Musashi wrote:

> Sorry to butt in at this point Eric..but did you grow up/go to school in Japan?

No, but I worked in Japanese public schools in Hiroshima Prefecture for three years, and was made
to attend daily and special teacher's meetings to go over policy and planning, as well as
deliberately attended some classes with students to hear what they were getting. And I still hear
from people including public schoolteachers (licensed Japanese ones) about education.

Now the point of me explaining I worked five days a week in Hiroshima public schools is that
Hiroshima Prefecture is/was (one of) the most anti-establishment prefectures in Japan regarding
educational policy. For example, prior to it being made law, and teachers in Tokyo being
disciplined for disobeying to intimidate others, teachers in Hiroshima used to openly refuse to
stand for or to sing the Kimigayo, or had to be directed by local education officials to be sure
the flag was on display for assemblies and events such as the sports festival, and that the
Kimigayo had to be performed for school events (at least indoors). I witnessed those myself as
well as hearing and reading about it. For sure, children did not make a practice of singing the
Kimigayo, nor were they forced to by teachers. Maybe they did actually learn the words or sing it
in music class.

And still, the extent of wartime history I saw taught was for example, to have a special class
where children were asked to THINK (not respond) ABOUT (they were not told) why a Korean who
assassinated the Japanese Governor General would be featured on a Korean stamp as a hero. In
another class, they were given handouts with photos of "Kitei Son" the Olympic medalist, and how a
Korean photo had the Japanese flag on his uniform crudely painted out, along with the original
photo, or how he was trying to cover the flag with his bouquet. And at one cultural festival, the
contribution of one 9th grade class was a large text poster proclaiming that the A-bombing of
Hiroshima was merely to punish Japanese. They did not bother to express or perhaps even consider
other views. And I saw kids lectured about Japanese suffering until both boys and girls cried.

But did they hear about Nanking? Did they hear about comfort women? Did they hear about the
biological weapons development or human experiments? Did they hear about how POWs were treated?
Did they hear about life under Japanese rule? Did they hear about the Asian casualty counts that
international sources use? Did they ever have to cry about the suffering of foreign victims of
war?

What do you think? Or better yet, you tell us what you learned, particularly as a child. I have
heard that at university, students can hear much more. But people are still surprised/incredulous
when they hear for example, about how Japan had their own nuclear weapons program during the war
or even Sony founder Morita was involved in it according to his own admission.

> I have been to Hiroshima on a school trip. Have you?

Numerous times, on official business and for personal trips. Also once to Okinawa.

> Visits to Hiroshima/Nagasaki are intended to, and I think succesfully, hammer in the point that
> "WAR IS BAD, RENOUNCE WAR, EVERYONE SUFFERS".
> I think article 9 of the constitution clearly reflects that.

You mean the article that the modern Japanese government tries to interpret for its own purposes,
or the one that legislators or even many common Japanese would like to have changed? You mean the
one people have even forgotten to consider when they accept the existence of and foreign
deployment of the SDF as a given?

So why do they focus on the suffering of Japanese, not on what their country actually did during
the war, or how people in other countries (including Japanese such as war orphans or the millions
of displaced Japanese after the war) suffered for it? Why not hear from Koreans, Chinese, or other
Asians, or from former POWs of Japanese or survivors of foreign war casualties, the way they hear
from such as A-bomb survivors or Okinawan storytellers who may not have experienced the war
themselves? Why not have Japanese children cry over the stories of the former comfort women or
victims of Nanking in addition to Hiroshima?

Why explicitly claim as in the national media, that Chinese anti-Japanese history education
(called propaganda) is to blame for how many modern Chinese have anti-Japanese feelings, or that
North Koreans are brainwashed (both could also be true), but not considering Japanese wartime
actions or modern lack of responsibility, or even war itself for such feelings?

> I think you have accepted the anti-japanese interpretation if you really believe
> that the purpose of thetrips is to focus only on Japanese suffering.

It is not to focus ONLY on Japanese suffering. But that is often the result when taught about the
WWII era.

So the new and remodeled (about ten years ago) Hiroshima A-Bomb Museum has a small wing devoted to
the war in Asia. I was there when it was still new.

You tell us. What did it show? How was it linked to the rest of the museum?

As I remember it, it was quite small, not much larger than my living room, off to one side, and
could be completely missed or ignored as people entered to see the main exhibit. Also, while the
English translation of a text on Nanking used 300,000 dead, the Japanese text used the term
"sukunaku wa nai" or "sukunaku nai". I do not recall now what the Japanese term for the
Rape/Massacre was, whether it was "daigyakusatsu" or "jiken".

> If so, the current US-Japan relationship could not have lasted 60 years and
> would not be where it is now.

One good reason that Japan and the US were and are so close is because they now need each other
and can use each other. Observe how the US needs all the support it can get for Iraq and the war
on terror, or how Japan is vital for its Asian military presence. Observe how Japan needs
international muscle for its negotiations with North Korea over abductions and the nuclear issue
while they had been powerless for decades before. Then of course there is the economy. Not even
China can ignore that aspect of its relations with Japan despite all other differences.

So what of the Japan-North Korea relationship or with other Asian countries? Are they also as
favorable as the Japan-US because Japan has takes such an indepth and honest look at its wartime
history?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove more than
three burgers in my mouth!"