Our Prime Minister Abe loves patriotism. He proclaims that his pivotal task as Prime Minister is to get back sound patriotism and to nurture sound Japanese children with proper respect for our ancestors. Many politicians of Liberal Democratic Party, which he leads as a chairman, denounces our history classes at schools as twisted, sadistic interpretation of history with malicious intention to humiliate our respectable forebears.
If I am not mistaken, although Ex-Prime Minister Mr. Koizumi has been demonized in China and South Korea because of his visits to Yasukuni Shrine, he admits that the war half a century ago was the war of aggression by Japanese military. He also expressed his apology for the victims and pledged that Japan will never repeat aggressive past. I think that what made Mr. Koizumi pay visit to the Shrine every year was his true condolence with the victimized and his respect for the departed, whether they were war-criminals or not. But as for Abe who promised during campaign for his premiership that he visits the shrine once he become Prime Minister and has mysteriously steered clear of it so far, he professes that that war was no less than war of emancipation of Asia by Japan and that we should be proud of it. Legion of Conservative politicians now started spouting that Japanese annexation policy largely contributes to current development in South Korea. Some of them even claim that good things which we have done outweighed bad things which we have done in those areas. Denial of any involvement by Japanese Imperial Armies with sax slaves during the World War Ⅱand the textbook screening to downplay Armies responsibility for coerced mass suicides in Okinawa are a corollary, resulted from this kind of self-centered romanticism and justification.
After I read this compelling book about war, I strengthen my conviction that I now see national myths in the making. In this book, the author warns of potency of myths in times of wars and how those myths work. Myths regarding the creation of the nation. Myths that our purity or our culture is under threat. Myths that we are the only and sole victims. He argues that national myths are crucial to bolster the society in time of crisis and that they are essential to entice the soldiers into the battlefields and to justify the horrible sacrifices required in war.
When Conservative politicians try to romanticize the past and indoctrinate chauvinistic patriotism to us, our ancestral soldiers are usually presented as heroes; heroes who bravely fought enemies and were willing to sacrifice their own lives for “higher” purposes. From the author’s point of view, this is a very attempt to create potent myths about Japanese by idealizing Japanese soldiers en masse. Although personal histories of each soldier are sometimes mentioned, these jingoes tend to talk about background stories in order to bolster their emphasis on soldier's love for country and intrepid spirits, rather than their hesitations and fear which I am definitely sure they must have felt in battlefields. War must be messy. Frontline must be confusing. Brutality must be unspeakable. There must be soldiers who weep or vomit due to fear. But these aspects of war are wiped out, replaced by lofty words such as honour, duty, and glory. They tend to embellish people’s death in the name of heroism. Is that true patriotism?
I am very impressed with the author’s acumen as well as his honesty. While he depicts his horrible experiences in a various wars and denounces national myths which drive us to commit heinous acts, he points out the addictive nature of war, which I think leads him to choose the title of the book. War as a force which gives us purpose, meaning, and a reason for living. He talks about the intensity of lives during war, which allows us to be noble. But he also adds that it seems “very stupid once the war ended”. What makes this book extremely interesting is I think his honest attitude toward what he saw. He writes what he thought and what he felt, rather than what he should have thought and what he should have felt. While he argues that all the society and all the people are never immune to national myths, it sounds to me that he is completely immune from these traps. I think that it’s because he doesn’t have any root to any battlegrounds or any societies and he could be always an outsider whom doesn’t have to carry any responsibility for where you are living.
I feel sorry for many ancestors who were sent to the war and put in extreme situations. When I am reading about their hardships during the war, I can’t help feeling sorrowful for them and thinking about deaths on which today’s prosperity is there. However, I think that the mention of the dead should not instantly blot out negative aspects of the past nor immediately shut down all arguments for tolerance for the other. It seems to me that we are heading for the society where there is no middle ground, as Mr. President of that big country said, “Either you are with us, or with terrorists” or something like that. In the introduction of this book, the author cited an insightful quote by Hannah Arendt.
“The principle of the movement is whoever is not included is excluded, whoever is not with me is against me, so the world loses all the nuances and pluralistic aspects that have become too confusing for the mass”.
In a society where facts are talked as if they are interchangeable as opinions, I think we should be careful of what we are talking about and what we are taught. I am definitely positive that this book gives us incisive views.
I tried to be logical and consistent at first, but it seems now quite wordy, rambling, and incongruous. I don’t think it is due to my English, rather my writing ability. I can’t escape from my digressive tendency. I am now very very knackered, and next post will be or should be much lighter one. Anyway, thank you if you could read all this.
