Japan backs 'patriotic teaching'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4953204.stm

Quote:

Japan's Cabinet has approved a bill that will encourage teachers to instil patriotism and respect for tradition in their students.

The bill, which will now be submitted to parliament, would change the country's education law for the first time since its enactment in 1947.

Opponents fear the changes could engender dangerous nationalism.

Meanwhile, a number of ruling party MPs have visited a controversial war shrine despite Chinese and Korean protests.

The education bill is likely to further inflame tensions between Japan and its neighbours, who believe the leadership of their wartime enemy is shifting to the right.

The BBC's Tokyo correspondent Chris Hogg says the bill has already sparked fierce debate within Japan.

It took more than 70 meetings between Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its coalition partner, the New Komeito party, to thrash out a definition of patriotism for inclusion in the bill.

The bill would require teachers to foster "love of the nation and homeland and respect for its tradition and culture".

etc,

"Patriotic" indeed. Next thing you know, those black vans with loudspeakers are going to officially receive government funding.

Kratos wrote:

"Patriotic" indeed. Next thing you know, those black vans with loudspeakers are going to officially receive government funding.

Your closing blurb suggest that there is something wrong with the love of the nation and the homeland and respect for its traditions and culture.

Like anything, nationalism in the extreme can be problematic, but there really is no reason to believe that a Japan that better appreciates its cultural heritage is going to replicate the Imperial Japan of the 30's and 40's. I don't blame Japan's neighbors from raising Cain over any such trend. If I were them I would want to keep Japan as neutered as possible as well. Whay take the chance?

It is interesting that there is a school of thought that seems to hold that minority cultures should be preserved at all costs, but majority cultures should be dissipated whenever possible. It's difficult to find the rationality in this way of thinking.

Far more dangerous than allowing Japan to appreciate itself is the move to invalidate tradition and balkanize culture.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Kratos wrote:

"Patriotic" indeed. Next thing you know, those black vans with loudspeakers are going to officially receive government funding.

Your closing blurb suggest that there is something wrong with the love of the nation and the homeland and respect for its traditions and culture.

There is nothing wrong with love of the nation, but traditions and culture is another matter. It's obvious that some cultures and their traditions are extremely backward by most other standards. Most people here, especially the RW, have no problems pointing out the faults in Islamic theocracies.

It seems to me that a "nation" is not a whole lot more than traditions and culture.

Traditions are established and preserved because they protect and sustain certain societal imperatives.

Tradition, generally, is against adultery. Why? Contrary to "modern" thinking, it is not because "old cultures" are prudes. Adultery breeds uncontrollable conflict in a relatively small social unit.

99% of time tested traditions support societal order.

There are, however, a few that while they may support some aspect of societal order, are so extreme that they diminish societal benefits: Female genital mutilation is a good example.

It would be idiotic to argue that the men of tribes in which this ritual is observed are serial misogynists. They promote the practice because they recognize that adultery within a small society if highly detrimental, Slice off a woman's clitoris and one eliminates the primary reason why she might cheat on her husband --- sexual pleasure.

I might argue that this solution has always been worse than the problem, but then I tend towards moral absolutism. Others might argue that the solution only exceeded the problem when these cultures came into contact with others. In any case, one or two problematic traditions should not condemn the entirety of the concept. It is foolish to expect perfection in anything developed by humans.

You don't understand Japan's current social and political climate and how it relates to how absurd the article's title is. The Japanese don't need the passing of any new laws to become any more "patriotic" than they already are.

So says you, but then are you either Japanese or a scholar of Japanese society. In reality, it is you who do not understand post-war Japanese society if you do not understand that the Japanese very much require the permission of legislation to act more "patriotic."

Japan had visited upon it perhaps the most devastating defeat in history. It has been bound and determined not to replicate the conditions that led to such a defeat. Patriotism has long been seen as one of those conditions.

Quote:

Like anything, nationalism in the extreme can be problematic, but there really is no reason to believe that a Japan that better appreciates its cultural heritage is going to replicate the Imperial Japan of the 30's and 40's. I don't blame Japan's neighbors from raising Cain over any such trend. If I were them I would want to keep Japan as neutered as possible as well. Whay take the chance?

You've barely scratched the surface. Japan's neighbors, particularly China and Korea, full well remember how Japan was as little as 60 years ago. The big issue isn't just what happened 60+ years ago, but how Japan has (regressed?)progressed since then. Roughly half of their youth believe that Japan was a victim and not an aggressor during WWII, that claims of atrocities are either false or grossly exaggerated, and some even go as far as saying that their presence in China and Korea was benevolent.

Japan has progressed rather nicely. It is one of the least aggressive nations on the face of the earth. Virtually all of its victims in WWII do not, currently, rise to the level of peaceful civilization that is modern Japan. I would appreciate some substantiation of your claims concerning the perception of modern Japanese of their nation's conduct in WWII.

How the hell can they be so completely different from post WWII Germany in these regards? It all has to do with their cultural traditions. Being wrong or having to apologize is a huge loss of face in bushido, so the easiest thing to do is to simply deny wrongdoing. It's not a difficult thing to do when you still consider all non-Japanese as inferiors.

They are not so different from post-war Germany. Both nations have embraced the hair-shirt imposed upon them by the victors. Both nations have had a fringe segment of their society who rejected their nation's passive response and who have glorified the good old days. Both nations are into a third generation since the war, and this generation does not find the national hair-shirt all that comfortable.

You demonstrate an, at best, superficial understanding of the Japanese culture and bushido in particular.

Quote:

It is interesting that there is a school of thought that seems to hold that minority cultures should be preserved at all costs, but majority cultures should be dissipated whenever possible. It's difficult to find the rationality in this way of thinking.

Far more dangerous than allowing Japan to appreciate itself is the move to invalidate tradition and balkanize culture.

Who said anything about dissipating culture? Japan is a largely homogenous country and those who aren't Japanese or "pure" Japanese are often ostracized and not assimilated into the culture. As a whole, they were far more Naziish than the Nazis ever were.

You, obviously, argue that there is something wrong with the Japanese embracing and fortifying their traditions and culture. It is equally obvious that you are arguing for the dissolution of a national heritage that predated WWII by centuries. You are saying quite a lot about dissipating Japanese culture.

The main problem is when patriotism borders into nationalism, which is inherently racist. They call the proposed legislation "patriotic" when in fact it's most likely much more. This "much more" part is what has many of the more-than-casual observers of Japan disgusted.

That nationalism is inherently racist is simply an absurd statement. That the two modern examples of extreme nationalism (Japan and Germany) were also racist is not proof of your assertion. It is quite rare that the extremes say anything about the norm.

It is a value judgment, not a fact, that nationalism is a blight upon the world.

It's difficult to understand how something "in fact" can be no more than "likely," but if you believe that this legislation is "in fact" something more than a benign interpretation might conclude, then it would be helpful if you would share with us the facts that prevail.

Presumably, you consider yourself as a "more-than-casual" observer of Japan. Please share with us your bonafides.

Kratos wrote:

There is nothing wrong with love of the nation, but traditions and culture is another matter. It's obvious that some cultures and their traditions are extremely backward by most other standards. Most people here, especially the RW, have no problems pointing out the faults in Islamic theocracies.

It seems to me that a "nation" is not a whole lot more than
traditions and culture.

Traditions are established and preserved because they protect and sustain certain societal imperatives.

Tradition, generally, is against adultery. Why? Contrary to "modern" thinking, it is not because "old cultures" are prudes. Adultery breeds uncontrollable conflict in a relatively small social unit.

99% of time tested traditions support societal order.

There are, however, a few that while they may support some aspect of societal order, are so extreme that they diminish societal benefits: Female genital mutilation is a good example.

It would be idiotic to argue that the men of tribes in which this ritual is observed are serial misogynists. They promote the practice because they recognize that adultery within a small society if highly detrimental, Slice off a woman's clitoris and one eliminates the primary reason why she might cheat on her husband --- sexual pleasure.

I might argue that this solution has always been worse than the problem, but then I tend towards moral absolutism. Others might argue that the solution only exceeded the problem when these cultures came into contact with others. In any case, one or two problematic traditions should not condemn the entirety of the concept. It is foolish to expect perfection in anything developed by humans.[/color]

So says you, but then are you either Japanese or a scholar of Japanese society. In reality, it is you who do not understand post-war Japanese society if you do not understand that the Japanese very much require the permission of legislation to act more "patriotic."

Japan had visited upon it perhaps the most devastating defeat in history. It has been bound and determined not to replicate the conditions that led to such a defeat. Patriotism has long been seen as one of those conditions.

You've barely scratched the surface. Japan's neighbors, particularly China and Korea, full well remember how Japan was as little as 60 years ago. The big issue isn't just what happened 60+ years ago, but how Japan has (regressed?)progressed since then. Roughly half of their youth believe that Japan was a victim and not an aggressor during WWII, that claims of atrocities are either false or grossly exaggerated, and some even go as far as saying that their presence in China and Korea was benevolent.

Japan has progressed rather nicely. It is one of the least aggressive nations on the face of the earth. Virtually all of its victims in WWII do not, currently, rise to the level of peaceful civilization that is modern Japan. I would appreciate some substantiation of your claims concerning the perception of modern Japanese of their nation's conduct in WWII.

How the hell can they be so completely different from post WWII Germany in these regards? It all has to do with their cultural traditions. Being wrong or having to apologize is a huge loss of face in bushido, so the easiest thing to do is to simply deny wrongdoing. It's not a difficult thing to do when you still consider all non-Japanese as inferiors.

They are not so different from post-war Germany. Both nations have embraced the hair-shirt imposed upon them by the victors. Both nations have had a fringe segment of their society who rejected their nation's passive response and who have glorified the good old days. Both nations are into a third generation since the war, and this generation does not find the national hair-shirt all that comfortable.

You demonstrate an, at best, superficial understanding of the Japanese culture and bushido in particular.

Who said anything about dissipating culture? Japan is a largely homogenous country and those who aren't Japanese or "pure" Japanese are often ostracized and not assimilated into the culture. As a whole, they were far more Naziish than the Nazis ever were.

You, obviously, argue that there is something wrong with the Japanese embracing and fortifying their traditions and culture. It is equally obvious that you are arguing for the dissolution of a national heritage that predated WWII by centuries. You are saying quite a lot about dissipating Japanese culture.

The main problem is when patriotism borders into nationalism, which is inherently racist. They call the proposed legislation "patriotic" when in fact it's most likely much more. This "much more" part is what has many of the more-than-casual observers of Japan disgusted.

That nationalism is inherently racist is simply an absurd statement. That the two modern examples of extreme nationalism (Japan and Germany) were also racist is not proof of your assertion. It is quite rare that the extremes say anything about the norm.

It is a value judgment, not a fact, that nationalism is a blight upon the world.

It's difficult to understand how something "in fact" can be no more than "likely," but if you believe that this legislation is "in fact" something more than a benign interpretation might conclude, then it would be helpful if you would share with us the facts that prevail.

Presumably, you consider yourself as a "more-than-casual" observer of Japan. Please share with us your bonafides.[/color]

Show us.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Kratos wrote:

There is nothing wrong with love of the nation, but traditions and culture is another matter. It's obvious that some cultures and their traditions are extremely backward by most other standards. Most people here, especially the RW, have no problems pointing out the faults in Islamic theocracies.

It seems to me that a "nation" is not a whole lot more than
traditions and culture.

You're wrong there. It doesn't matter where most people are born, almost all of them profess some level of pride in the place of their birth, even if that place is a shithole by anyone else's standards.

This is an incoherent response.

I have opined that a "nation" is not a whole lot more than traditions and culture, and you have responded that it doesn't matter where people are born. This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

Quote:

Traditions are established and preserved because they protect and sustain certain societal imperatives.

For some perhaps, but most traditions die out because they have no place in modern society. People who cling to them often don't bother to think about the original meaning behind them and merely keep apeing them without a damned clue. Even if they do, a lot of them don't question the logic behind the meaning. Such is the case when you consider the Yakusuni Shrine. 14 Class A war criminals, the lowest scum of the earth who were directly involved in among the worst atrocities of WWII are included in the Shinto War Memorial. Why? Because the Japanese believe in paying respect of all of their war dead, no matter how depraved any of them were.

"Most traditions" do not "die out." This is an absurd argument.

Whether or not they should is another argument, but it is ridiculous to suggest that they do.

Indeed, traditions do not automatically convey legitimacy. Mutilation of female genitalia is a perfect example.

You may be entirely correct in your example of the Yakusuni Shrine, but presumably there are some intelligent Japanese who might differ. In any event, in case you haven't already figured it out, the human race ain't perfect. There are numerous examples of foul practices that have been, in a perverse way, encompassed in tradition. This, of course, doesn't mean that tradition is false, meaningless or destructive.

Tradition requires most cultures to be hospitable to guests.

Tradition requires most cultures not to tolerate sex between brother and sister.

Tradition requires most cultures to value honesty in mercantile dealings.

Etc, etc etc.

Tradition is an expression of what works, and more times than not it is an accurate expression.

Quote:

Tradition, generally, is against adultery. Why? Contrary to "modern" thinking, it is not because "old cultures" are prudes. Adultery breeds uncontrollable conflict in a relatively small social unit.

99% of time tested traditions support societal order.

You're generalizing while having no clue about many of the traditions which endure in some Asian countries. I came name several off the top of my head which are absurd and have absolutely nothing to do with promoting order of any kind.

And you are trying to make the exceptions the rule.

Let's consider, for a moment, what appears to be your main argument: Human society is more apt to develop irrational behaviors ("traditions") that undermine and destroy itself rather than those which perpetuate it.

Do you really think this is the case?

If it were, we could be relatively certain that we would not be communicating in this fashion.

It seems to me that you are a Romantic who would believe that all of the actions of mankind should be benevolent. In the face of the reality that some are not you turn to cynicism and the notion that they are all malevolent.

Mankind has fitfully persevered for hundreds of thousands of years. Our advancement as a species and a society had not been perfectly linear, but it has been progressive. On of the mean by which we hold together in our advancement is a common understanding of what it beneficial to us all --tradition.

Quote:

There are, however, a few that while they may support some aspect of societal order, are so extreme that they diminish societal benefits: Female genital mutilation is a good example.

It would be idiotic to argue that the men of tribes in which this ritual is observed are serial misogynists. They promote the practice because they recognize that adultery within a small society if highly detrimental, Slice off a woman's clitoris and one eliminates the primary reason why she might cheat on her husband --- sexual pleasure.

I might argue that this solution has always been worse than the problem, but then I tend towards moral absolutism. Others might argue that the solution only exceeded the problem when these cultures came into contact with others. In any case, one or two problematic traditions should not condemn the entirety of the concept. It is foolish to expect perfection in anything developed by humans.[/color]

Your example is flawed. It is misogyny because those men aren't forced to reciprocate the same faithfulness to their wives. You give those guys too much credit.

Your argument is immature.

A desire to retain an advantage does not imply hatred.

One need not favor the practice of female genital mutilation to argue that the men who insisted upon it were not women-haters.

It was, and is, indeed a foul practice, but it does not take place because the men in the societies in which it is practiced hate women. This is simply an absurd argument.

I am not giving the men in these societies any credit. They have accepted a cruel and ignorant practice, and one would hope that they would shed themselves of the vile and dishonorable behavior on their own; in time. What I am arguing is that these men do not adhere to this practice because they hate women and have a perverse desire to mutilate them. What they do is of ignorance. It is not excusable, but it is also not damning of tradition.

Quote:

So says you, but then are you either Japanese or a scholar of Japanese society. In reality, it is you who do not understand post-war Japanese society if you do not understand that the Japanese very much require the permission of legislation to act more "patriotic."

Nonsense. It's clear you have no idea what I was referring to when I mentioned "black vans".

Perhaps not, (and far be from you to expound upon the expression) but are you Japanese or a scholar of Japanese society?

Quote:

Japan had visited upon it perhaps the most devastating defeat in history. It has been bound and determined not to replicate the conditions that led to such a defeat. Patriotism has long been seen as one of those conditions.

That has already eroded over the years. Besides the US removal of the sun rays from their flag and the requirement that their military be strictly defensive, almost all vestiges of the forced dilution of patriotism are gone.

Well, one might argue that an edict that armed forces be strictly defensive is no small thing. In any case, why should the Japanese not be patriotic? It does not inevitably follow that patriotism leads to warfare and atrocities.

Quote:

You've barely scratched the surface. Japan's neighbors, particularly China and Korea, full well remember how Japan was as little as 60 years ago. The big issue isn't just what happened 60+ years ago, but how Japan has (regressed?)progressed since then. Roughly half of their youth believe that Japan was a victim and not an aggressor during WWII, that claims of atrocities are either false or grossly exaggerated, and some even go as far as saying that their presence in China and Korea was benevolent.

Japan has progressed rather nicely. It is one of the least aggressive nations on the face of the earth. Virtually all of its victims in WWII do not, currently, rise to the level of peaceful civilization that is modern Japan. I would appreciate some substantiation of your claims concerning the perception of modern Japanese of their nation's conduct in WWII.

You haven't been paying any attention to the most recent rows between China, Japan, and Korea over the Japanese education ministry's approval in the whitewashing of their history texts. Neither have you been paying any attention to their denial that "comfort women" were in fact sex slaves.


Actually I have been, but I've not taken the same lesson as you have.

I don't place a whole lot of importance in historical mea culpa. What is important is the manner in which Japanese society conducts itself today.

Americans owned slaves hundreds of years in the past. It was a terrible outrage and in no way should be condoned. But it is in the past. Is there really any possibility what-so-ever that Americans will own slaves in the future?

In any case we have veered far from the original argument.

Whether or not Japan admits it's atrocities during WW2 has no bearing on the value of tradition in human society.

Quote:

How the hell can they be so completely different from post WWII Germany in these regards? It all has to do with their cultural traditions. Being wrong or having to apologize is a huge loss of face in bushido, so the easiest thing to do is to simply deny wrongdoing. It's not a difficult thing to do when you still consider all non-Japanese as inferiors.

They are not so different from post-war Germany. Both nations have embraced the hair-shirt imposed upon them by the victors. Both nations have had a fringe segment of their society who rejected their nation's passive response and who have glorified the good old days. Both nations are into a third generation since the war, and this generation does not find the national hair-shirt all that comfortable.

You demonstrate an, at best, superficial understanding of the Japanese culture and bushido in particular.

So many falsehoods I don't know where to begin. In Germany, you can go to jail for denying the Holocaust. In Japan, denying Baatan, Nanjing, Unit 731, etc entails no form of punishment whatsoever. Quite the opposite, you'd more likely get nods of agreement if not pats on the back. In Germany they've built many Holocaust museums and are almost exaggerated in their apologies for WWII. In Japan, they attempt to downplay or flat out deny their atrocities and when repeatedly pressured, usually rely on two words: atomic bomb.

Begin with identifying the "falsehoods" as opposed to merely laying claim to them.

Obviously you are in favor of a society that restricts individual expression. We all know the Holocaust happened, do we really need to put those miscreants who deny it in jail?

Your suggestion that denial of the Rape of Naking get's nods of approval in Japanese society requires a heck of a lot more substantiation that your say-so.

It is obvious that you have a hard-on for the Japanese. Why so?

Quote:

Who said anything about dissipating culture? Japan is a largely homogenous country and those who aren't Japanese or "pure" Japanese are often ostracized and not assimilated into the culture. As a whole, they were far more Naziish than the Nazis ever were.

You, obviously, argue that there is something wrong with the Japanese embracing and fortifying their traditions and culture. It is equally obvious that you are arguing for the dissolution of a national heritage that predated WWII by centuries. You are saying quite a lot about dissipating Japanese culture.

Traditions are meant to be tossed aside when they are no longer useful or compatible with modern or civilized society. If being racist is a part of one's culture, then needless to say, that culture has something wrong with it. Some people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. It's best done by reformists within their own society, but unfortunately these people have a tendency to be shouted down or worse by the "good ol boys" behind the scenes.

Traditions are not, at all, meant to be tossed aside. This is one of the problems with traditions: found wanting they do not go quietly into the night. Again, you have this queer absolutist notion of traditions. It is a process that firebrands such as yourself cannot hurry.

I've known and met people who worked in Japan. Most understand that they are only there to make money before going home. Most of the foreigners who do live and work there eventually understand that they are always going to be outsiders. Even someone like Akebono (aka Chad Rowan) isn't truly accepted. After retirement due to gimpy knees, he became less than a has-been. He's now a nobody. The only gigs he can get in Japan are now K-1 fights in which he gets absolutely hammered.

Wow, an American Sumo wrestler get's the shaft in Japan and that is an idictment of the entire society!

Moreover, Japanese "citizens" are not allowed to hold public office unless they are "pure" blooded. I believe I've made my point.

You've made your point that there are flaws in Japanese society and government. So to are there flaws in the societies and governments of the Chinese, Europeans, Americans, Australians, Thai, Indian, Congolese, Canadians etc etc etc.

These flaws in no way proves that tradition is anything but a positive force in human society.

Quote:

The main problem is when patriotism borders into nationalism, which is inherently racist. They call the proposed legislation "patriotic" when in fact it's most likely much more. This "much more" part is what has many of the more-than-casual observers of Japan disgusted.

That nationalism is inherently racist is simply an absurd statement. That the two modern examples of extreme nationalism (Japan and Germany) were also racist is not proof of your assertion. It is quite rare that the extremes say anything about the norm.

Being a nationalist implies that you believe yourself to be "better" than someone from a different country because that is the "logical" conclusion which follows from being from a better country. If you don't see that as being racist, no one here can help you and I'm wasting my time.

Well then, my son, you are wasting your time, but surely you knew that when first you realized I was not about to agree with you in to to.

In fact you have displayed a poor understanding of the terms which you so freely toss about.

Nationalist believe that their nation, not necessarily their race is superior to all others. It is true that 20th Century Nationalism has some very obvious examples of racism, but the connection is, by no means, assured.

It is not at all a logical extension that if I believe as an American I am superior to the rest of my fellow humans that this superiority flows from my sense of race. If so, how do you explain a Black American Nationalist?

Quote:

It is a value judgment, not a fact, that nationalism is a blight upon the world.

It's difficult to understand how something "in fact" can be no more than "likely," but if you believe that this legislation is "in fact" something more than a benign interpretation might conclude, then it would be helpful if you would share with us the facts that prevail.

Presumably, you consider yourself as a "more-than-casual" observer of Japan. Please share with us your bonafides.[/color]

See above.

I sought, but I did not find.

Finn，Maybe your english is very good. or you can debate the fact so successfully. But, I only ask you one question.
After someone **** your mother, they have declared their behavior is right and have no any apology because there have no apology in their culture and tradiction.
What do you think so? You are so angry that you can debate in this?

You're wrong there. It doesn't matter where most people are born, almost all of them profess some level of pride in the place of their birth, even if that place is a shithole by anyone else's standards.

This is an incoherent response.

I have opined that a "nation" is not a whole lot more than traditions and culture, and you have responded that it doesn't matter where people are born. This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

"Most traditions" do not "die out." This is an absurd argument.

Whether or not they should is another argument, but it is ridiculous to suggest that they do.

Indeed, traditions do not automatically convey legitimacy. Mutilation of female genitalia is a perfect example.

You may be entirely correct in your example of the Yakusuni Shrine, but presumably there are some intelligent Japanese who might differ. In any event, in case you haven't already figured it out, the human race ain't perfect. There are numerous examples of foul practices that have been, in a perverse way, encompassed in tradition. This, of course, doesn't mean that tradition is false, meaningless or destructive.

Tradition requires most cultures to be hospitable to guests.

Tradition requires most cultures not to tolerate sex between brother and sister.

Tradition requires most cultures to value honesty in mercantile dealings.

Tradition is an expression of what works, and more times than not it is an accurate expression.[/color]

Tradition, generally, is against adultery. Why? Contrary to "modern" thinking, it is not because "old cultures" are prudes. Adultery breeds uncontrollable conflict in a relatively small social unit.

99% of time tested traditions support societal order.

And you are trying to make the exceptions the rule.

Let's consider, for a moment, what appears to be your main argument: Human society is more apt to develop irrational behaviors ("traditions") that undermine and destroy itself rather than those which perpetuate it.

Do you really think this is the case?

It seems to me that you are a Romantic who would believe that all of the actions of mankind should be benevolent. In the face of the reality that some are not you turn to cynicism and the notion that they are all malevolent.

Mankind has fitfully persevered for hundreds of thousands of years. Our advancement as a species and a society had not been perfectly linear, but it has been progressive. On of the mean by which we hold together in our advancement is a common understanding of what it beneficial to us all --tradition.

Your example is flawed. It is misogyny because those men aren't forced to reciprocate the same faithfulness to their wives. You give those guys too much credit.

Your argument is immature.

A desire to retain an advantage does not imply hatred.

One need not favor the practice of female genital mutilation to argue that the men who insisted upon it were not women-haters.

It was, and is, indeed a foul practice, but it does not take place because the men in the societies in which it is practiced hate women. This is simply an absurd argument.

I am not giving the men in these societies any credit. They have accepted a cruel and ignorant practice, and one would hope that they would shed themselves of the vile and dishonorable behavior on their own; in time. What I am arguing is that these men do not adhere to this practice because they hate women and have a perverse desire to mutilate them. What they do is of ignorance. It is not excusable, but it is also not damning of tradition.

Perhaps not, (and far be from you to expound upon the expression) but are you Japanese or a scholar of Japanese society?

Japan had visited upon it perhaps the most devastating defeat in history. It has been bound and determined not to replicate the conditions that led to such a defeat. Patriotism has long been seen as one of those conditions.

Well, one might argue that an edict that armed forces be strictly defensive is no small thing. In any case, why should the Japanese not be patriotic? It does not inevitably follow that patriotism leads to warfare and atrocities.

Actually I have been, but I've not taken the same lesson as you have.

I don't place a whole lot of importance in historical mea culpa. What is important is the manner in which Japanese society conducts itself today.

Americans owned slaves hundreds of years in the past. It was a terrible outrage and in no way should be condoned. But it is in the past. Is there really any possibility what-so-ever that Americans will own slaves in the future?

Whether or not Japan admits it's atrocities during WW2 has no bearing on the value of tradition in human society.

Obviously you are in favor of a society that restricts individual expression. We all know the Holocaust happened, do we really need to put those miscreants who deny it in jail?

Your suggestion that denial of the Rape of Naking get's nods of approval in Japanese society requires a heck of a lot more substantiation that your say-so.

It is obvious that you have a hard-on for the Japanese. Why so?

Wow, an American Sumo wrestler get's the shaft in Japan and that is an idictment of the entire society!

You've made your point that there are flaws in Japanese society and government. So to are there flaws in the societies and governments of the Chinese, Europeans, Americans, Australians, Thai, Indian, Congolese, Canadians etc etc etc.

These flaws in no way proves that tradition is anything but a positive force in human society.

Well then, my son, you are wasting your time, but surely you knew that when first you realized I was not about to agree with you in to to.

In fact you have displayed a poor understanding of the terms which you so freely toss about.

Nationalist believe that their nation, not necessarily their race is superior to all others. It is true that 20th Century Nationalism has some very obvious examples of racism, but the connection is, by no means, assured.

It is not at all a logical extension that if I believe as an American I am superior to the rest of my fellow humans that this superiority flows from my sense of race. If so, how do you explain a Black American Nationalist?

Kratos wrote:

You're wrong there. It doesn't matter where most people are born, almost all of them profess some level of pride in the place of their birth, even if that place is a shithole by anyone else's standards.

Quote:

This is an incoherent response.

I have opined that a "nation" is not a whole lot more than traditions and culture, and you have responded that it doesn't matter where people are born. This is the definition of a non-sequitur.

I jumped from A to C without outlining the intermediary step. My apologies in overestimating your ability to follow. I said that nations, regardless of however you choose to define them, and their citizens almost always profess pride in them despite however backwards they might be. This entails that the culture and traditions amount to little or nothing in consideration of one's fondness for their home country which thus also entails that a "nation" is a whole lot more than just its culture and traditions.

Oh that's what it was, your sublime eloquence passed over my head.

Well at least you spent the last month or so figuring out what you meant. Unfortunately, it remains inchoherent.

You've repeated that "people almost always profess pride in the place of their birth," even if that place is "backwards." You've then concluded that this means culture and traditions play little no part in this pride of place."

How does one possibly follow the other?

Your creaky argument appears to hang on the unfathomable premise that "backward places" don't have a culture or traditions.

What do you suppose all these people in "backward" places take pride in? The smell of the air? The color assigned to their nation in a High School atlas?

Quote:

"Most traditions" do not "die out." This is an absurd argument.

Only to those who mindlessly cling to them.

Quote:

Whether or not they should is another argument, but it is ridiculous to suggest that they do.

See: decline of arranged marriages over the last 50 years. There are, of course, countless others.

First of all, arranged marriages are alive and well in a great many places on earth. Secondly, even if you had picked one that has actually all but disappeared - say human sacrifice - one example followed by the smug "There are, of course, countless others," is flimsy, to say the least, proof that "most traditions die out." If there really are countless examples of traditions that have died out, you should have no problem in counting out an infintesimal fraction of the whole, say 20.

Quote:

Indeed, traditions do not automatically convey legitimacy. Mutilation of female genitalia is a perfect example.

You may be entirely correct in your example of the Yakusuni Shrine, but presumably there are some intelligent Japanese who might differ. In any event, in case you haven't already figured it out, the human race ain't perfect. There are numerous examples of foul practices that have been, in a perverse way, encompassed in tradition. This, of course, doesn't mean that tradition is false, meaningless or destructive.

Times changes, people change, the way people do things also has a tendency to demand change. When people figure out that what used to work now doesn't, they either continue, adapt, or drop it altogether. In any case, you're sidetracking. The original argument concerns whether or not Japan is in the right or wrong as relating to the mistaken manner in which they view patriotism.

I followed your lead on traditions. If, when you find you can no longer advance your argument, you wish to declare "sidetracking," so be it.

Quote:

Tradition requires most cultures to be hospitable to guests.

Try common sense, aka the Golden Rule.

And common sense is the source of most traditions. That is the point which you seem incapable of grasping. Traditions are not created by a group of elders sitting in some sweat lodge trying to come up with some crazy ass rule to impose on the rest of the tribe.

Quote:

Tradition requires most cultures not to tolerate sex between brother and sister.

Again, common sense. The products of such unions have this nasty tendency to be either or both mentally and physically handicapped or ill. If human biology didn't have this sort of built-in demand for promoting genetic variance, you'd see countless more hicks porking their sisters.

See above

Quote:

Tradition requires most cultures to value honesty in mercantile dealings.

No, good business sense requires that if they expect to stay in business and actually turn profits.

Again, see above.

Quote:

Tradition is an expression of what works, and more times than not it is an accurate expression.[/color]

And when it fails to work, it goes the way of the do do bird and rightfully so.

Of course. Traditions are living elements of people's culture. Again, this doesn't prove anything that you have asserted.

Quote:

Tradition, generally, is against adultery. Why? Contrary to "modern" thinking, it is not because "old cultures" are prudes. Adultery breeds uncontrollable conflict in a relatively small social unit.

99% of time tested traditions support societal order.

What sort of societal order was being promoted in disallowing women to vote? What about miscegenation laws? What about having some RC priest sitting in a newly married couple's bedroom watching them have sex? 99% indeed.

To the extent that it ever was a tradition that a Catholic priest watched newly-weds have sex is could hardly be considered "time tested."

Considering the relatively short period of time voting has been around, it's difficult to accept a practice over a segment of that time to be considered a tradition let alone time tested. There are a number of traditions that reflect dominant roles within a society and not all of them involve men in the position of dominance. Dominance and social hiearchy are evolutionary adaptations that have not only support societal order, they have promoted surrvival of species.

In any case, as I have previously indicated (see below) you are trying to make exceptions the rule. Certainly there have been traditions which are misguided or have been perverted for one reason or another, but they are the exceptions and not the rule.

Quote:

And you are trying to make the exceptions the rule.

Let's consider, for a moment, what appears to be your main argument: Human society is more apt to develop irrational behaviors ("traditions") that undermine and destroy itself rather than those which perpetuate it.

Do you really think this is the case?

You've a difficult time grasping what I wrote.

I admit I do, but I would say its because you have a difficult time expressing what you think. [/color]

I'm saying that most traditions (namely the irrational ones) are later exposed as such and thus wind up being discarded. Nowhere did I ever imply that human society is apt to destroy itself with its stupidity (though that can definately be an arguable case) through bad traditions.

It is not unreasonable for someone to draw conclusions based on what others argue and that is what I did. That you admit that the premise can "definately be an arguable case," strongly suggests I properly synthesized your arguments.

If anything, future developments in the ME will be interesting to see. Rapture freaks are no doubt begging for a world wide nuclear holocaust in order to end their 0 for 500 streak of end-of-the-world predictions.

Quote:

It seems to me that you are a Romantic who would believe that all of the actions of mankind should be benevolent. In the face of the reality that some are not you turn to cynicism and the notion that they are all malevolent.

The old black or white false dichotomy. Some traditions aren't necessarily bad, but merely useless.

True, but most if not all of the traditions you have cited in your arguments are, arguably, "bad," and not just "useless."

Quote:

Mankind has fitfully persevered for hundreds of thousands of years. Our advancement as a species and a society had not been perfectly linear, but it has been progressive. On of the mean by which we hold together in our advancement is a common understanding of what it beneficial to us all --tradition.

Traditions die out when they outlive their usefulness or turn out to be detrimental to societal/cultural progress or development. What was once "beneficial" doesn't necessarily continue to be so. New traditions replace the old. Clinging to the old when they fit in one or both of the former categories is the mark of an imbecile.

If you were to leave your argument here we would not be in such disagreement, but of course you haven't.

Quote:

Your example is flawed. It is misogyny because those men aren't forced to reciprocate the same faithfulness to their wives. You give those guys too much credit.

Your argument is immature.

A desire to retain an advantage does not imply hatred.

One need not favor the practice of female genital mutilation to argue that the men who insisted upon it were not women-haters.

It was, and is, indeed a foul practice, but it does not take place because the men in the societies in which it is practiced hate women. This is simply an absurd argument.

I am not giving the men in these societies any credit. They have accepted a cruel and ignorant practice, and one would hope that they would shed themselves of the vile and dishonorable behavior on their own; in time. What I am arguing is that these men do not adhere to this practice because they hate women and have a perverse desire to mutilate them. What they do is of ignorance. It is not excusable, but it is also not damning of tradition.

Careful now, you're treading into relativism with that. That aside, "what's good for you, but not for me" isn't going to fly as just simply "retaining advantage". This is merely a game of semantics. Tell any woman out there that she doesn't deserve any of the same things (physical limitations notwithstanding) as a man simply because she's a woman and ask her if she thinks you're just "trying to assert an advantage" over her or if you "hate her".

It would be relativism if I argued that we can not judge the behavior of these men because we are not of their culture or in their situation. I am happy to judge them. I simply think that finding them guilty of hating women is over-simplified. It is not at all semantics. "Trying to assert an advantage," or (if you prefer a term with a more negative connotation) "Establishing dominance," is not synonomous with "hate."
That a woman perceives the behavior as an expression of hate doesn't make it so. In addition, quite a large number of women in the world accept these traditions. Do you think they all believe men hate them and women in general? In a most of the cultures in which female genital mutilation is a tradition, a woman performs the act on the girl. Does this mean the women who perform the ceremony hate the young girls?

The rest of my reply to follow later