Political Debate
I went to get pastries last night and ended up getting in what was at times a rather heated political debate with a the clerk at the pastry shop.
At first we were just talking about random stuff, and we eventually got onto the topic of water usage during bathing. She feels that Americans waste vast quantities of water by only bathing in bathwater once.
This is a great example of cross-cultural weirdness. For a Westerner, I think the idea of using the same bathwater that was just used by three other people is kind of gross. For a Japanese, not doing that is a terrible waste of water, and they don't seriously consider our cultural aversion to reusing bathing water as a valid point because, to someone raised with that kind of tradition, it's just silly. I'm speaking in sweeping generalizations here, of course, but I thought it was an interesting point.
On the other hand, I was able to counter by pointing out that Japanese shower before they take a bath, and that shower is as long as many people's entire bathing process. In other words, the shower at the beginning of their shared-bath thing may use a similar amount of water to what someone in the US might use in their shower.
At one point, we were talking about congress and various houses and whatnot, but I have neither the vocabulary nor the knowledge for a lengthy discussion on such things.
A bit after that, she said that she was someone disturbed by the fact that America drafts only black people and the poor into the military. When I was shocked by this, she said "I see there are many things Americans don't know", which I have to admit, I thought was kind of rude. I slowly managed to batter some sense into her (this is, of course, assuming that I am more knowledgeable about it than she is) about what the draft is and how it isn't currently implemented, and how the Selective Service works, and how it doesn't.
Later, she played the "You nuked us!" card and even knows history well enough to play the "You firebombed us!" card to trump the "You nuked us!" card.
Clerk: Attacking civilians... There should be a better way.
Me: I think it was done to lower the morale and try and convince the Japanese government to stop fighting in the war.
Clerk: Still.
Me: I agree, but that's how World War II* was fought.
Clerk: But napalm? Think of all the people, just sitting in their houses in fear, with no way out. And Japan is made of wood, so it's all the worse. It just burned completely.
Me: Yeah, but if you look at that from the enemy's point of view... That's good thinking, isn't it?
Clerk: Civilians.
Me: Yes.
It was quite an interesting discussion, and I enjoyed it. Further, it was very good practice, I think, and I felt I was doing a surprising job of holding up my end of it, which really shows the advances my Japanese has made from the first day of class last semester. I had to ask her to slow down a couple of times, but when people start getting upset, they're hard to understand no matter the language.
Oh, and the pastries were delicious, as always.
*第二次世界大戦 dai ni-ji sekai tai-sen Or "major second worldly big-ass war" Thank you, Okada! I don't what other vocab I remember from her class, but I've been wanting to use that one in discussion for two years now.
At first we were just talking about random stuff, and we eventually got onto the topic of water usage during bathing. She feels that Americans waste vast quantities of water by only bathing in bathwater once.
This is a great example of cross-cultural weirdness. For a Westerner, I think the idea of using the same bathwater that was just used by three other people is kind of gross. For a Japanese, not doing that is a terrible waste of water, and they don't seriously consider our cultural aversion to reusing bathing water as a valid point because, to someone raised with that kind of tradition, it's just silly. I'm speaking in sweeping generalizations here, of course, but I thought it was an interesting point.
On the other hand, I was able to counter by pointing out that Japanese shower before they take a bath, and that shower is as long as many people's entire bathing process. In other words, the shower at the beginning of their shared-bath thing may use a similar amount of water to what someone in the US might use in their shower.
At one point, we were talking about congress and various houses and whatnot, but I have neither the vocabulary nor the knowledge for a lengthy discussion on such things.
A bit after that, she said that she was someone disturbed by the fact that America drafts only black people and the poor into the military. When I was shocked by this, she said "I see there are many things Americans don't know", which I have to admit, I thought was kind of rude. I slowly managed to batter some sense into her (this is, of course, assuming that I am more knowledgeable about it than she is) about what the draft is and how it isn't currently implemented, and how the Selective Service works, and how it doesn't.
Later, she played the "You nuked us!" card and even knows history well enough to play the "You firebombed us!" card to trump the "You nuked us!" card.
Clerk: Attacking civilians... There should be a better way.
Me: I think it was done to lower the morale and try and convince the Japanese government to stop fighting in the war.
Clerk: Still.
Me: I agree, but that's how World War II* was fought.
Clerk: But napalm? Think of all the people, just sitting in their houses in fear, with no way out. And Japan is made of wood, so it's all the worse. It just burned completely.
Me: Yeah, but if you look at that from the enemy's point of view... That's good thinking, isn't it?
Clerk: Civilians.
Me: Yes.
It was quite an interesting discussion, and I enjoyed it. Further, it was very good practice, I think, and I felt I was doing a surprising job of holding up my end of it, which really shows the advances my Japanese has made from the first day of class last semester. I had to ask her to slow down a couple of times, but when people start getting upset, they're hard to understand no matter the language.
Oh, and the pastries were delicious, as always.
*第二次世界大戦 dai ni-ji sekai tai-sen Or "major second worldly big-ass war" Thank you, Okada! I don't what other vocab I remember from her class, but I've been wanting to use that one in discussion for two years now.
posted by William at
12/10/2008 11:55:00 AM
12 Comments:
It sounds to me like you kicked ass in that discussion. It's actually something I've done a lot of thinking about since I arrived here in Japan, and especially after visiting Hiroshima.
I wish I could have been there to hear it. I just recently wrote a paper on Hiroshima and what I learned by going there. My paper was returned with the comment of something like, "Well written. But you didn't say anything about Hiroshima being symbolic City of Peace or anything." Apparently, I was supposed to come to the same conclusion as the instructor, but really, the whole Pacific War was a lot more complex than that in my opinion. Anyway, I really wish I could have been there to hear this discussion. :)
I wish I had recorded it. I'd love to be able to post it.
And in all fairness, it's not that I kicked ass, as much as I'm representing my viewpoint, which will naturally tend to make hers sound silly or unsupported. I tried to avoid that as much as possible, but... Until my insurance will cover a lobotomy, that's the best I can do.
Well, kicking ass in a discussion doesn't necessarily mean that your point is more valid, just that it is more validly supported by you...this is from a long-time member of the speech/debate team. :)
I happen to agree with your points, so feel even more strongly about it, but still...
While the idea of sharing bathwater at home with several other people makes me not so comfortable, the sento, or public bath, I really like ,but yeah, it is more like take a shower and sit in very warm swimming pools or hot tubs than it is like a bath to me.
It is interesting to me that the concept of shared bath is just fine, but the idea of going without shoes where other people have worn shoes is abhorrent. I mean, I like having shoes off in the house, too. I am not balking at that particular custom. I just find the lack of understanding about Westerners not liking to share the home bathwater strange in light of the multitude of shoe and feet rules in Japan.
And I think you could have played the...'What about the attack on Pearl Harbor which devestated all of Hawaii without any prior prevocation' card.
As I recall, there were a lot of civilians killed there as well. And, since we weren't at war, why should killing the soldiers be any different than the civilians. I understand it if you are at war, but when both sides are at peace and you go in and blow up the island, it is just like attacking a civilian target.
As for Hiroshima, I would have pointed out you don't poke sleeping tigers. There was an old song inthe 50's that said "You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, your don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with Jim." Or, to use another colloquialism, 'If you mess with the bull, you get the horns...'
Did they really think it would have been better for a full scale invasion and and fighting from Japans southern coast to Toyko? I've seen the map. It looks like a long way with a lot more people in the way than just Hiroshima and Nagosaki.
I would have liked to have heard the conversation as well. ;-) I think the entire war was tragic, but was the alternative better? If the Axis had won, Did that person think life would be better now...60 years later?
PS..What do the Japanese call the two side of the war? Do they separate the sides differently? I am confident that they are not using 'Allies' to represent US/England/Russia. Did they see the war as US v Japan only and the whole thing in Europe as a separate unrelated manner? If so, what justification did they give Pearl Harbor? Do they see Hawaii in 1942 the same way the US viewed the Cuba in the 1960's? (Cuban missle crisis for those young people who think Cuba is only Guantanamo and cigars.) I guess I've never tried to see WW2 from the vantage point of the average Japanese citizen.
I did play the "You started it!" card as well. She said that the Japanese government was made to bomb Pearl Harbor, so it wasn't really their fault.
On the bright side, landing in Tokyo would be a lot easier than trying to fight the whole way there from Kyushu or something. I mean, Japan is basically a line of mountains, so unless you just bombed a path ahead of you, you'd be stuck with mountainous jungle warfare in enemy territory. We could probably have outnumbered them, but I'd be surprised if they didn't simply start drafting the Chinese people they'd just conquered.
I don't know what the Japanese call the various sides of the war. It's entirely possible that they call the sides akkushisu and alaisu or something. As for how they view the war, I really have no idea. I'll put it on my list of things to ask about.
Well, things are a bit more complex than "you started it" though I would have likely played that card, also.
I have a great book that has a lot of background on the Pacific War as it is referred to in Japan if either or both of you would like to borrow it. It was used as one of our texts in Japan History at CWU. The author presents a lot of background most specifically between the US and Japan, but not leaving out the rest of the war completely. I don't usually find myself so intrigued and interested in history, but that book changed that for me and now I am particularly interested in that time frame. I recommend it highly. I felt it gave a lot of perspective on both sides.
PACIFIC CENTURY
The Emergence of Modern Pacific Asia (3rd edition)
by Mark Borthwick
I'm not saying that I'm happy about civilian deaths...or any war-time deaths caused by any side, but both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and warnings were given to both of them ahead of time with many leaflets. In light of that some people had already been moved out of the area, but the Japanese had activated many of their "civilians" into military duties, including school children. They weren't specifically warned of what kind of bomb, but In Hiroshima, they certainly already expected bombing and had many of the houses of their own people torn down and removed to build fire blocks for military areas since Japanese houses were primarily made of wood and paper and they likely expected fire bombing. I'm not sure what so many civilians were still doing in an area that was clearly expecting to be bombed in one way or the other.
Well, to start with: where do you put half a million people? And how do you get them there?
The population of Hiroshima at the time of the bombing had decreased from its peaks of over 381,000 to around 255,000.
I hear what you're saying...but if I saw one of those leaflets, you damn well better believe I'd be somewhere else somehow. I know people had little food anyway at the time because everything was being rationed or sent to soldiers or both...but not being there would have been a pretty big priority for me.
Yeah, but there were two, and you were talking about both of them.
Also keep in mind that leaflets like that could be used as simple psychological warefare as well. There's no guarantee any actual bombs will be involved.
To look at it from a perspective a little closer to home: if the city of Seattle got a bomb threat, where do the people there go?
I'm not saying it's easy...but if it were me and my family I would get out of there if at all possible. And if the city of Seattle had a bomb threat, I really have no idea where people would go or what they would do...it really is hard to say what a person actually does in those circumstances.
Hiroshima had been receiving leaflets more than a month ahead (but I don't think they specify any specific time). Nagasaki's leaflets were not spread there till within about 6 days of the bombing, so that would have been more difficult even if there was some sort of indicating date on them.
Leaflets had been dropped various places all over Japan prior to the bombings related to other military action. I don't know that the "government" could have evacuated everyone, just that I know I would have done everything I could to find a way to get my family and friends out of an area that had such a warning. At the same time,many of the people would not have been allowed to leave because they were either military or an industry supporting military needs, regardless of civilian status. They also felt more secure, having torn down a lot of the houses so that the area wouldn't just go up in flames if it was bombed. They really had no idea about the bomb that was used.
Interestingly, while Hiroshima was first on the list, three other cities were considered targets that day if the weather in Hiroshima had not been conducive to best results.
Post a Comment
<< Home