Teaching patriotism in Japanese schools

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In my opinion, both the Chinese and South Korean governments lost a valuable opportunity to reconcile their views with moderate Japanese who see nothing wrong in honouring their ancestors, in much the same way that Chinese and Koreans themselves do. By taking an inflexible approach to the whole affair, and they only succeeded in further hardening Japanese views against China and South Korea.

I find this to be a very perplexing situation. Other than the Yasukuni issue, Koizumi seemed to be much more amenable to closer relationships with the rest of Asia than Abe seems to be. Yet, for some reason, China (I'm not as familiar with South Korea's position) seemed to have repudiated Koizumi and is trying to cozy up to Abe. The only thing that I can think of is that Koizumi started off on very poor footing when he first came to office. I wonder if there's any other reason.

Originally Posted by Vexx

This is even current news, not just "dusty ww2 history". Take a browse through Mainichi news or Japan Times website headlines. It wouldn't be a "pacific war" ... it'd be an Asian war: but much more likely is that there'd be no war but trillions of international dollars wasted on an unnecessary arms race because of a small but influential special interest group of wingnuts.

Most of the arms race spending would be on Japan's part. China started about five years ago to double the percentage of GDP it spends on its military. With its GDP growing at around 10%, China probably won't meet that goal for another 15 years. By then, it's military spending will have far outstripped Japan's. I'm rather more concerned by any rise in tensions if and when Japan raises it's military spending by any large degree.

It's a pretty bad idea for Japan domestically as well. Currently, it's getting out of its economic morass largely through public works programs and through the privatization of the postal savings program. However, the postal savings windfall will only happen once, and increased military spending will mean less money for public works. Moreover, worsened trade relations are also very bad for the domestic economy - I believe that Japan already owes more money to China than any other country now.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So what if the claims are outrageous?

Perhaps it was because I was raised in an Asian government which had an even more twisted versions of history taught to its people, that I don't view what the Japanese did with their history as some sort of abomination.

The main difference is that, in most countries, a government will twist the historical events in order to have a firmer grasp on power. This is obviously not good, but it's, by and large, directed only at the internal population. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's little more than hot air. In the case of Japan, it's very different. Ostensibly, while advocating patriotism is an entirely internal affair, it's also a case of reactionary groups in Japan demonstrating their political power. Whether or not they think that it's an entirely an internal issue, it's certain to ruffle a few feathers in the rest of Asia. Note that certain parts of the governments of China and South Korea would view these right-wing thinkers the same way the West views the Nazis.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am a realist; There are certain things Japan can do to improve its standing with its neighbors, but what good will it do? Other than making some people overseas protest less, it has no benefits whatsoever. Japan politically is quite stable compared to its neighbors, so it needs a good reason to rock the boat. What would you offer in exchange to make Japan correct its history?
Nothing, exactly. No one is being threatened except Japan itself, so there will be no rewards for changing, and no sanctions worth coming for maintaining the status quo.

Actually, Japan can gain quite a bit through greater cooperation: better trade relations, improved dialogue over territorial disputes and fishing interests, support for their claim on the Kuril islands, and so forth. Abe talks about the benefits of improved diplomatic relations all the time. Moreover, Japan is changing. But it's largely in the other direction. Despite what Abe says, most of the news items indicate that Japan's changes in policy are going to alienate its neighbors.

The funny thing is that Japan's hardline stance is actually beneficial to China and South Korea. Politicians can point to Japan's actions as a bogeyman in order to prop up their own governments. For example, Chinese governments have quietly supported anti-Japanese protests in order to obfuscate their own failings.

Originally Posted by aohige

None of these national tensions are one-way street.
The online Right-wing youth in Japan are morons, but at least they aren't the majority.

In Japan, the youths aren't the main issue. It's actually the historians and right-wing thinkers who have far more political power than is warranted.

Originally Posted by aohige

It depends on what they mean by patrioism. I've gone to both Japanese and American public school, and I have to say, patrioism is much, much, MUCH stronger in American schools than Japan.
Heck, I even saw a history teacher who expressed he's pro-south, and taught his American History class from very southern point of view, praising confederate, and criticizing the north.
He even stressed that US did not "lose Vietnam War, we withdrew from it" because of the media and public opinions.
Now, that may be true, but in most books that's considered a loss.
I personally felt he was not fit at all to be teaching in highschool. He should be more objective to the subjects, and guys like him might be one of the factors why there's still very strong biased views in the South.

This is a very good point. It's probably a bit premature to criticize these "patriotic" teachings until we know what they entail. However, given the current Japanese political trends, it's very likely to be what the critics in this thread predict they are.

Offtopic:
I think that your history teacher's action are very harmful as well. I can well imagine a huge outcry if his teachings were a matter of public policy in the southern states. And by the way, I'd also imagine that he's not all too fond of arguably the best American general ever - William Tecumseh Sherman .

Originally Posted by aohige

Japanese text books are very.... plain. The books aren't very subjective, and teachers rarely express their opinions. I don't know if that's better for the national interest, but I'm sure there are powers at large to keep it that way.
If the change in the law is meant to remove the influence of these powers, then I wouldn't feel good about it. There's a reason why the past generation of Japanese worked hard to maintain the anti-war sentiments to become the national understanding. I wouldn't want it any other way.

That's largely what these changes are starting to look like. I think that the only country in the world that would like the idea of Japan repudiating it's anti-war sentiments and taking a more proactive military role is the U.S.

[Demongod86]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Vallen... you seriously need to *read* what the japanese ultra-nationalists claim... its such a blanket revision of history and completely at odds with historical evidence that it probably even makes Holocaust deniers chuckle.

Take the mistaken notion that some on the American far right proclaim (that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation, which would have the Founding Fathers either laughing their heads off or reaching for their guns) and turn the amplitude up to 111 and you get some dim idea of just how offbase these guys are.... and as RedLeaf notes, the current PM Shinzo is far too beholden to that special interest to totally discount them.

This is even current news, not just "dusty ww2 history". Take a browse through Mainichi news or Japan Times website headlines. It wouldn't be a "pacific war" ... it'd be an Asian war: but much more likely is that there'd be no war but trillions of international dollars wasted on an unnecessary arms race because of a small but influential special interest group of wingnuts.

Arms race? Just mass Joint Strike Fighters and add Raptors as necessary! If you can't get across the water, you can't hit Japan! At least I don't think China or Korea have ballistic missiles that can yet...hopefully.

Either way, it's not like there's a technological equality here...China's like the zerg...it just has a LOT and I mean a LOT to throw, but not necessarily of high quality.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Arms race? Just mass Joint Strike Fighters and add Raptors as necessary! If you can't get across the water, you can't hit Japan! At least I don't think China or Korea have ballistic missiles that can yet...hopefully.

Either way, it's not like there's a technological equality here...China's like the zerg...it just has a LOT and I mean a LOT to throw, but not necessarily of high quality.

Technically, the only country in the entire world capable of actually invading Japan is the U.S. The current Chinese military isn't even capable of taking Taiwan, much less take on the SDF. Heck, China doesn't even have strategic bombers (unless you count the ancient Tu-16s), so the only way it has of attacking Japan would be with nuclear missiles. South Korea has no offensive capability against any country in the world except for North Korea.

By the way, while the PLA conjures up the image of a vast horde army, this is quickly changing. It has mostly decreased the number of troops under arms in order to focus on more quality.

[aahhsin]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

That's what you call brinksmanship. Heck, I'd advocate that Japan got a whole fleet of Raptors and JSFs and all the new fancy American military gadgetry. Give them the ball and let's see them run with it. When you're staring down a 1.5 billion population nation across the sea that doesn't quite like you, I think you too would be willing to protect yourself. However, I am still of the opinion that those nations would be too prudent to simply launch themselves into war over I don't know what. Taiwan? Perhaps. But I'm hoping that money will take precedence over pride and blood..

It's not brinkmanship. It's aggression on the Japanese part. With the U.S. encouraging Japanese to remilitarize, and the Japanese following, it's not even trying to have a arms race with China. It's wanting to show the Chinese who's boss. the Chinese's military is rather outdated, especially against the U.S. The Japanese are being protected, by the strongest military in the world. The problem is that the Japanese also wants to become the "police" in the East Asian area.

The U.S. is not going to allow China to become the next superpower, so it arms up Japan and the two would try and keep the Chinese down as long as possible.

it's imperialism at it's finest.

[Demongod86]

Remilitarizing is aggression when China's economy is booming? Please. They have a group of people with 12x their population who view them in less than a stellar light and have throughout all of history and now the nation has no right to defend itself? I highly doubt Japan is out to conquer all of eastern Asia again. And keeping down the Chinese is a good thing. I wouldn't feel comfortable when a nation with 1.5 billion people starts to seriously arm itself, either.

And I also highly doubt that any civilized nation wants to get into a heated war with another one at this point. It'd be a pointless waste of lives, hence Japan arming itself and essentially putting up a "stay off our lawn" sign is best.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by aahsin

It's not brinkmanship. It's aggression on the Japanese part. With the U.S. encouraging Japanese to remilitarize, and the Japanese following, it's not even trying to have a arms race with China. It's wanting to show the Chinese who's boss. the Chinese's military is rather outdated, especially against the U.S. The Japanese are being protected, by the strongest military in the world. The problem is that the Japanese also wants to become the "police" in the East Asian area.

I don't think that this is an entirely fair statement. Not counting the big boys (the U.S. and Russia), Japan has the most powerful navy in East Asia, and it's had this advantage for quite a while. Japan has also spent more on its military than anyone else for the last few decades. There's no need to "remilitarize" per se. I also doubt that Japan wants to police its region in any way. The U.S. seeing an armed Japan as a counterpoint to China's growth is neither surprising nor is it a particularly new idea. I don't think that these matters are alarming in the slightest, they're more or less a standard application of realpolitik.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Remilitarizing is aggression when China's economy is booming? Please. They have a group of people with 12x their population who view them in less than a stellar light and have throughout all of history and now the nation has no right to defend itself? I highly doubt Japan is out to conquer all of eastern Asia again. And keeping down the Chinese is a good thing. I wouldn't feel comfortable when a nation with 1.5 billion people starts to seriously arm itself, either.

This is plain wrong. While China is a growing power, it's navy is extremely small and short-ranged. There's no way that it can threaten Japanese territory for at least the next fifteen years. Besides, in terms of air and naval power, Japan is already more capable of defending its own territory than any country short of the U.S. The idea that it needs to increase its military strength in order to meet any potential threats is preposterous. China is no more of a military threat to Japan than it is one to the U.S., no matter how any ideologues want to paint the scenario. Then again, I don't think that Japan's military strength is any cause for concern.

The following are where Japan's real geopolitical problems lie:
1. Increased identification of Japan's identity with its military
2. Increased alienation of its neighbors.
3. Playing the ideologues' game in a future China-U.S. confrontation.

Originally Posted by Demongod86

And I also highly doubt that any civilized nation wants to get into a heated war with another one at this point. It'd be a pointless waste of lives, hence Japan arming itself and essentially putting up a "stay off our lawn" sign is best.

Technically, the only territorial disagreements Japan has are claims over uninhabited islands against China, Taiwan and South Korea; and possession of the Kuril Islands which are currently controlled by Russia. The probability of actual military action being fought over uninhabited rocks is extremely low, and there's no way Japan's military is going to force Russia to give up anything.