Japan: The Comics Code authority was a GOOD idea!

[Archaic`]

You mean the textbooks (the so-called "New History Textbook" released by the ultra conservative "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform") that are shunned by nearly all of Japan's school districts (less than 20 schools nation wide use it, most of them private schools run by ultra conservatives who are members of that group)? Just because they were printed doesn't mean that they were seriously used. The Japanese government doesn't write the textbooks, private firms do, and there's a hell of a lot of different textbooks actually in use. If you have some right wing loonies running one of those firms, of course their textbooks will come out that way. I'd have to say that the problems they have with textbooks and historical revisionism are sigificantly less than what the US has currently with the conservative domination of the Texas Board of Education. The vast majority of Japanese textbooks talk about all their war atrocities. Indeed, at the time when the "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform" first formed, they all did.

Really, you're generalising for all of Japan from the statements of a very vocal minority. Are there people in Japan denying the truth? Hell yes. But they are by no means in the majority, and they by no means speak for their countrymen. As for the Japanese people who are simply ignorant of the war crimes, it's not as if high school textbooks in most countries who were part of the Allies speak at length about our own war crimes either, so it's hardly fair for us to be judging them for that. How many of us were taught about the Marocchinate (which only really avoids being called the European Nanking because the population was smaller) for instance, or the mutiliation of dead Japanese soldiers by US troops?

[mr friendly guy]

You mean the textbooks (the so-called "New History Textbook" released by the ultra conservative "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform") that are shunned by nearly all of Japan's school districts (less than 20 schools nation wide use it, most of them private schools run by ultra conservatives who are members of that group)? Just because they were printed doesn't mean that they were seriously used. ?

link?

The Japanese government doesn't write the textbooks, private firms do, and there's a hell of a lot of different textbooks actually in use.

The solution is really quite simple. Do what countries like Austria and Germany do. Have the equivalent of making it illegal to deny Holocaust.

If you have some right wing loonies running one of those firms, of course their textbooks will come out that way. I'd have to say that the problems they have with textbooks and historical revisionism are sigificantly less than what the US has currently with the conservative domination of the Texas Board of Education.

You don't expect me to justify what Texas does do you?

The vast majority of Japanese textbooks talk about all their war atrocities. Indeed, at the time when the "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform" first formed, they all did.

So how do you reconcile this with your proceding statement about Japanese being ignorant of the history because of text books.

Really, you're generalising for all of Japan from the statements of a very vocal minority. Are there people in Japan denying the truth? Hell yes. But they are by no means in the majority, and they by no means speak for their countrymen.

Then they (government as elected by the people) should have no problems apologising for things eg Nanking massacre which "are only denied by a small minority" UNAMBIGUOUSLY and then compensating. Like how they did with the comfort women, like how Germany did with Holocaust survivors etc. Its like they want to acknowledge some bad things, but shy away from others. I am pointing out this inconsistency will have some bearing on the anti Japanese sentiment, because it looks like they are apologising only from what international pressure can force out of them.

As for the Japanese people who are simply ignorant of the war crimes, it's not as if high school textbooks in most countries who were part of the Allies speak at length about our own war crimes either, so it's hardly fair for us to be judging them for that. How many of us were taught about the Marocchinate (which only really avoids being called the European Nanking because the population was smaller) for instance, or the mutiliation of dead Japanese soldiers by US troops?

Are you saying mutilating soldiers already dead is worse than biological weapons testing, live vivesections, killing civilians who were still alive at the time? Are you for real?

Your point would be much stronger if the actions of the Allies were just as horrendous. Last time I checked we didn't do biological weapon experiments etc.

[fgalkin]

And Marrochinate? How does 7,000 women raped by Moroccan irregulars compares to the mass murder of some 250,000 people by the Japanese regular army? You're comparing live vivisections with mutilations of corpses, and rape to murder.

You're either severely mentally retarded, or a dishonest fucktard. Take your pick.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[DarkArk]

the actions of the Allies were just as horrendous.

How about burning to death 100,000 people in one night with fire bombs? Curtis LeMay himself said that if the US had lost the war he would have been prosecuted as a war criminal. The firebombings were not mentioned in my high school history textbook.

As a whole, the Western Allies conduct was not as terrible as Germany or Japan, but they certainly had their moments of brutality.

rape to murder

I'd say rape and murder are comparable crimes, and they often carry similar sentences. In some situations, rape might well be worse than murder.

His point however still stands that the Western Allies did things that would be considered war crimes, and that they are often not discussed or even widely known today. The fact that Germany and Japan committed worse acts has no bearing on that.

[Archaic`]

Perhaps it'd be a good idea for us to ask a mod to split our discussion over to the History forum, we certainly seem to have taken a fairly significant tangent to the topic of the thread here.

You mean the textbooks (the so-called "New History Textbook" released by the ultra conservative "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform") that are shunned by nearly all of Japan's school districts (less than 20 schools nation wide use it, most of them private schools run by ultra conservatives who are members of that group)? Just because they were printed doesn't mean that they were seriously used. ?

The book I got my info on is "Politics, Memory and Public Opinion: The History Textbook Controversy and Japanese Society" by Sven Saaler. haven't found a free online copy, but I did find a book review which includes the statistic for it.
A quick google search also turns up an older short article by Kathleen Woods Masalski of Indiana University which gives much the same info.

The Japanese government doesn't write the textbooks, private firms do, and there's a hell of a lot of different textbooks actually in use.

The solution is really quite simple. Do what countries like Austria and Germany do. Have the equivalent of making it illegal to deny Holocaust.

I'm given to understand that the opposition to the deniers don't want to be seen using the same kinds of tools as the ultra conservative deniers. It's one of those cultural things. Basically, if they resorted to effective censorship of that viewpoint, then it would only serve to give force to the arguments of the deniers in the public eye. It'd be counter-productive. It'd be like the Ienaga Saburou trials in reverse.

If you have some right wing loonies running one of those firms, of course their textbooks will come out that way. I'd have to say that the problems they have with textbooks and historical revisionism are sigificantly less than what the US has currently with the conservative domination of the Texas Board of Education.

You don't expect me to justify what Texas does do you?

Of course I don't. I'm simply pointing out that us in the west are as guilty about these kind of things as the Japanese are. Which is to say, generally these things are driven by a vocal minority, and it's unfair to paint all the Japanese with the same brush.

The vast majority of Japanese textbooks talk about all their war atrocities. Indeed, at the time when the "Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform" first formed, they all did.

So how do you reconcile this with your proceding statement about Japanese being ignorant of the history because of text books.

Because Japan is an aging society, and the vast majority of people in Japan would've still grown up with textbooks which didn't necessarily include all of the atrocities, and/or in an educational environment which de-emphasised the teaching of history regarding World War 2. The big changes in Japanese society towards acceptance of and remorse over their national past only really started from the early 1980's and early 1990's, right about at the same time as Japanese national arrogance and pride was shattered by the Asset Price Bubble bursting.

Really, you're generalising for all of Japan from the statements of a very vocal minority. Are there people in Japan denying the truth? Hell yes. But they are by no means in the majority, and they by no means speak for their countrymen.

Then they (government as elected by the people) should have no problems apologising for things eg Nanking massacre which "are only denied by a small minority" UNAMBIGUOUSLY and then compensating. Like how they did with the comfort women, like how Germany did with Holocaust survivors etc. Its like they want to acknowledge some bad things, but shy away from others. I am pointing out this inconsistency will have some bearing on the anti Japanese sentiment, because it looks like they are apologising only from what international pressure can force out of them.

As I pointed out earlier, the government already did issue full apologies, on repeated occasions. They also gave out compensation above and beyond what had been required of them (after having already paid compensation directly to the governments of the affected nations by their own request) through organisations such as the AWF.

As for the Japanese people who are simply ignorant of the war crimes, it's not as if high school textbooks in most countries who were part of the Allies speak at length about our own war crimes either, so it's hardly fair for us to be judging them for that. How many of us were taught about the Marocchinate (which only really avoids being called the European Nanking because the population was smaller) for instance, or the mutiliation of dead Japanese soldiers by US troops?

Are you saying mutilating soldiers already dead is worse than biological weapons testing, live vivesections, killing civilians who were still alive at the time? Are you for real?

Your point would be much stronger if the actions of the Allies were just as horrendous. Last time I checked we didn't do biological weapon experiments etc.

I'm not equating the two at all, and you're most certainly right that my point would be stronger if the actions of the Allies were just as horrendous (some might argue they were in the case of the use of nuclear weapons, but the Allies couldn't be accused of whitewashing those in any case).
What I was simply trying to point out here was that even if you take an assumption that Japanese education is whitewashing their atrocities (which I'd agree it would have several decades ago, but which I do not feel is the case outside of some rare exceptions in private education outside of government control), they would hardly be alone in doing so. Marocchinate is most certainly not at the same level in terms of numbers involved, but I think it's a good example of a significant war crime committed by Allied forces that the majority of citizens in Allied countries would have never heard of.

[mr friendly guy]

Perhaps it'd be a good idea for us to ask a mod to split our discussion over to the History forum, we certainly seem to have taken a fairly significant tangent to the topic of the thread here.

Good idea.

The solution is really quite simple. Do what countries like Austria and Germany do. Have the equivalent of making it illegal to deny Holocaust.

I'm given to understand that the opposition to the deniers don't want to be seen using the same kinds of tools as the ultra conservative deniers. It's one of those cultural things. Basically, if they resorted to effective censorship of that viewpoint, then it would only serve to give force to the arguments of the deniers in the public eye. It'd be counter-productive. It'd be like the Ienaga Saburou trials in reverse.

Even if thats the prevailing line of thought among the opposition to the deniers, I find that proposition dubious at best. I don't believe racism shot up in Australia (more so than the usual prevalence) because we have racial villification laws. I will need evidence that Holocaust denial becomes more widespread because of such laws in Germany and Austria. In fact I dare say scumbags like David Irving shut up for a while when Austria put him on trial.

Of course I don't. I'm simply pointing out that us in the west are as guilty about these kind of things as the Japanese are. Which is to say, generally these things are driven by a vocal minority, and it's unfair to paint all the Japanese with the same brush.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. If the vocal minority can assert such influence in a democracy it leads to a few possibilities
1. Emphasise the vocal part only. Maybe they aren't the minority.

2. The majority are ignorant and don't give a shit.

3. The majority are cowed by this vocal minority.

One is obviously very bad, three is less bad. However neither of those options paint a good picture, no?

Because Japan is an aging society, and the vast majority of people in Japan would've still grown up with textbooks which didn't necessarily include all of the atrocities, and/or in an educational environment which de-emphasised the teaching of history regarding World War 2. The big changes in Japanese society towards acceptance of and remorse over their national past only really started from the early 1980's and early 1990's, right about at the same time as Japanese national arrogance and pride was shattered by the Asset Price Bubble bursting.

Fair enough. Except though since most of the population is still in this age bracket which engaged in de emphasising history, and this age bracket makes up most of Japan's population and leaders. Unless they have lots of politicians in their 20s and early 30s, but somehow I doubt those prime ministers look that young.

As I pointed out earlier, the government already did issue full apologies, on repeated occasions. They also gave out compensation above and beyond what had been required of them (after having already paid compensation directly to the governments of the affected nations by their own request) through organisations such as the AWF.

They gave apologies and compensation for certain crimes. I am very dubious about apologising for the Nanking massacre and compensation. Especially when they point out the PRC government waived compensation in return for foreign aid. This of course does not prevent individual citizens who survived the Nanking Massacre seeking redress in Japanese courts, but when the case gets thrown out, the evidence suggests that the society as a whole hasn't come to terms with this particularly sordid aspect of their history.

I should also point out that the events that I feel haven't been adequately addressed, are also arguably the most heinous committed by the Japanese, which may explain this half baked attempt at redressing the issue.

I'm not equating the two at all, and you're most certainly right that my point would be stronger if the actions of the Allies were just as horrendous (some might argue they were in the case of the use of nuclear weapons, but the Allies couldn't be accused of whitewashing those in any case).

What? This is not going to go into a rant about the nasty Americans nuking Japan right. The bombs were targeted at military bases near Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An invasion of the Japanese home islands was predicted to cost more lives than the nukes took. Conversely killing Chinese POWs and civillians after Nanking doesn't have the same justification.

What I was simply trying to point out here was that even if you take an assumption that Japanese education is whitewashing their atrocities (which I'd agree it would have several decades ago, but which I do not feel is the case outside of some rare exceptions in private education outside of government control), they would hardly be alone in doing so. Marocchinate is most certainly not at the same level in terms of numbers involved, but I think it's a good example of a significant war crime committed by Allied forces that the majority of citizens in Allied countries would have never heard of.

This type of argument would only work on me if I had one rule for Japan and one rule for the Allies. I will leave you to figure out why.

[Archaic`]

Even if thats the prevailing line of thought among the opposition to the deniers, I find that proposition dubious at best. I don't believe racism shot up in Australia (more so than the usual prevalence) because we have racial villification laws. I will need evidence that Holocaust denial becomes more widespread because of such laws in Germany and Austria. In fact I dare say scumbags like David Irving shut up for a while when Austria put him on trial.

As I said, it's a cultural thing. I can't provide you evidence of that in Germany and Austria, but you wouldn't expect to find that thing in Germany and Austria in the first place. Perhaps the best example I could give you would be something in reverse, with the Ienaga Saburou trials themselves. The actual truth of the war crimes came to light largely because there was originally the de-emphasis on this by the government, and they got taken to task for rejecting textbooks which talked about the incidents.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. If the vocal minority can assert such influence in a democracy it leads to a few possibilities
1. Emphasise the vocal part only. Maybe they aren't the minority.

2. The majority are ignorant and don't give a shit.

3. The majority are cowed by this vocal minority.

One is obviously very bad, three is less bad. However neither of those options paint a good picture, no?

You're missing #4.
4. The vocal minority do not assert any such significant influence in the democracy. Any appearance of such is due to the sensationalised coverage of the issue by the foreign media (which rarely seems to understand the background, and frequently seems to repeat itself the line of "the Japanese never apologised"), in particular the coverage by Chinese and South Korean media which has traditionally taken an anti-Japanese slant, and is more than happy with scoring political points against the Japanese.

Now, having said that...it's probably more a mix of that with 2. The majority probably are ignorant of the facts, given that it's mostly the younger generations who are better informed about this. With much of that younger generation who are informed though, they simply don't understand why it's still an issue when, from their perspective, they're just being unfairly pressured for more and more compensation for something which happened decades before they were born.

Fair enough. Except though since most of the population is still in this age bracket which engaged in de emphasising history, and this age bracket makes up most of Japan's population and leaders. Unless they have lots of politicians in their 20s and early 30s, but somehow I doubt those prime ministers look that young.

It's a concern, granted. There was at least one recent PM (who didn't last long) who was a denier. Though any influence he or any other politican could actually have on the education now would have been minimal. One of the effects of those Ienaga Saburou trials was that the government was basically told by the Supreme Court to back off on the issue and stop interfering with education. So while in name the Ministry of Education still approves all those textbooks, in reality it's just become something of a rubber stamp. Given that the denier textbooks have been wholely unsuccessful in gaining any penetration outside of a small number of private schools affiliated to the writers, the local school boards themselves seem to be self-regulating themselves there just fine.

They gave apologies and compensation for certain crimes. I am very dubious about apologising for the Nanking massacre and compensation. Especially when they point out the PRC government waived compensation in return for foreign aid. This of course does not prevent individual citizens who survived the Nanking Massacre seeking redress in Japanese courts, but when the case gets thrown out, the evidence suggests that the society as a whole hasn't come to terms with this particularly sordid aspect of their history.

I should also point out that the events that I feel haven't been adequately addressed, are also arguably the most heinous committed by the Japanese, which may explain this half baked attempt at redressing the issue.

Ah. Hmmm. I think I get where you're coming from now. Are you saying that the problem is that people feel that the general apologies that have been made (which would be seen by the Japanese to include Nanking and everything else) could be excluding Nanking and other specific events, since there's a(n incorrect) perception that the Japanese "actively deny" these events? (Or in other words, it'd only be an apology for the things the Japanese believe happened, which is seen to be less than what actually happened). Put like that, it starts to make a bit more sense. I think you'd find that one a hard sell to the Japanese though. Japanese language tends to be more implicit and less precise than European languages, the idea of a need for an explicit formal apology on each and every single event simply wouldn't occur to them. To their minds, they've already acknowledged and apologised for everything. If something brand new and even more horrific came to light, as far as they'd be concerned, there'd be no need to make yet another apology, since it would fall under the the previous general apologies given.

The cases get thrown out specifically because of those two treaties with the PRC and South Korea. The Japanese feel that these absolved them from paying any further compensation, because it's already been paid. Putting aside whatever moral arguments that might be made to them having any continued responsibility, from a legal perspective they are most certainly in the clear. The South Koreans should be compensated by the South Korean government (who took the money in trust and failed to distribute it as they had agreed to), and the Chinese had their rights to compensation waived by their government in exchange for a large volume of human aid.

Now that I think more about it, the Chinese probably took this position due to the Taiwan situation, making sure no money would go to the Taiwanese. I'd have to look into what the exact situation is with Taiwan, but I imagine they probably could claim through the Japanese courts, since they were an actual Japanese colony at the time, and laws had been passed granting Taiwanese entry into the Diet. There was at least one Taiwanese member of the House of Peers even.

What? This is not going to go into a rant about the nasty Americans nuking Japan right. The bombs were targeted at military bases near Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An invasion of the Japanese home islands was predicted to cost more lives than the nukes took. Conversely killing Chinese POWs and civillians after Nanking doesn't have the same justification.

I agree. Was just making it as an aside mainly to stop someone else jumping in and ranting about it, since there are a number of people who do feel that was a war crime.

[mr friendly guy]

You're missing #4.
4. The vocal minority do not assert any such significant influence in the democracy. Any appearance of such is due to the sensationalised coverage of the issue by the foreign media (which rarely seems to understand the background, and frequently seems to repeat itself the line of "the Japanese never apologised"), in particular the coverage by Chinese and South Korean media which has traditionally taken an anti-Japanese slant, and is more than happy with scoring political points against the Japanese.

Now, having said that...it's probably more a mix of that with 2. The majority probably are ignorant of the facts, given that it's mostly the younger generations who are better informed about this.

Thats part of the reason I think that I have a perception that they will only apologise for certain crimes, because if the majority are ignorant. Lets say they apologise for event x, but are ignorant of event y. Its hard to imagine one can apologise for event y when one is ignorant of the issue.

With much of that younger generation who are informed though, they simply don't understand why it's still an issue when, from their perspective, they're just being unfairly pressured for more and more compensation for something which happened decades before they were born.

While I can see why they think that, there are a few weaknesses to that POV. I will elaborate but I fear it gets off topic.

1. Young people in Japan don't provide most of the tax base. I don't have statistics on me, but unless CNN and a whole host of other Western Media are totally wrong, young people in general, are struggling in today's Japan, and make up a lot of the so called "working poor."

2. This has been rehashed in the National collective responsibility thread. But essentially you are part of society, you benefit and thus you must also have responsibility (albeit less than others). One of the responsibilities is paying off debt, which can come in the form of usual financial IOUs, or in this case compensation.

Look at the posters here who are German. Thanas and Serafina don't object to their taxes going to compensate Holocaust victims. They argued in favour of showing Germany is willing to acknowledge and compensate in the thread I mentioned. It doesn't look good to me that young Japanese whine about this.

Just to show that I am not a hypocrite, I have no problems with my tax dollars going to compensate Mohammed Haneef, because our government screwed him over, dragged him name through mud and abused their power. If the Stolen Generation manages to get compensation, I would have no objection to my tax dollars going either, even though it occurred before I was born. Society has debts, and its members must contribute to paying that off. We cannot just mooch off the benefits without the responsibilities like the LOLbertarians do (even if they don't say).

It's a concern, granted. There was at least one recent PM (who didn't last long) who was a denier.

Was it Shinto Abe?

In any event can you imagine the same thing occurring in Germany? Even when Nazi praising Austrian politician Jorg Haider got prominence he was slammed and subjected to media scrutiny.

Its one thing to say the deniers are just vocal but don't have influence, but then when one of them according to you managed to become PM? Can you not see how from the outside this does not look good?

Though any influence he or any other politican could actually have on the education now would have been minimal. One of the effects of those Ienaga Saburou trials was that the government was basically told by the Supreme Court to back off on the issue and stop interfering with education. So while in name the Ministry of Education still approves all those textbooks, in reality it's just become something of a rubber stamp. Given that the denier textbooks have been wholely unsuccessful in gaining any penetration outside of a small number of private schools affiliated to the writers, the local school boards themselves seem to be self-regulating themselves there just fine.

At least thats something.

(Or in other words, it'd only be an apology for the things the Japanese believe happened, which is seen to be less than what actually happened).

Thats the gist of it.

Put like that, it starts to make a bit more sense. I think you'd find that one a hard sell to the Japanese though. Japanese language tends to be more implicit and less precise than European languages, the idea of a need for an explicit formal apology on each and every single event simply wouldn't occur to them. To their minds, they've already acknowledged and apologised for everything. If something brand new and even more horrific came to light, as far as they'd be concerned, there'd be no need to make yet another apology, since it would fall under the the previous general apologies given.

The problem is, they do compensate for new things that do come to light. For example left over munitions and land mines which once every few years hurts some poor civillian in China.

The cases get thrown out specifically because of those two treaties with the PRC and South Korea. The Japanese feel that these absolved them from paying any further compensation, because it's already been paid. Putting aside whatever moral arguments that might be made to them having any continued responsibility, from a legal perspective they are most certainly in the clear. The South Koreans should be compensated by the South Korean government (who took the money in trust and failed to distribute it as they had agreed to), and the Chinese had their rights to compensation waived by their government in exchange for a large volume of human aid.

I am no legal expert, but AFAIK the PRC government waived its right to seek compensation, which it does not. It complains about textbooks, but I don't recall them actually demanding compensation for itself. Its citizens however are allowed to seek redress independently in Japanese courts. But in any event, the same logic that says "I didn't cause x,y,z, it happened a long time ago", can also be used by Chinese plaintiffs, because they certainly didn't sign a deal with Japan regarding their compensation.

[someone_else]

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure that is a rare form of hypocrisy - for english novels at least all sorts of depictions of things are allowed that would be outright banned were they in a visual medium.

That is probably due to the fact anything visual will reach a gigantic audience a book will never reach.

Also, for most extreme stuff, writers don't have the problem of having to pay people (the actors of the movie) to do clearly illegal things (like pedo-ish stuff).

[Bright]

Looks like we're starting to see some actual reverberations from the bill.

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/20 ... nance-bill

By the way...

Weekly Gendai's source at Tokyo MX added, "We are popular among students as a station known for its strong presence of anime," but the station may have to reconsider hiring anime fans among new graduates. For example, the job application sheet may have the question, "If you were to take a foreign friend sightseeing in Japan, where would you take him or her? If the student were to write "Akihabara," the station might ask him or her to leave the application process.

Can someone tell me what the hell I'm reading here?

[Ford Prefect]

No one can possibly understand the logic behind that, so don't bother trying. Anyway, I read about this last night, and I have to say it's worse that I had been expecting. The bill was one thing, but I'd been hoping it wouldn't encourage self-censorship but here we are.

[Bright]

Updates in the article mention that both the news about anime self-regulation and change in application policy are misreports. The channel in question is denying that's the case. I guess I jumped the gun there, but thank goodness.

[Duckie]

Denials and not doing it are not the same thing though. I question whether it's even possible for companies to not incorporate this law into their thinking and planning, even if they claim or even believe they aren't affected by it. It's like over in America- most television stations deny they self-censor or never broadcast original or interesting but risky ideas, and some of them even believe it. But you'd never get American television to push the boundaries on sex.