Japanese Culture

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

First, it's Okazaki Tomoya, with Okazaki being the family name.


The use of -kun is pretty similar to Korean, where you can use it for both surnames and personal names. It is used by persons of senior status in addressing those of junior status, by males of roughly the same age and status when addressing each other, and by anyone in addressing male children.


On the other hand, -chan is a diminutive suffix, an informal version of san used to address children and female family members. Unlike -kun, however, it is rarely used in connection with surnames.

Ahh. That clears some things up.

So calling someone by their family name or personal name doesn't denote a closer relationship or anything like that? Going back to Clannad as the example, I remember Nagisa and Okazaki becoming shy when asked why they still called each other by their family names. So my guess is/was that calling someone by their personal name with or without honorific would mean that you know the person better or something along those lines...
Is this true?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

Ahh. That clears some things up.

So calling someone by their family name or personal name doesn't denote a closer relationship or anything like that? Going back to Clannad as the example, I remember Nagisa and Okazaki becoming shy when asked why they still called each other by their family names. So my guess is/was that calling someone by their personal name with or without honorific would mean that you know the person better or something along those lines...
Is this true?

Calling any people by their personal name (unless they're famous) indicates that you have relatively close relations with that person, or at least closer than the usual "just knowing" relations.

[Tri-ring]

On the other hand, -chan is a diminutive suffix, an informal version of san used to address children and female family members. Unlike -kun, however, it is rarely used in connection with surnames.

Unless you are in the advertisement agency business in which case everyone becomes -chan to make an impossible request less threatening.

[LiberLibri]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

So my guess is/was that calling someone by their personal name with or without honorific would mean that you know the person better or something along those lines...
Is this true?

True. Personal names are originally used within Families, therefore calling the personal name suggests that the caller has such intimacy as if the callee were the member of his/her Family. Calling by family names indicates the mental distance between the two. However, the situation rules the usage more strongly. In official situations (political / business / academics...), they are required to call each other by the family names even when they are married couple.

>Or is it the other way around?

There are several exceptions.

1. Adults often call babies (no matter whether their own or not) by the personal names.

2. In rural areas, the residents often have no various family names because they are somehow related with each other. For example, in Iwate prefecture (northeast Japan) there are many villages where the sole family name of all the habitants is Sato (佐藤 / literally means "the vassals of Lord Fujiwara"), because the area had been for long under the controll of the noble Fujiwara. In such a situation, people call each other by the personal name even when in an official situation. In general, calling first names implies something countryside and unaffected.

3. First names are sometimes used to express contemptuous feelings. Firstly, it suggests the callee is so immature and childish that he/she is not entitled to be called by the family name. Secondly, it implies that the callee (mostly politicians) is an enthusiastic pro-American who is eager to be called in the personal names as Americans do. Jyun'ichiro Koizumi, the ex-prime minister of Japan, was frequently jeered at by his opponents with "Hey, Jun'ichiro!".

4. Historical persons. Especially before 17C, the persons often changed his/her family names according to the social affairs (like the British Loyal Family changed its name from Brandenburg to Windsor). For example, Hideyoshi (秀吉, 1536-98, the conqueror of medieval Japan) changed his family names two times. To identify each person, they are called in the personal names.

[ApostleOfGod]

Thanks to everyone who answered.

And Kang, since you brought it up, can you ever use -chan to refer to a male in general?
I'm watching Kimiaru right now, and Hato calls him Ren-chan (Either that, or I'm in lala-land not properly able to read / hear things). Is there exceptions, or is this just an exceptional case in which the sister is Always teasing Ren?
Thanks in advance.

[LiberLibri]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

can you ever use -chan to refer to a male in general?

Kang Seung Jae already wrote that

>an informal version of san used to address children and female family members.

You could use it to refer to a male child. And of course there is a sort of teasing colour in the example you gave.

Gengerally speaking, you cannot say -chan when an adult man is at issue. It is a symbol of childish/girlish cuteness. You know, infants cannot pronunciate the sounds well. They often confuse [t], [tS] and [s] (sorry I cannot write here the phonetic sign; [tS] means ch of choke). -chan has its origin in the baby talk of -san, wrongly pronunciated as [tSan]. Therefore, it implies the infantile nature of the person. Boys and adult men regard it as insulting, while females take it positively.

Associating childishness with girls is undoubtedly problematic from moden gender sense. But please know that historically Japanese culture has often identifies the infantility with cute atractiveness. See, for example, Sei Shonagon, The Pillow Book, paragraph 151 - I think it explains some parts of the root of MOE.

[ApostleOfGod]

Originally Posted by LiberLibri

Kang Seung Jae already wrote that

>an informal version of san used to address children and female family members.

You could use it to refer to a male child. And of course there is a sort of teasing colour in the example you gave.

Gengerally speaking, you cannot say -chan when an adult man is at issue. It is a symbol of childish/girlish cuteness. You know, infants cannot pronunciate the sounds well. They often confuse [t], [tS] and [s] (sorry I cannot write here the phonetic sign; [tS] means ch of choke). -chan has its origin in the baby talk of -san, wrongly pronunciated as [tSan]. Therefore, it implies the infantile nature of the person. Boys and adult men regard it as insulting, while females take it positively.

Associating childishness with girls is undoubtedly problematic from moden gender sense. But please know that historically Japanese culture has often identifies the infantility with cute atractiveness. See, for example, Sei Shonagon, The Pillow Book, paragraph 151 - I think it explains some parts of the root of MOE.

Haha. A good educative background. Thanks very much.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Japan shies away from shrine film

BBC News, Tokyo (11 Apr 08) - An old man wearing a white tunic and a dark apron, steps into the frame from the right of the cinema screen.

From a scabbard he pulls a long ceremonial sword. Calmly and with precision, he carves an arc in the air above his head with the blade, before bringing it down firmly, deliberately in the space in front of him. Naoji Kariya, who is 90, is the last living swordsmith at the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo, the place where Japan remembers its war dead.

He is one of the characters interviewed at length for a new documentary, simply entitled Yasukuni, made by Chinese film-maker Li Ying.

The film has attracted criticism from some lawmakers in Japan, who have described it as "anti-Japanese." Those comments have been blamed for inciting right-wing activists to make threats of violence and stage protests against cinemas that planned to show the movie this weekend. Five have cancelled screenings.

The joint Sino-Japanese production was partly financed by the Japanese taxpayer. The film-makers were given a grant of 7.5 million yen. In all, Li Ying has spent 10 years, on and off, making the film.

During visits to Yasukuni he says he was at times threatened, abused, and on occasion had his equipment confiscated. Newspapers here have reported that he has received death threats. He says he set out to try to understand better what the shrine means to Japanese people.

Legacy of war

Li Ying includes both supporters and opponents of Yasukuni in his film. Some incidents are hard to watch. In one scene, left-wing activists trying to disrupt the singing of the national anthem during a public meeting at the shrine are pulled away and beaten up by right-wingers.

Others incidents are compelling. The camera lingers as it watches the swordsmith carefully sharpening the blade of a ceremonial sword he has fired in a brazier.

"The debate over Yasukuni is a debate over symbols. That's why I focused on the swordsmith. The sword is the symbol of Yasukuni," says Li-Ying.

Interesting. I'll keep a lookout for this documentary.

[Onizuka-GTO]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Calling any people by their personal name (unless they're famous) indicates that you have relatively close relations with that person, or at least closer than the usual "just knowing" relations.

unless your a gaijin, then you get automatic privileges.

works well if you want to mess with your Japanese friends, with a new (Japanese) lady friend.

but without the -chan/kun. (saying that will make your attractive friend suspicious that you know more about the culture then your letting on)

[i8o]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Japan shies away from shrine film

Yasukuni Shine said "Li did not follow a photography permission rule".
Kariya said "I was deceived by Li".

the problem is that the Japanese government gave money to the liar's propaganda.
there are Freedom of speech in Japan.
However, there are not the freedom to deceive a person.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/po...2313022-n1.htm
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/po...2104017-n1.htm

[LiberLibri]

Originally Posted by i8o

Yasukuni Shine said "Li did not follow a photography permission rule".
Kariya said "I was deceived by Li".

the problem is that the Japanese government gave money to the liar's propaganda.
there are Freedom of speech in Japan.
However, there are not the freedom to deceive a person.

I agree the director is a thug, but I was disappointed for the fact that power silenced speech. Even (alleged) malicious propaganda should be covered by Freedom of Expression. The unpleasant feeling of the deceived parties should be relieved through not ban, but another type of argument such as compensation.

Although FOE is protected well in Japanese society, it is fact that there are some exceptional taboo topics. I wish Yasukuni Shrine will not be such one.

[X10A_Freedom]

1. The director is a Chinese.
2. Documentary concerns Chinese (and basically the global view of WWII).

Above two points more than enough for Japanese politicians and media to go on a huge negative spin campaign. So what of the "truth"? Even if the Chinese director bent rules here and there, I believe that his documentary is closer to the truth than what the Japanese education system is willing to reveal to their population.

Sad fact of Japanese culture about not revealing why WWII happened - primary school children are already groomed for sympathy towards themselves. They (and I) learnt Japan was in a big war sometime in the past with huge casualties but were not told of the reason.

I can remember 3 stories during "Kokugo" in school designed to evoke self-symphathy:

The angry deity statue - "Okori-jizou"
Cosmos
Shadow sendoff - "Kage-okuri"

Remember:
According to the Japanese, the Nanjing Massacre did not happen.

The Japanese say that the Nanking Massacre is a fabricated fairy tale made up by the Chinese. This is a ridiculous lie as the Japanese newspapers did coverage of the slaughtering competition in Nanjing among soldiers, who were competing with each other to kill as many civilians as they can.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by X10A_Freedom

1. The director is a Chinese.
2. Documentary concerns Chinese (and basically the global view of WWII).

Above two points more than enough for Japanese politicians and media to go on a huge negative spin campaign. So what of the "truth"? Even if the Chinese director bent rules here and there, I believe that his documentary is closer to the truth than what the Japanese education system is willing to reveal to their population.

Haven't had the time to go watch so I have no comment, good or bad about the movie.

Originally Posted by X10A_Freedom

Remember:
According to the Japanese, the Nanjing Massacre did not happen.

The Japanese say that the Nanking Massacre is a fabricated fairy tale made up by the Chinese. This is a ridiculous lie as the Japanese newspapers did coverage of the slaughtering competition in Nanjing among soldiers, who were competing with each other to kill as many civilians as they can.

I advise caution concerning the subject.
Not many Japanese would go out far as to say nothing happened but most people who studys the subject would not agree on the scale claimed by the Chinese(both ROC later adopted by the PRC) of the incident nor the status of victims.
If you factor in the logistical implications to execute a massacre implied by the Chinese, it soon loses any credibility not to mention the time schedule in which it is said to have been executed or you'll need to redefine the area beyond the walls of Nanking to match the scale that the Chinese asserts since it is inprobable that that many civilian refugees(total amount of people kill and people who survived) were left within the walls of Nanking which was right next to a war zone just before the Japanese troops entered.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by i8o

the problem is that the Japanese government gave money to the liar's propaganda.

I refuse to consider the movie propaganda until I have seen it.

Originally Posted by X10A_Freedom

Remember:
According to the Japanese, the Nanjing Massacre did not happen.

That's the same as saying "According to the Americans, the bombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombing of Japan does not have any problem. "

[Vexx]

Its rather amazing how few Americans know of the carpetbombing/firebombing attacks by the Allies... or that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were primarily civilian targets with little military value. HOWEVER --- the information is there, its available, its fact.
There is much *reliable* information about the actions of japanese military during the war (often from the soldiers themselves). The Japanese rightwing seems to go out of its way to deny things it seemed very proud of *during* the war. Amazing thing when something as simple as an apology would go lightyears to letting people move on. At this point, I'm happy as long as these extremist wingnuts are left impotent and twisting in the wind (be they Japanese, or their moral equivalents anywhere else (US, Europe, Asia, etc).

One thing... "the Japanese" do not say there was no Nanking Massacre. That is a denial pushed by a small powerful lobby of wingnuts that dishonor Japan by not taking responsibility for the actions of the military clique. Unfortunately, their revisionism must be fought continually by other Japanese (like the recent Okinawan outrage over the recent attempt at history rewrite of their story).

I've always been mixed on the Shrine... technically in Shinto - the actions during life are shed when the souls move on, so honoring the dead (be they criminal or heroic) is not excusing what they did in life. Most of the ashes at the Shrine are just of all the soldiers caught up in the war, only a small group are convicted war criminals.

On the other hand, I also see that there is a charade in the misuse of Shinto at the Shrine by these wingnuts and that I find repugnant. They should be ashamed.

[LiberLibri]

Originally Posted by X10A_Freedom

Remember:
According to the Japanese, the Nanjing Massacre did not happen.

The Japanese say that the Nanking Massacre is a fabricated fairy tale made up by the Chinese. This is a ridiculous lie as the Japanese newspapers did coverage of the slaughtering competition in Nanjing among soldiers, who were competing with each other to kill as many civilians as they can.

I don't see who you are mentioning by "the Japanese", but it's not the official view of the government. Article 11 of the Peace Treaty oblige "Japan accepts the judgements of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts...", and the government has complied with it so far. The commander in Nanking operation, Matsui, was punished to death. And, as for private individuals, Freedom of Expression covers also "ridiculous" speeches. We are required to have the mind that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That is also the reason why I regret the rightwings prevented by power the Yasukuni movie.

In general, I agree the victims' words can be closer to truth than the aggressors'. However, considering today's affairs of China (Beijing needs a myth to reinforce its authority), "Chinese view" does not necessarily guarantee the trustworthiness. Anyway I also want to watch the movie and judge by myself.

[X10A_Freedom]

I should not have worded it so strongly but got influenced by earlier replies.

Although state media in China is very questionable (but it does allow phenomenal economic growth), the Japanese media like all media across the world can be strongly biased at times (try Fox in the USA!) which makes me rather sick.

[Autumn Demon]

Does Japanese culture have its own version of heaven and hell?

When watching anime i often see mentions of people going to either heaven or hell when they die. Are these the Christian versions of the afterlife, or did the Japanese people have similar beliefs in the afterlife (good people go somewhere, bad people go somewhere else...) before Christianity was introduced? Also, how big is Christianity in Japan and do Japanese people know that much about the religion?

Any information on what is meant when fansubs use the words "heaven" and "hell" would be appreciated.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Does Japanese culture have its own version of heaven and hell?

When watching anime i often see mentions of people going to either heaven or hell when they die. Are these the Christian versions of the afterlife, or did the Japanese people have similar beliefs in the afterlife (good people go somewhere, bad people go somewhere else...) before Christianity was introduced?

Any information on what is meant when fansubs use the words "heaven" and "hell" would be appreciated.

It's mostly related to the Buddhist concept of heavens and hells.

[Vexx]

And that depends on what *sort* of Buddhism you're talking about. Core Buddhism doesn't really even address that sort of thing -- the "buddhist hell" was a concept added much later (and I suspect was one of those things were Shinto beliefs and Buddhist principles got sloshed into each other's bowls).

These days in Japan ... Shinto and Buddhism have traded, mixed, and matched so much that it is hard to discuss the history of the one without the other. Christianity is virtually non-existent in Japan (~1%) and even then, most Japanese who label themselves Christian also engage in Shinto and Buddhist practices (Jebus is just this other kami, eh? ). Christian *motifs* and *ideas* are pretty fascinating to the Japanese and they'll stick them all over the place (kind of like many Christians may think Norse or Greek mythology is cool).
Make no assumptions about the Japanese girl wearing a cross necklace on her throat ---