued that Gen provides context and commentary about the politics of the war, while Grave focuses on the social aspect almost exclusively.
It's a little naive to say that Grave is showing respect for its audience. Grave is just as motivated a plot as Gen. Grave has an agenda, a story to tell, a point to get across. Lack of commentary doesn't mean that the agenda isn't there. Grave isn't just a listing of historical events. It tells a specific story for a reason. Grave makes a clear anti-war sentiment.
In fact, Grave focuses exclusively on the negative aspects of war, and has nothing positive to say about it. Sure, there aren't a lot of positives about war, but the Iraqi war shows an example of a people being liberated during war.
On the other hand, Gen says that the Pacific War was stupid because Japan was obviously going to lose. This implies that some wars are not stupid. Gen isn't critical of war in general-- just this war. Gen doesn't have a big anti-war agenda like Grave.
> using Gen's father to criticize the "stupidity" of the Japanese government for not ending the war when it was clear they weren't going to win.
It may have seemed like stupidity at the time, but it was actually recklessness and arrogance (the belief that the Japanese people had superior spirit and could overcome any foe). Even in 1945, many generals were still waiting for the Decisive Battle that would turn the tide for the Japanese, because victory was not in question for a divine people.
US history is not without its share of arrogance. Just like Japan had its Manifest Destiny of conquering Asia during WW2, the US had its version when it virtually wiped out Native Americans and the buffalo that used to roam the open plains.
Manifest Destiny is basically racism and nationalism, which almost every race/nation in the world has held at one point or another. It's not the same thing as stupidity.
Indeed, if the US was placed on top of Japan during the year 1800, the US would probably have done the same thing-- attack neighboring peoples without provocation.
This goes for European countries too. Before the US was a country, Spain, England, and France were busy conquering Native Americans. I don't buy this "holier than thou" routine that's currently emanating from Europe.
> Seita's maintaining a determined spirit to survive and save his little sister, in the end his efforts weren't enough to hold off the effects of the nation's being ravaged by war
That's a metaphor for the Japanese government. The government was scrambling for a stalemate or conditional surrender, but in the end, it couldn't stop the inevitable.
Grave sees the war as an avoidable tragedy, while Gen sees it as simply a bad episode. In that sense, I agree that Grave is more realistic.
Unfortunately, due to the Japanese educational system's whitewashing of war history, most Japanese young people today probably see it more as a bad episode than as an enormous tragedy. Many Japanese political and religious groups still refuse to accept responsibility for their wartime practices. Revisionist history has turned Hirohito into a kind, powerless puppet of Tojo, when in fact Hirohito was a warmonger fully in charge.
In fact, Grave is more true in that it portrays the nasty side of human nature that surfaced during the war. The Japanese were not bumbling victims in WW2. They supported Japanese expansion into Manchuria, China, and Southeast Asia in the 1930s. They (many) believed that non-Japanese people were inhuman. Hirohito and his supporters bear the full blame for what happened.
However, Hirohito was raised and shaped by warmongering generals, so it's almost understandable that he was a warmongerer himself. In person, he was a sensitive, shy boy who adopted the personality that was demanded of him by his tutors and mentors. The fault of Japanese militarism during the 20th century really lies with those generals and Hirohito's predecessor, who subjected Hirohito to a childhood of military school and belief in aggression.
Since Emperor Meiji decided to raise his grandchildren as generals and not as peaceful governors, I personally put the root of the problem with Meiji. Hirohito was the product of his upbringing-- he was given no context or philosophy with which to weigh the consequences of militarism.
The lesson here is be careful how you raise your kids.
Now, back to my homework.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 