Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
But Is Tom Hanks Right? -- On Race Hatred and Combat
Dorothy Rabinowitz has an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal arguing that we need to stop coddling American Muslims, who really, Rabinowitz reasons, haven't had such a bad go of it since the September 11th attacks. In my paper edition of the Journal, Rabinowitz's op-ed is accompanied by a helpful 3x5 picture of Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan, which, hey, is a fair thing to do since he is obviously as representative of American Muslims as these guys are representative of gun-owning American Christians like myself.
At the beginning of her op-ed, though, Rabinowitz also has some tough words for Tom Hanks, who reportedly said in an interview with Time Magazine, which I confess to not knowing was still published, that the war in the Pacific was one of "racism and terror". I didn't find those words in the interview itself, but Hanks did apparently say those words in other interviews.
Now, obviously, the first question that comes to mind is, who the hell Tom Hanks is to be lecturing us about the war in the Pacific? And is he trying to say our grandfathers were anything less than übermenschlich in their personal conduct and attidues toward their fellow man while at war? Whereas contemporary combat-veteran readers of this blog occasionally write in to bemoan the lack of pornography on deployments, it's a well-known fact that our grandfathers slogged it out across the Pacific with steely-eyed purpose, pausing only to thank their (Christian) god for such a blessed opportunity to get shot at by suicidal Japanese light infantry. The idea that racism might have played a role in relations between opposing sides, or that terror might have had something do with the fire-bombing of Tokyo in 1945 is seditious, right? Right?
Look, I'll make my own thoughts known in a second, but it is worth pointing out that when Tom Hanks talks about racism having played a big role in the combat between U.S. and Japanese soldiers in the Pacific, he is hardly saying something controversial. When John Dower published War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War
On the other hand, after reading Dower, one should also read combat memoirs of the war in the Pacific, the best of which is almost certainly E.B. Sledge's With the Old Breed. Sledge's memoir is noteworthy for its brutal portrait of combat and -- in light of Dower's thesis -- the complete lack of any discussion of race hatred toward the Japanese as a motivating factor in combat. Sledge was a native of Mobile, Alabama and presumably knew something about racism, but you don't really find much in his first-person narrative of the war in the Pacific to support what Dower argues. My own grandfather grew up in Mullins, South Carolina in the 1930s before fighting in the Pacific and also presumably knew something of racism. But aside from that time in the 1970s when my Aunt Susan drove home in a new Toyota, I don't think he ever exhibited any unkind post-war feelings toward the people of Japan.
At this point I'm going to take a step back and open things up to the readership, which has probably read a lot more history of the Second World War than I have. But my general sense is that Rabinowitz, for all the grief I have given her, might be right if she's arguing that the theme of racism is a little overblown in our contemporary understanding of the Second World War. One could make a mighty strong argument in the other direction, of course, given some of the less attractive things we did as a nation during that era. But my hunch is that race hatred really wasn't the motivating factor among combat infantrymen that Dower thinks it was. I fought in Afghanistan, against some Arab foreign fighters and remnants of the Taliban, more or less right after the September 11th attacks, and I found that the normal combat motivations, like not letting down your buddies, was a lot more prominent than any "hey, let's go take it those Arab Muslims" sentiment. But maybe my experience is, like that picture of Nidal Hasan, unrepresentative.
Thoughts?
The problem with the Tom
The problem with the Tom Hanks of the world -- I don't know for sure, just arguing in a typically inaccurate blog-fashion -- is that they seem interested in the racism and xenophobia of one side only. And in that one-sided view, the balance is somehow off. There ought to be a term for that. Progressive Orientalism? The hidden hand of the Western gora controls all? No agency accorded to the brownies? Aw. Us poor brownies. We are incapable of anything without you all....
Unless, you know, he's not arguing that and I'm wrong. Always a possibility with me.
In that case, why are we all arguing with an ACTOR! Notions + emotion = reason, apparently.
Okay, to be more serious
Okay, to be more serious because the above is too flippant for even a blog comment, I think.
I was blabbing about the following book over at Inkspots, and somehow, it fits here too. Thomas Sowell in Intellectuals and Society makes the point - hope I'm getting this right - that intellectuals (even Tom Hanks) tend to think that their knowledge is kind of all the knowledge there is. What they don't know isn't knowledge. So that, removed from something in time and place, they can make accurate judgments on the motivations of people they have never interacted with or met. I suppose professional historians have their own standards by how they approach this problem. I am out of my league here.
Oh, I'm getting this all wrong. When I have time I'll pull the exact quote. It's about Teddy Roosevelt and it is perfect for this blog post.
My own grandfather grew up
My own grandfather grew up in Mullins, South Carolina in the 1930s before fighting in the Pacific and also presumably knew something of racism. But aside from that time in the 1970s when my Aunt Susan drove home in a new Toyota, I don't think he ever exhibited any unkind post-war feelings toward the people of Japan.
My grandfather never had anything bad to say about the Japanese, either (he was an anti-aircraft gunner on a destroyer in the Pacific). I think he actually spent some time over there before coming back from his deployment (among other things, he was very, very good at using chopsticks when he came back).
Since I'm trying to figure out the code for posts, I'm going to test the allowed HTML tags:
test
testtest
test
test
test
test
test
Sledge's memoir is
Sledge's memoir is noteworthy for its brutal portrait of combat and -- in light of Dower's thesis -- the complete lack of any discussion of race hatred toward the Japanese as a motivating factor in combat.
On the other hand, "Quartered Safe Out Here" - written by George MacDonald Fraser, who's far from being a liberal - quotes an officer describing the Japs: "Remember, they're sub-human apes and you're better men than they'll ever be."
Interestingly, Fraser's colleagues also had some fairly genocidal views towards the Germans, after the newsreels of Belsen came out - one wanted to turn the adult population over to the Russians as slaves and export the kids to Australia where they could be brought up in a civilised fashion.
Not being a veteran, I'll
Not being a veteran, I'll offer my comment up as a question to the readership. Is it possible that racist remarks such as "kill the yellow, slant-eyed dogs" used in war could be conflated as motivations by people like Hanks who read about this stuff while trying to produce a miniseries? Even if he found a bunch of those remarks in diaries or from first hand accounts, it seems reasonable to me that people could say awful things for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with the reason they end up pulling the trigger.
Madhu, I think you've hit
Madhu, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Progressives and people of the European and American left are so laden with the White Man's Burden (Guilt, in a world where "imperialism" is a bad word, even if we engage in it by other names) that they zero in on all expressions of intolerance on their side, in the process patronizing just about any non-white people in the world. In the process, they frequently stop expecting civilized behavior out of, for example, Arabs, and will even go so far as to blame that uncivilized behavior on White actors.
If the Na'Vi had taken their war to earth, the progressives would have blamed whatever empire sent that evil Halliburton/Blackwater corporation to Pandora to steal their unobtainium, because savages don't get agency. Ever. That's why it took a white man to save the blue people -- James Cameron illustrates the thinking of your Guilty White progressive beautifully.
How do you separate hatred
How do you separate hatred of an enemy from racism?
Motivations are tough things. Are there, like, psychiatric or psychological historians or something? I'm being serious: how do you determination individual human motivation from historical documentation?
When I get a chance, I'll
When I get a chance, I'll print some of the more interesting excerpts from a local Marine who I got to know a bit when I was back home a few years ago, and published his book on his own expericences.
But for the anecdote.
As I'm tromping door to door 6 years ago, I come upon his home while his family is visiting. Invited in, he wants to show me a few of his possession left over from the war. One is a japanese rifle that he managed to bring back with him (my how times of changed, I guess the statute has run on that one), but what he really, REALLY missed was his most prized possession(s) from the war which he lost when his home burned down many years before. It was his "jar of jap gold teeth." This from the small, unassuming former machine gunner with a silver star who led the invocations at the local VFW and American Legion.
Why we went to war with Japan had nothing to do with racism and terror, but it was sure has hell fought that way.
Oh and don't forget Donald Duck....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLfyooJQEc
Note that Dower's book
Note that Dower's book catalogues the barking racism of both sides, especially in propaganda material, and how Japanese racism and prejudice towards Americans led directly to the atrocities towards POWs as well as the mass suicide of Japanese civilians on Saipan (who were convinced surrender would lead only to mass rape and torture at the hands of the Americans).
Would it be too trite to
Would it be too trite to simply say that war is a dehumanizing process, and that the characterization of the enemy as a lesser being is a defense mechanism for soldiers who suddenly find themselves fighting and killing men who they had previously never given a thought to? Does this debate really need a more thorough explanation than that?
And what are we to say about
And what are we to say about those who fight an army flying the Star of David? Anti-semites, surely ... Lee Smith told me so.
WWDGS? (What would Dave
WWDGS?
(What would Dave Grossman say?)
I think he'd tend to concur with T.E. Shaw.
ADTS
Huh - my comment got
Huh - my comment got deleted, either because it violated CNAS norms (which I don't think it did) or because of a technological glitch. Let me try it again; presumably what I'm writing is not too offensive.
WWDGS?
What would Dave Grossman say?
I imagine something not too different from what T.E. Shaw wrote.
ADTS
Apparenlty we have to love
Apparenlty we have to love people now before we can kill them.
Breaking news - FOX
Breaking news - FOX reporting that Bruce Beresford Redman - Award winning producer of "Survivor" has been arrested after his wife's corpse was found in their Swank hotel...
http://newsolio.com/bruce-beresford-redman-survivor-producer-accused-of-...
I.can't.fight.the.feeeelingg....
*She didn't survive...
*She was voted off the Island....
*Her series has been cancelled...
How much racism existed
How much racism existed prior to Dec 7 1941, the siege and at the time believed massacre on Wake Island, the brutal fighting that followed. Steven Ambrose in his "Letter to America" acknowledged that few prisoners were taken on either side. That tends to become reciprocal.
I'm watching "The Pacific" and am wondering if Hanks has seen his own series?
We could also talk about racism in Asia towards other Asians in particular towards the Empire of Japan's Asian subjects.
The Bataan Death March..the Burma railroad...what was done in China and Manila.
I wonder if people realize that other than American's no one obsessively spends all their time being neurotic about race.
The Euro's pay it lip service, but no action. Not affirmative anyway.
I think the phrase Tom Hanks
I think the phrase Tom Hanks wants is not "racism" but rather "demonizing the enemy" - which was a VERY common theme on all sides in WWII. The rationale? Ummm.... Do we really have to explain that? Really?
It goes on in all wars - it's easier to kill the enemy if you hate them. Not only that, FDR had to fight back against the pro-Nazi element in the United States - you know, all the American industrialists who dumped their millions into Germany in the 1930s because they hated FDR's reforms? They were the ones trying to keep the U.S. out of the war, too. American historians are timid on this issue, but several recent publications spell out the details - try the excellent "Hell's Cartel", and you'll learn that one of Germany's great supporters was Standard Oil of New Jersey, who supplied their IG Farben partners with key tetraethyl lead stocks - as well as the technology to manufacture more. That played a key role in Poland, the Low Countries, France, the Battle of Britain, etc... but IG Farben didn't reciprocate - they kept their synthetic rubber recipe secret, and since the U.S. didn't get it, we had key problems with our rubber supply (which the Japanese had seized in the Pacific). These business interests were the biggest American traitors in World War II.
So, what did the Japanese seize in the Pacific, and why? Dutch East Indies oilfields (now Indonesia), rubber plantations, etc. The key resource supply for the home islands.
Who defeated them here? American submariners, a much-unsung story that is, who really never even saw a Japanese face. Racism? Well, no. Terror? Well, yes. War induces terror. I'd feel terror sitting on some Japanese coal barge in the Pacific, waiting to be blasted out of the water, wouldn't you?
To the Japanese, the war was an "economic miracle" at first - as it was for the Italians and the Germans. They were bandit nations - nations who raided their neighbors, enslaved their populations, stole their resources, and slaughtered any who opposed them.
That's why they needed to be terminated with extreme prejudice.
So, let's fast forward to the present. Iraq's oilfields are not so dissimilar from the Dutch East Indies' oilfields. Control of that economic resource would be a great boon to any nation, would it not? What if only Chinese and Russian firms were allowed access to that cheap oil? They'd gain an economic advantage, right?
I doubt Tom Hanks will ever accept that the primary reason that wars are fought is to seize some economic advantage or other. Racism and fear and ideology and hatred are just used to get public support for the war.
For the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians, war was just a profitable racket. Imagine the Mafia with tanks, guns, soldiers and total control of the press and of schools, and there you are.
Why does everyone seem to
Why does everyone seem to assume that Hanks was speaking only of American motivations? That's not how I read his comment at all. Rather, as Dan van der Vat put it, that the war in the Pacific was not a "race war," in that there were compelling economic and political disputes to support it, but that the racial divide intensified it in the same way that war on the Eastern Front was somewhat sharper than war on the Western Front.
Really, if we're going to look for prejudice it's not hard to see: knee-jerk rants against intellectuals appear instantly on the internet whenever someone questions the prevailing myth, even in the mildest way.
"Really, if we're going to
"Really, if we're going to look for prejudice it's not hard to see: knee-jerk rants against intellectuals appear instantly on the internet whenever someone questions the prevailing myth, even in the mildest way." - Visitor at 3:19
I'm pretty sure the intellectuals, being intellectuals, can take care of themselves in that regard. I thought the prevailing myth was the racism charge? Huh?
"Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods," he said. "They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different." Tom Hanks
Apparently, we all wanted to annihilate each other because of our differences. Sounds like an excellent analysis of the situation.
I think you're misreading
I think you're misreading Sledge partly. Whilst its true that he doesn't comment directly on racism its also true that his warts and all portrayal involves recounting incidents that are nearly unimaginable in the ETO. The story about the Marine pulling the gold teeth out of a wounded but still alive Japanese comes to mind.
@ajay
I recently picked up Alan Moorehead's book 'Eclipse' which was written in 1945 and he speaks quite calmly about reducing Germany utterly to an agricultural nation by confiscating and banning all industry forever. Sean Longden's recent 'T-Force' reveals that the Western Allies indeed stole every bit of German industry they could find. The British MoD was still using stolen German equipment by the 1990's. Methinks our understanding of Allied attitudes to Germany still owes much to Cold War propaganda and less to certain realities!
I have to agree with TE
I have to agree with TE Shaw's comment.
That said, in regards to Madhu's first post.... Uh, what exactly do you expect? American Progressives and Liberals (much like American Conservatives), for the most part, discuss racism and intolerance from... Well, an American perspective. People do, after all, tend to focus primarily on the countries they live in ( which is a perspective they at least know somewhat and can comprehend) That's pretty natural.
I think that when Tom Hanks
I think that when Tom Hanks and other media figures talk about racism in wars they're thinking more about propaganda--the imagery and representations associated with the war than the combat per se, or the feelings of the soldiers doing the actual fighting. They are "artists" and they trade in images, in representation. As such they tend to approach the task of understanding the world (and history) with a sensibility geared toward the discourse surrounding representation.
With this in mind, Hanks' comments make a little more sense, I think. Because there certainly was a great deal of dehumanizing representation of the enemy by government propaganda, the private media, and a nebulous sort of general public consciousness. These dehumanizing representations probably served to kind of "justify" the war on an emotional level by appealing to the worst instincts of people, manipulating their fear and distrust of the foreign, the different, the unknown.
To a degree it happens in all wars, but obviously when racial differences exist, someone will inevitably "go there."
And it's never just uncomplicated, simple, or straightforward race hatred. I've always found it really interesting that the American anti-Nazi propaganda didn't seem to have as strong an element of racism as the anti-Japanese propaganda, BUT if you go back to the First World War you get the infamous enlistment poster showing a gorilla wearing a spiked Kaiser-type helmet which bears the headline STOP THIS MAD BRUTE (link here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/%27Destroy_this_mad_b...). I don't know why this might be the case except maybe that Germany was more familiar to the generation who lived during WWII--we'd already fought a war against Germany and many veterans of that war were still living, whereas we'd never had a major war with Japan or any other Asian power for that matter. Not to mention, the Germans were white and the Japanese weren't (duh no duh). But that--and basically this entire comment--is just speculation on my part.
As for any discrepancies between soldiers' accounts and generalizations assuming that combat was racially charged, I don't know, except to say that in my experience, people who are the most racist tend to also be the most cowardly.
"In the process, they
"In the process, they frequently stop expecting civilized behavior out of, for example, Arabs, and will even go so far as to blame that uncivilized behavior on White actors. "
I think one of the main problems with that all-too-often made accusation is that we retain the definition of the term "civilized" to ourselves. As the prime example, the concept of suicide bombers is often used as an example of "uncivilized" fanatical behaviour, just as the concept of irregular warfare is often looked down on as "cowardly" and "inhumane". On the other hand, terrorbombing from airplanes is deemed civilized, and torture by US doctors is deemed justifiable in the face of a "inhuman" monster. When we kill civilians, as in Fallujah or in Mogadishu, its called collateral damage. When they kill civilians its called terror and cowardice. When they capture and kill our people, they behave like beasts. When we capture and torture/kill them, its justifiable action. (The prime example of this is the recent Israeli case where 2 palestinian youths were shot down by a IDF patrol and described as "terrorists wielding a pitchfork" in the media.)
I think what a lot of western leftist fascistcommunist antichrist-lovers find objectionable is this blatant use of propaganda terms to mark a difference between our unhumanity and theirs. If civilized behaviour is to stand around in a uniform without a weapon waiting to get shot at by a superior enemy, then S. Husseins army during Gulf Ware 1 may have been the most civilized army in the history of the earth. Fat lot of good that did to them.
This is my first post on
This is my first post on this site( although I'm a frequent visitor).
I believe the WSJ editorial should be taken at face value - that Americans are a relatively tolerant culture where foreigners can assimilate, and only very infrequently and during the most stressful times in recent history have foreigners representing a enemy during war-time been subject to poor treatment. When this American experience is juxtaposed against the intolerance of other cultures, it should assuage any guilty feelings we have for the specific poor behavior of some of our citizens, as they are not only a minority but are notably condemned by politicians and the media alike.
In that vein, it is absurd that Tom Hanks takes the mindset of a group of young, scared American men thousands of miles from home who, subject to the inhumane conditions of the Pacific War and aware of the atrocities of the Japanese to both their fellow soldiers and foreign civilians throughout the theater, may have needed extra motivation to actually kill another human being in defense of his nation and comrades - and makes that the primary reason for the war.
the primary reason for the war was the expansionist dreams of Japan butting against those colonies/spheres of influence of other more established nations for economic dominance of the Pacific area. This had nothing to do with the culture of the nations involved (from a scientific sense, not political), and for Hanks to offer a back-handed insult american troops is really pathetic, and more evidence that the Hollywood elite truly has too much Kool Aid mix for their own good.
As long as prominent Americans continue to find fault with everything Americans do, have done and will do, they will find willing partners throughout the world ready to jump on the bandwagon - and instead of saying that "no war is pure and sometimes Americans did shitty things, but thank God we won the war because American-ism offers the world so much more than would have Imperial Japan", unfortunately they stop before the "but", leaving the rest of the world to fill in the last part.
Thank you, Mr. Hanks.
Enough of the racial
Enough of the racial neurosis already. Does anyone care except guilty white liberals and con artist pols? Get a life.
I find comments such as
I find comments such as Hank's or generally those who pass judgments on previous generations in the lens of today's values and racial values.
Were the men of the 'greatest' generation more racist or had views that we would call racist today? Undoubtedly. But they also lived in 1940s, a world that resembled nothing in terms of today's values, cultural norms and the PC centered universe of today's Americans.
I dont know if Hanks made those comments but its a mistake to proclaim such generalized statements without taking in the context of the era, the mission and the zeitgeist.
i think the use of the term
i think the use of the term "jap" in the comments section partly proves hanks's point. widespread use of derogatory terms for our adversaries-- whether they be japanese, vietnamese, somali, or iraqi-- dehumanizes the enemy, and by extension, the civilian population. the use of such terms is a shame when america (and its fighting force) is such a diverse and tolerant nation of immigrants, and yes, it is racism. we're better than that, and we should not judge ourselves by the standards of lesser nations in the world.
whether or not racism drove the conflict is a separate issue. it certainly did on the side of the japanese, who were trying to fulfill a racial imperative by conquering asia.
I can't really organize
I can't really organize these points so I'll just put them up and walk away.
Common folk wisdom among U.S. officers prior to Pearl Harbor was that the Japanese, due to their slanted eyes, possessed poor eyesight and were thus bad combat pilots.
After Pearl Harbor propaganda emphasized the "deviousness" of the Japanese. U.S. soldiers were instructed not to take prisoners out of fear of 'Japanese treachery'.
In addition to internment the military also sent Japanese-American GIs to Europe rather than the Pacific theater. They believed the soldiers would betray America if they found themselves facing Japanese troops. German-American soldiers were deployed on both theaters.
Not related to Japan but another sign of racism: African-American soldiers were segregated out of combat roles during the early period of U.S. involvement.
And a final note. In twenty years is this generation going to have to rationalize to the next why "Haji" wasn't a derogatory slur? Why islamic terrorists with intel on possible future attacks were tortured while white American Christian terrorists with intel on possible future attacks were not tortured? A significant portion of the American public can't tell the difference between Al Qaeda and Iraq; to them all Arabs look the same. The concept of reclassifying our captured middle eastern enemies as lawless, stateless and preordained guilty could be another example of low-level 21st century American racism. Only the 'civilized' races get to have EPW status.
It was true in WWII and it's true today.
I guess that was 3... but
I guess that was 3... but that should answer racism and terrorism
and then look into the 442nd Combat Regiment (Mr. Miyagi's unit) for your conclusion.
As someone who has lived in
As someone who has lived in Japan for 30 years, speaks two Asian languages, is married to a Japanese and had (extended) family on both sides of the war - I find it interesting that some here see racism as a "Western" problem. These people probably think that Asians of all nationalities would rather socialize with each other than with Americans or Europeans. Go to any undergraduate mixer with international students and see how untrue this is.
Racism is used by governments (both then and now) to sell policies to the home team and to stifle dissent. Witness Japanese on Chinese policies of the 30's and 40's, and Chinese on Japanese policies that continue to this day. Name a country pair in Asia where this is not used for government advantage. Name a subgroup in Asia that is not used for the same purpose.
"Apparently, we all wanted
"Apparently, we all wanted to annihilate each other because of our differences. Sounds like an excellent analysis of the situation."
I think that kinda sums up the entire experience of war. I consider myself to be a decent fun loving human being but if my fellow new South Welshmen went to war with our dirty southern Victoria neighbors would I be in the trenches calling them deformed child raping sons o bitches. maybe, if it got the boys riled up enough to actually pull the trigger.
And remember as you go further back through conflict you find lads less and less inclined to pull that trigger.
Its only recently that those young men and women who we send in to combat expect to pull that trigger. So if racism plays a part in the dehumanizing of your enemy are we expected to be shocked.
My first job, straight out
My first job, straight out of college, was headed by a USMC Iwo Jima veteran. He loved to tell war stories, and most were peppered with Jap racism talk. It was sort of a fever, you could tell, that had not quite burnt itself out in this otherwise great guy. Naturally, we all took it for what it was: an element of the Pacific war.
When my USMC cousin came back from the Vietnam war, boy was he racist against Asians- all Asians! It got to the point where we actually felt sorry for him over it.
Not long ago I looked over his old USMC boot camp yearbook, 1966. Inside, you find photos of drill sergeants using billboards containing racist caricatures of Asian enemies- I kid you not.
Hanks merely states the obvious, from my personal experience with folks and loved ones back from Asian wars.
Glenn raises an excellent
Glenn raises an excellent point that racism is a worldwide phenomena. It seems to be a natural tribal reaction in all human beings. Damn, you should hear indians talking about bangladeshi, or vietnamese on chinese. Russia is one of the most racist countries I have ever been to.
Paul Fussell's essays on
Paul Fussell's essays on this, compiled in "Thank God for the Atom Bomb", are illuminating. Corpses of the fallen on both sides in the Pacific were desecrated, but there were particularly nasty things done to those of the Japanese.
My father was at Tarawa
My father was at Tarawa (Betio), Kwajalein and with the occupation force in Japan (Nagasaki). Now, he was not a pleasant fellow, and later in life the brain tumor that eventually killed him was affecting his behavior, but I will say this: He never pulled out a single racist remark, not about the Japanese, not about anybody. He didn't talk about the war much, but when he did he refused to use euphamisms - he talked about the people he killed, and the friends he saw die. There was a kind of a journalistic quality to his descriptions of war in the Pacific.
Now my mom, on the other hand, was greatly affected by Pearl Harbor and the war. She married my father at age 16 before he deployed in '42, and didn't see him again for years. She hated the Japanese and everything about them for the rest of her life. A happy little tornado of an Irish woman, she was full of love and laughter - just none for the Japanese. She was never worldly, but to a large degree she was capable of differentiation between 'Asian' and 'Japanese', although if she couldn't tell for sure she tended to go with the assumption that a person was a 'Jap'.
I was never completely clear in my own mind whether she was profoundly affected by the fear in the early part of the war (she lived on the west coast, in northern california), the propaganda of the time or the fact that she spent years waiting to get the telegram that my father had been killed. Perhaps all three. But nonetheless interesting that the actual combat veteran with the shrapnel scars on his neck retained no apparent racist hatred or anger (of course, this says nothing about his time in theater), and it is the woman from the home front who held on to her hatred for the rest of her life...
mikey
1. Found myself in combat
1. Found myself in combat trying to stay alive, courtesy of my draft board and total lack of direction,
2. Developed a mild hatred for the Vietnamese based on fear and anger.
3. Call it racism if you will.
4. Felt similarly towards the black criminals who ruled the shanty-town outside the firebase I patrolled out of.
5. You could call that racism, also.
6. At 19 years of age, was angry that the Vietnamese were ungrateful for and resistant to our efforts on their behalf.
7. Hear similar comments from troops back from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
8. Believed that as Americans we were blessed and anointed.
9. Still believe that to some degree, despite the efforts of popular culture to downgrade the worth of our society.
10. My father, a WWII combat veteran looked askance at me when I showed up at his house driving a Honda car.
11. OTH, never heard him make a racist comment of any sort.
12. The whole business is complex and confusing. Particularly if viewed through a lens which considers any hint of racism as heinous.
13. Events that lead to broken, bleeding and dead bodies are heinous. Just can't get worked up to the same degree over accusations of racism.
14. Listening to people in a position of authority did me little good forty years ago. Tend to to be skeptical of pronouncements coming from suits -whether it be Tom Hanks, GEN Casey or Nancy Pelosi.
V/R JW
I am also with Glenn on this
I am also with Glenn on this one - another example is anyone who has dealt with the Iraqi Kurds and Arabs can tell you how much love they have for each other. Go ahead and call either one the name of the other - I dare you :).
Tom Hanks should be quiet
Tom Hanks should be quiet and focus on the Bosom Buddies remake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_Buddies
"Faithful Warriors: A Combat
"Faithful Warriors: A Combat Marine Remembers the Pacific War," recently published by Naval Institute Institute Press, is the best combat memoir since Sledge's book, and addresses the issue of what motivated Marines and soldiers in the war against Japan. Those interested in the subject should read it.
I get a nickel every time
I get a nickel every time Andrew Exum tells readers he's been in combat. In terms of accruing wealth, it's s better than having a good stock portfolio in a bull market.
I can speak about the
I can speak about the Australian experience in WWII and there is no doubt that my Grandparents’ generation were extremely racist towards Japanese people - not only during the war but long after it.
This is largely because of much publicized stories of Japanese cruelty towards Australian POWs in places like Changi Prison. While the POW experience was no doubt varied – the stories of cruelty stuck.
I remember my Grandmother telling me about a friend of hers, a former Australian nurse, who was captured and used as a sex slave by Japanese officers. The Japanese kidnapped thousands of women, largely Korean and Chinese, and forced to work in military brothels as ‘comfort women.’
This racism does not exist among young Australians today (thankfully) and Japan is up there as Australia’s biggest trading partner.
But there is no doubt that racism towards Japanese was prevalent among Australians during WW2. To fight a war, you need to demonize your enemy. And that wasn’t necessarily hard to do, given the stories coming out of places like Changi.
Love your blog Andrew, hope you are well.
Sarah
Imagine the British major in
Imagine the British major in Burma, 1943:
"Well, chaps, now it's time to tell you about our enemy. It is important to remember, that they are human beings just as we are, and so are endowed with the same divine rights. Remember, we are at war with Japanese government and their militarist samurai elite, not with Japanese people in uniform. All catcalls like "Kill the Japs!" are preventing us from winning hearts and minds of ordinary Japanese and as such will be severely punished.
In the course of a coming offense you'll probably come upon POW camps that Japanese had established after taking Malaya. You will pay no attention to the emaciated condition of survivors, pyramids of sculls of the beheaded and bamboo groves grown through the bodies of spreadeagled and tied down British soldiers, who were no more able to work. In dealing with Japanese prisoners you will adhere to every letter of the law of war, because, remember, those people are just like you and me".
Is it already clear and obvious how anachronistic and ahistorical all this non-discussion really is?
1. Visitor at 10:10
1. Visitor at 10:10 obviously was not in combat.
2. Do not find Mr. Exum to be overly self-indulgent.
3. Most of the topics he deals with have a military connection. Combat experience will be the major decider in how you view military events.
4. Two points:
A. 10:10 appears jealous.
B. For most, combat experience was a matter of being in the wrong place at the right time. Mr. Exum put his head in the lion's mouth twice of his own volition. The second time, he knew what he was in for. Once was enough for most of us.
V/R JW
I would agree with several
I would agree with several posts, "demonizing the enemy" and anachronistic.
what is getting lost is 'what is the definition of racism.' my grand-uncle (a Filipino) was a Bataan Death March survivor and he hated Japanese {insert noun here}. Racist?
He celebrates August 6 and August 9 as holidays and on both days he would say, "I wish Harry [Truman] had 20 [nuclear] bombs." And they he would imply that all of them should have been dropped. I guess he's a 'racist.'
He hates Japanese cars and refuses to even ride in them. He reads labels to see if there is a "Made in Japan" and would refuse to buy it if it did. Hmm is he a racist?
His neighbors in CA were all Japanese and when I asked if he hated them he replied, "Why should I? Their relatives probably tortured me so why should I hold it against them." I don't think he went so far as to call them 'friends' though.
I would only add that "racism" prism needs to get defined and how that differs from the word, "bigot". I might use that word to describe him.
(on a lighter note- If he heard some petty gripe he pointedly would say, "Things could be worse. You could be tortured by the Japanese.")
What Ms Rabinowitz should
What Ms Rabinowitz should ponderis that how Americans treat or should treat their fellow citizens that are Muslims is that when hatred towards any group gets stirred up, even rhetorically, you can't control the way the wind blows. Once you release the magic powers of bigotry, even if that is NOT what you think you are doing, you don't know where it will end and who else, unintended, will be hurt, including yourself.
My experience in Vietnam was
My experience in Vietnam was pretty similar to yours, Andrew. Speaking only for myself and my unit, I'd have to say that we hated the little bastards with a passion but that hatred had a lot more to do with the fact that they were trying to kill us than it did with their being Asians. We had all kinds of derogatory names for them but looking back on it the purpose was more to objectify them rather than vilify them. It's just easier to kill a gook than it is to kill a fellow human being.
paul, apparently you did not
paul, apparently you did not kill enough.
Hello! keeddee interesting
Hello! keeddee interesting keeddee site!
Very nice site!
Very nice site!
This is a good post. I hate
This is a good post. I hate wars. i wish there is no wars any more in the world.
sinus bradycardia
Add your comment