Anyone read this book yet?

[cstaylor]

REVIEW: A `white girl' calls on corporate Japan
Gotta love it:

She is reprimanded for speaking Japanese too well at a meeting with another company: ``You have thoroughly antagonized the delegation from our sister company! You served the coffee using phrases that suggested you speak Japanese absolutely perfectly! ... How could our business partners have any feelings of trust in the presence of a white girl who understood their language?'' Her boss orders her to stop speaking Japanese.

Anyone else have this happen to them?

[kamome]

At Yumimoto Corporation, she faces a boss who wishes she did not exist, mind-numbing work and an environment that forbids questions or personal ambition.

Now THERE'S something I can relate to.

[cstaylor]

At Yumimoto Corporation, she faces a boss who wishes she did not exist, mind-numbing work and an environment that forbids questions or personal ambition.

Now THERE'S something I can relate to.

Seriously? That sucks... I can't say that about my work.

[tidbits]

``When you are in the bathroom for the humble purpose of relieving your bladder, you are constrained to ensure that no one will hear the trill of your stream.

Yeah,some toilets have sensor, so once you start doing your business, there are music played to cover whatever sound you are making in there...I got a shock at the first time tho..

tin

[kamome]

Seriously? That sucks... I can't say that about my work.

Of course you can't; "personal ambition" isn't exactly the hallmark of a techie's career. :P

Just kidding. Anyway, my job isn't all THAT bad, but it can get depressing at times being a gaijin in a Japanese company.

[cstaylor]

[quote="kamome"]Of course you can't]
Speak for yourself... I've got some ideas where I want to be in 10 years, and it ain't pushing bits for a living.

[cstaylor]

Fubuki was guilty of the same 'soft' revisionism afflicting so many young people in the Land of the Rising Sun. Her compatriots during the Second World War had nothing to be ashamed of, it went; their incursions into Asia were intended purely to protect the indigenous populations from the Nazis

Yeah, by signing the Tripartite Pact in Berlin? You know, after having the discussion with Kamome about the word "story", let's turn it around a bit. Why do Japanese feel they must defend the actions of people they never met, never will meet, and probably would detest if they did encounter them, just because of an accident of birth? Tojo was Japanese, (in this story) Fubuki is Japanese... so what?

Or is that the logic of a foreigner?

[cstaylor]

Anyway, my job isn't all THAT bad, but it can get depressing at times being a gaijin in a Japanese company.

It used to bug me at first too, with all of the "Oooo, your Japanese is very good" and "do you like sushi?" and "isn't Japanese difficult?"... then I realized, I can always go home if I want, and they'll be stuck here.

I've never felt bad since.

[kamome]

It used to bug me at first too, with all of the "Oooo, your Japanese is very good" and "do you like sushi?" and "isn't Japanese difficult?"...

Actually, a bigger problem is being viewed as nothing more than an English teacher/translator, even if you are working as a professional in a completely different field. Although things have gotten better lately, I'm still kind of a fallback guy to correct English-language communications out of the company. I mean, damn, can't they f-ing just hire a couple of bilingual full-time translators?

Why do Japanese feel they must defend the actions of people they never met, never will meet, and probably would detest if they did encounter them, just because of an accident of birth?

I think it's because people instinctively want to protect their own kind. The Japanese as a nation are more like an extended family than other cultures, so they want to defend their own. By the way, I recently had a discussion with some Japanese colleagues about the textbook controversy and WWII in general and they STILL defend themselves or deny responsibility. One guy said that WWII-era Japan had a "tatakau unmei" (it was destined to fight), as if Japan was the victim of circumstances in WWII and was not responsible for its actions.

I asked another guy to justify why he felt the textbooks shouldn't be returned to their original version, with better coverage of Japan's role in the War. His argument was just that the "history books would be too thick/have too many pages".

[Mr. BIG]

It used to bug me at first too, with all of the "Oooo, your Japanese is very good" and "do you like sushi?" and "isn't Japanese difficult?"... then I realized, I can always go home if I want, and they'll be stuck here.

Wow!! That's a perspective that I'd never considered.....I don't work for a Japanese company yet, but I've got a feeling that after I graduate that's where I'll be heading....just keeping your "I can always go home-they can't" philosophy in mind is going to really help me when I get fed up.

[cstaylor]

I think it's because people instinctively want to protect their own kind. The Japanese as a nation are more like an extended family than other cultures, so they want to defend their own

In their own minds, of course. Complete brainwashing.

By the way, I recently had a discussion with some Japanese colleagues about the textbook controversy and WWII in general and they STILL defend themselves or deny responsibility. One guy said that WWII-era Japan had a "tatakau unmei" (it was destined to fight), as if Japan was the victim of circumstances in WWII and was not responsible for its actions

Conflagerations have a way of spinning out of control, but you can always hand it right back to them. "The United States was destined to test its nuclear capability on the last remaining Axis participant in the war".

I think the stupidest thing the Japanese did (and probably sealed the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was try and barter with the Russians as (the civilians members of the war council) first peace negotiation partners and (due to meddling by the "never say die" military members of the council) then oil-for-Manchuria partners.

Stalin was a smart guy when it came to screwing people over... he kept the Japanese on the line long enough for the bombs to be dropped, and then marched in and retook the four northern islands, Manchuria, and North Korea, and made off with several hundred thousand Japanese men that died working on the Siberian plains.

I asked another guy to justify why he felt the textbooks shouldn't be returned to their original version, with better coverage of Japan's role in the War

Fine. Have them remove all mention of the atomic bombings... or would that not be "correct history"?

[cstaylor]

"I can always go home-they can't" philosophy in mind is going to really help me when I get fed up.

...and if you're real lucky, you can bring a girl back home with you.

[kamome]

"The United States was destined to test its nuclear capability on the last remaining Axis participant in the war".

I wish I could have thought of that come-back at the time. I was, however, speaking to a higher-ranking colleague, so I didn't want to turn it into a fight. I also hate to bring up the A-bomb in an argument anyway, because there are too many sensitive issues involved with that one (in other words, my guilt complex prevents me from bringing it up much).

[cstaylor]

I was, however, speaking to a higher-ranking colleague, so I didn't want to turn it into a fight.

A piece of advice that has never done me wrong: avoid the following discussion topics with people who may have power over you:
- Politics
- Religion
- Race
For one, if you happen to have a better grasp on history than your superior, you'll just make him feel stupid discussing the topic, and no one likes to feel stupid. If they insist on talking about it, I usually say, "well, I'm not going to agree with you. Are you prepared for that?". That at least warns them they're about to receive a thrashing.

[cstaylor]

I also hate to bring up the A-bomb in an argument anyway, because there are too many sensitive issues involved with that one (in other words, my guilt complex prevents me from bringing it up much).

There's no reason for you to feel guilty about something you didn't do. My father-in-law asked me "did you feel guilty after visiting the Peace Dome in Hiroshima", and I said, "Not really. I agree with Showa Tenno: 'It was regrettable, but it was a war'".

Yes, the emperor really said that in his longest press interview in 1977 after returning from his American vacation. I get the impression that the sanest people in this country are the royal family.

[kamome]

There's no reason for you to feel guilty about something you didn't do.

Well, it is guilt by association. And the more you defend the actions of your predecessors, the more you become associated with them. That's why the Japanese are hated so much by other Asian peoples: the more the Japanese defend and deny the actions of their ancestors, the more they appear to be endorsing those actions. I definitely don't want to defend the use of the A-Bomb in front of Japanese people, because I don't want them to think that I believe in the use of nuclear weapons against innocents. Besides, sometimes there are other ways to argue a point about WWII with the Japanese besides bringing up the A-bomb.

[cstaylor]

Well, it is guilt by association

How?

And the more you defend the actions of your predecessors, the more you become associated with them

When did I defend the use of nuclear weapons on a mixed military target like Hiroshima?

That's why the Japanese are hated so much by other Asian peoples: the more the Japanese defend and deny the actions of their ancestors, the more they appear to be endorsing those actions

So, are you saying a small group of ultra-right wing nutcases speak for the entire Japanese race? That's like saying the KKK speaks for all Americans (pre-Civil Rights movement).

I definitely don't want to defend the use of the A-Bomb in front of Japanese people, because I don't want them to think that I believe in the use of nuclear weapons against innocents.

Now I'm really confused. The Japanese race is hated by other asian peoples because of past atrocities (indicting an entire race for past war crimes), but civilians living near a mixed military target are innocents? How does that make them any more innocent than the poor souls destroyed in the firestorms over Tokyo? Or the Okinawans forced to commit suicide by the Imperial Army? As I said when I was speaking with Tin in a different thread, war is a nasty business, but I would hesitate to loosely throw out the term innocent in this case.

Besides, sometimes there are other ways to argue a point about WWII with the Japanese besides bringing up the A-bomb.

It's the best way of pointing out the hypocrisy in the textbooks, if that is the goal of the conversation. Did you bring up this topic, or did your senior coworker?

[kamome]

When did I defend the use of nuclear weapons on a mixed military target like Hiroshima?

I was using the collective "you", not the personal "you". Maybe I should have said, "when one defends the use...."

So, are you saying a small group of ultra-right wing nutcases speak for the entire Japanese race? That's like saying the KKK speaks for all Americans (pre-Civil Rights movement).

Ultra-right wingers, most politicians at the national and local level, the Ministries, and pretty much any average Japanese you speak to are in denial or defend Japan's actions in WWII. It's not just the nutcases.

I would hesitate to loosely throw out the term innocent in this case.

Non-military targets, including non-combatants, are innocents in my book. I know that's a matter of personal opinion, because the argument could be made that anyone helping the Japanese military-industrial complex was a combatant--except for conscripts and forced laborers. And many of the fire-bombing victims were innocents just as the A-bomb victims were.

It's the best way of pointing out the hypocrisy in the textbooks, if that is the goal of the conversation. Did you bring up this topic, or did your senior coworker?

Actually, the textbook conversation was with a different, younger co-worker at a different function. The tatakau unmei comment was in the context of a general discussion of the War with an older colleague.

[cstaylor]

I was using the collective "you", not the personal "you". Maybe I should have said, "when one defends the use...."

Sorry about the confusion. Now I understand.

So, are you saying a small group of ultra-right wing nutcases speak for the entire Japanese race? That's like saying the KKK speaks for all Americans (pre-Civil Rights movement).

Ultra-right wingers

No surprise there

most politicians at the national and local level

Most LDP-affiliated politicians. Minshuto and the JCP are fair and balanced on the topic.

Ministries, and pretty much any average Japanese you speak to are in denial or defend Japan's actions in WWII

Okay, now I will tell a personal story. In the U.S., we had a Japanese software engineer (in his early 30's) on an H-1B working with us. Very normal (if you ignored his pasocon otaku personality) in all respects until we started talking about the war (it was December 7th). He said, and I quote, "We attacked in self-defense because America had a plan to attack us first".

There was a collective jaw drop in the group (about five of us near quitting time were hanging out in one of the cubicles), and then the oldest guy in the group (pushing 40 I think) said, "Is that what they teach you over there?"

We all started laughing, and our Japanese coworker stormed off. Would this be a good example of "denial"? ]Non-military targets, including non-combatants, are innocents in my book.[/quote]Non-military targets are off-limits by international treaty, but all sides during WW2 bent that rule... the allied bombing of Dresden, the Blitz on London (especially with terror weapons like the V-1 and V-2), the sacking of Nanking, the massacres at Stalingrad, etc...

... the argument could be made that anyone helping the Japanese military-industrial complex was a combatant

I'm pretty sure the accepted definition of "combatant" is anyone in the viscinity of military activities.

Because of the war that had suddenly evolved, all of the factories in Hiroshima had shifted from the manufacturing of civilian goods, to the manufacturing of military supplies. Many Japanese men served in battle, while women, children and the old worked in the military factories

Actually, the textbook conversation was with a different, younger co-worker at a different function. The tatakau unmei comment was in the context of a general discussion of the War with an older colleague.

Good luck to you. You could've finished the conversation very quickly by pointing out Japan's good fortune that MacArthur refused to share Tokyo with the Russians.

[kamome]

We all started laughing, and our Japanese coworker stormed off. Would this be a good example of "denial"?

It sure would.

But this is linked to that other discussion where alpha has been making some good points. It seems you're conceding that the Japanese ARE in denial about WWII, which would justify why the Koreans still resent the Japanese (putting aside the issues of compensation and asinine comments during the World Cup).

I'm pretty sure the accepted definition of "combatant" is anyone in the viscinity of military activities.

No, I believe the definition of a combatant is anyone/anything that presents a direct threat to the enemy. If you expand that definition further, you risk providing support for Islam's justification for killing non-combatants: that all non-combatants are either "potential fighters" or "are involved in complementary activities."

[cstaylor]

It seems you're conceding that the Japanese ARE in denial about WWII, which would justify why the Koreans still resent the Japanese (putting aside the issues of compensation and asinine comments during the World Cup).

I concede nothing. ]No, I believe the definition of a combatant is anyone/anything that presents a direct threat to the enemy[/quote]That would make bombing illegal... because most of the time you are bombing infrastructure: munitions plants, barracks, etc... those aren't direct threats, but will create new threats in the future.

[cstaylor]

[kamome]

That's right, guilt and acknowledgment are different things. At a minimum, the Japanese need to acknowledge what they did wrong. Guilt may or may not be warranted for modern, young Japanese. But a healthy dose of shame over what their government did/does with respect to the war, and respect for past victims, plus the abovementioned acknowledgment would be a step in the right direction.

[Mr. BIG]

[Mr. BIG]

....a healthy dose of shame over what their government did/does with respect to the war, and respect for past victims, plus the abovementioned acknowledgment would be a step in the right direction.

I agree with everything except the shame that you mentioned....being an American, I feel a similar shame when the topic of the A-bomb is discussed--And I don't think it's right that I feel ashamed of it. No matter what side you're coming from, any aggressor in any war commits acts that are sure to be deemed shameful or morally lacking; these actions shouldn't psychologically affect the youth of the aggressor country (countries?) over 50 years later.....

I completely agree that Japan's wartime actions need to be discussed in Japanese classrooms, but it shouldn't be brought about in a shameful nature. What happened would have occurred in no circumstances other than the insanity that was WWII, and the actions of the Japanese/Americans/Russians who committed these terrible acts should not have any bearing on the international perceptions of today's Japanese/American/Russian citizens; that is where the undue shame comes into play. I feel that because my government made the decision to drop a devastating bomb on many innocent people in Japan that somehow I should feel guilty-over 50 years later.....for an action I oppose and had no say in whatsoever.....and that's totally f*cked.

[Ketou]

[kamome]

[tidbits]

that's is really cute one.Should have put one in '..and behind it all..racism' .