Here we go again – straw men and old chestnuts get knocked down.
We must now teach a sanitized version of Japanese history, or young Japanese might just find a reason not to "like" our country.
Must "we"? I think there is a common perception amongst foreigners that the early 20th century history taught in Japanese schools runs something along the lines of "There were some unpleasantnesses, then Japan got nuked", but I’ve heard enough to suggest this is incorrect.
My point is that reducing public debate to "like or dislike" is too unsophisticated for thoughtful social critique — especially when it is being enforced from above.
A great big Wicker Man.
Remember the oft-cited axiom of "putting a lid on smelly things" (kusai mono ni wa futa o shirō) to explain away censorship and coverup?
No. Can you give us an example?
How the Olympus and Fukushima fiascoes were handled are but two examples.
OK, two concrete examples. For Olympus I agree that there was self-censorship in the mainstream press when Facta initially broke the story, but the covering up by the board would not be covered by that set phrase. For Fukushima, that set phrase is too easy a dismissal of a very complicated set of occurrences and actions.
Ever notice how you are supposed to say "I like Japan" at every opportunity?
I really ought to get a Wicker Man icon for these articles.
I was even compelled to devote an entire column (JBC, Feb. 6) to what I like about Japan.
I’m not sure what is the best icon to put in here.
The common retort to any criticism is, "Well, if you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?"
Because, linguistically, you can stigmatize and shut them up for walking on the wrong side of the dichotomy.
It sadly hasn’t worked for you. Furthermore, Debito.org is the home of the one-dimensional "Apologist!" shouters.
So do Japan some good: Offer some fresh ideas.
We’re still waiting…
Oh, as a bonus the letters page has a reply to last month’s article from:
He probably has something else to say to Mr Arudou.