Back

Comfort Women - Educated Opinions?

#51
I've been trying to avoid getting involved in this debate, but I think I just have to get this off my chest. So here goes.

I think there should be some kind of statute of limitations on nasty things people did to each other almost a century ago. Further, countries are in essence, a group of people acting more or less together. So when you say Japan did xx to China, Korea, the Philippians, etc back in the 1940s, I say that was a different Japan - a different Japanese people who cannot help the people who were harmed almost 80 years ago.

When politicians get people whipped up and angry about things that happened to their grandparents, they are doing nothing but harm to their constituents because nothing but sorrow is to be gained. Pragmatic politicians generally should be looking for any opportunity to work together with other countries, not fomenting animosity.
Reply
#52
If you leave out the stuff that is problematic, should you also leave out the stuff that fuels nationalist pride? No more stories about defeating Nazis, going to 'Nam. No more stories about Dunkirk or any other major WW2 batle. No more stories about Hitler. It was a different US and a different Germany and a different world, after all. It just gives Germany a bad name.
Why should only the nasty things be hushed?

(Though, an even better question is... how come Germany can be a respected first world country even though it has been so open about their atrocities during WW2?)

(Ignoring the fact that the accusations come from people who are alive to tell the story...)
Edited: 2017-12-04, 7:01 pm
Reply
#53
(2017-12-04, 4:15 pm)yogert909 Wrote: I think there should be some kind of statute of limitations on nasty things people did to each other almost a century ago.
(I'm being deliberately abstract here.)
This gets problematic when (for instance) some people A attack people B and take all their stuff, and then 50 or a hundred years later the descendants of group A of people are still in a materially better off position than the descendants of group B, as a result of those historical misdeeds. If your grandfather stole something and then you inherited it, is there no moral obligation to give it back to the grandson of the person who owned it originally? Your grandfather's grandfather? -- now that gets less clear, and of course if you happen to have been on the winning side of history it's awfully tempting to argue that we should let bygones be bygones, and sooner rather than later...
Reply
See this thread for Holiday Countdown Deals (until Dec 15th)
JapanesePod101
#54
(2017-12-04, 7:18 pm)pm215 Wrote:
(2017-12-04, 4:15 pm)yogert909 Wrote: I think there should be some kind of statute of limitations on nasty things people did to each other almost a century ago.
(I'm being deliberately abstract here.)
This gets problematic when (for instance) some people A attack people B and take all their stuff, and then 50 or a hundred years later the descendants of group A of people are still in a materially better off position than the descendants of group B, as a result of those historical misdeeds. If your grandfather stole something and then you inherited it, is there no moral obligation to give it back to the grandson of the person who owned it originally? Your grandfather's grandfather? -- now that gets less clear, and of course if you happen to have been on the winning side of history it's awfully tempting to argue that we should let bygones be bygones, and sooner rather than later...

That's in important point I avoided mentioning because I'm not sure that's the case in this situation.  Though I'm happy to be corrected as I don't know much about this particular topic.  

But yea, you are absolutely right on that point.  Although, from a pragmatic point of view, if a country took land 80 years ago, they are unlikely to give it back or pay more than a portion of it's real value so it's best to stay realistic.  And to the perpetrators, it's best to just apologize, make some token reparations and focus on the future rather than the past.

(2017-12-04, 7:00 pm)Zgarbas Wrote: If you leave out the stuff that is problematic, should you also leave out the stuff that fuels nationalist pride? No more stories about defeating Nazis, going to 'Nam. No more stories about Dunkirk or any other major WW2 batle. No more stories about Hitler. It was a different US and a different Germany and a different world, after all. It just gives Germany a bad name.
Why should only the nasty things be hushed?

(Though, an even better question is... how come Germany can be a respected first world country even though it has been so open about their atrocities during WW2?)

(Ignoring the fact that the accusations come from people who are alive to tell the story...)

I'm not really about resting on my grandfather's laurels anyway, but I'm strange that way.  Not really into rooting for the home team, not really under any allusions that my country won the war for Europe or any of that crap you hear sometimes.  So I don't really think nationalistic rhetoric is constructive whether it's from the victims or victors.

I love the History of it, don't get me wrong, but when I read a book about history, I don't think the people and especially the politics are the same now as they were back then.

Your question about Germany is interesting though.  It never ceases to amaze me that Japan and Germany are as friendly with the US since pretty much the end of the war.  Sometimes when I visit Japan, I'm reminded that my country was firebombing the streets I'm walking down.  German makes some sense since a lot of Americans have German heritage and relatives in Germany, but there aren't that many Americans with any relation to Japan.  I guess full throated apology goes a long way to smoothing things over.
Edited: 2017-12-04, 9:11 pm
Reply