Comments on: Seijigiri #4 - September 17, 2006 (Yasukuni Discussion, Part Two)

by: DeOrio

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:50:48 +0000

Ah, religion. This leads us into some uneven territory as the concept of “gods” is so different among religions, as is the concept of worship, or even religion itself. Shinto, to paint a picture with a roller, is ancestor worship. It has concepts of honor and duty more than concepts of morality. It is not based on an idea of good and evil, at least not in the manner of Abrahamic religions.
So while the kami are not merely spirits in the Western idea of spirits in a cemetery, they are also not gods in the sense of Zeus or Jehovah.
You bring up a very important point, Ken, in how the issue is offensive in different ways to different countries.
South Korea now has an economy larger than that of any European nation except Germany (according to the ROK chamber of commerce); it’s an advanced society with a remarkably stable government considering they’re less than two decades out of military dictatorship. They don’t need to pick fights with Japan or have a bogeyman. China does.
US politicians are desparate to be able to take the moral high ground, to decry the offensive actions of others. Hyde and Lantos may actually be offended, but they are also equally eager to take “a stand” with which no voter is going to disagree. In that sense, the US has different motivations from the PRC, but also likes a good bogeyman or bogey-issue.
It’s also interesting that the high priest of Yasukuni is adamant that de-enshrinement is not a possibility.

by: Ken

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 05:46:35 +0000

Cal and Garrett,

I agree with the premise that any leader should be able to pay respects to the war dead.

That said, with Yasukuni being a Shinto shrine, the souls of those enshrined there are ‘kami’ - or gods. This means that 14 class A war criminals are being worshipped as ‘gods’ by the Prime Minister.

This, ostensibly, is what upsets Korea and China. Actually, I’ll go out on a limb and say that this actually does upset Korea and US lawmakers like Henry Hyde. China needs a bone to pick with Japan and Yasukuni fits the bill.

Further, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the 14 class A war criminals were enshrined without approval. The high priest just went along and did it, against his father’s wishes (his father was high priest before him), against the emperor’s wishes, and against Tojo’s own wishes.

by: Mary Sayre

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:13:10 +0000

I too liked the discussion by Hobbs and am glad others are listening and I know how you love to debate the issues/

by: Cathy

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:04:26 +0000

The dialogue with Cal Hobbs was as interesting as the podcast and general debate.

I continue to look forward to each new issue. The production qualtiy has improved as has the discussion content.

Keep it up!

by: DeOrio

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:37:27 +0000

I absolutely agree.
The controversy regarding Yasukuni revolves around the 14 Class A war criminals enshrined there in 1978 whose spirits now along with some 2.5 million others, most, of course, ordinary soldiers. Of those 14, none were grunts, to say the least. All were high level leaders, five politicians, eight top-level military commanders, and one, the infamous Tojo, both. Three of the 14 - Hirota, Hiranuma, and Tojo - served as Prime Minister of Japan. As the Shrine is an entity encompassing all of the spirits enshrined in it, it’s difficult, if not impossible to say to which spirit a visitor is paying his respects.
While there will be, for the forseeable future, some headline-grabbing lightning rod of dispute between Japan and its neighbors, especially the PRC, the removal of those 14 might take some of the focus off of Yasukuni, or it might just shift it a few meters over to the Yushukan, which was the focus of the recent US House complaint.
In short, though, the controversial figures in Yasukuni are exactly the leaders who failed to do their jobs in a manner deserving of honor.
There’s a lot more to be said on the topic and I think we’ll come back to it at some point.

by: Cal Hobbs

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:17:47 +0000

Thank you for your response.

I do understand that the Japanese authorities have not admitted to the atrocities.

My real point is that soldiers do not make policy. They are trained to fight and act on orders. At times, history has shown many causes to be less than honorable but that does not or should not diminish the sacrifices of the individual warrior who gave his life for his country.

And therefore I think leaders can and should show respect and honor for the soldiers who fought valiantly and paid the ultimate price.

The truth is that if the leaders really did their jobs in a manner deserving of honor, many fewer soldiers would ever have the chance to pay that ultimate price.

by: DeOrio

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:49:29 +0000

Wow. I don’t know where to begin. I don’t know where you’re from, my good man (and I do like you - you ask very good questions), but Yasukuni is not the Vietnam War Memorial. There is no doubt that, from Yasukuni’s point of view, those enshrined there did a great thing for a good cause. The Yushukan, while presenting different information and explanations in Japanese, English, and Chinese (in and of itself less than forthcoming), takes the stance that Japan was in the right in WWII, or at least cannot be blamed. It is this rejection of and refusal to ake responsibility that irks many.
Germany has taken quite a different stance and has addressed the War in a very different way. It is still a crime to deny the Holocaust in Germany and Austria (look at what happened to David Irving), whereas Japanese politicians do puerile things such as toss out a random, baseless 26,000 for the number of Chinese killed in Nanjing to counter the Chinese claim of 300,000 and rising. (The CCP’s view of history is another story altogether.)
In other words, Germany has accepted responsibility for Nazi atrocities to a fault, whereas Japan’s governement (but not, it should be noted, a growing number of Japan’s people) has pretended that Japan acted in a reasonable manner to defend the country’s interests. It should be noted that the Japanese government has offered apologies, but these have been half-hearted and along the lines of “we’re sorry bad things happened,” and haven’t directly addressed the possibility of the country’s culpability.
I agree it is possible for a country to honor those who died in a war (as they should be, whatever the cause or result) without necessarily endorsing or even defending the policies of the government that sent them to war, but that is not what is happening at Yasukuni. Enshrining Tojo, for example, is against what Tojo himself said the rules for enshrinement should be. The fact that Showa Tennou did not visit the Shrine after the 1978 enshrinement of the controversial 14 ought to say something as I would assume he must have known of his own guilt, which is established by not insignificant evidence, even if the country and the world at large buys the US Army “pawn” story in which the Emperor was abused by wicked militaristic rulers.
That topic, though, could and has filled volumes and is still wide open for debate.
As I understand it, Germany is experiencing a recent rise in patriotism, if not nationalism. I’m interested in seeing what comes of that and what, if any, impact it has on Japan.

by: Cal Hobbs

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:21:47 +0000

It seems that a leader can pay homage to the individuals who fought for their country without endorsing the policies of the government that sent them to war.

Surely the Germans must honor their many war dead from WWI and WWII even while acknowledging that Germany precipitated the warfare and atrocities.