Miguel de Maria -> RE: Late night shop drawings (Feb. 28 2015 17:56:38)
|
Bill, Was my post the first ad-hominem here? I had perceived your jibes at post-modernism and non-historians arguing history to be directed towards me. If they were not, then I do indeed owe you an apology and I am embarrassed. In any case, I hope you will concede that repeatedly bringing up the Sokal hoax does not qualify as evidence and has no place in a serious debate. If one group of post-modernists had been discredited, what does that have to do with me or this thread? I grew up in a time where post-modernism was a prominent feature of the liberal arts. Art, literature, and architecture. Perhaps because of this--or perhaps because of other reasons--I tend to approach the "party line"--that is, establishment pronouncements about current events and history--with skepticism. It's a starting point, not a fixed position. Is this ideology? **** >Miguel, you certainly have attempted to establish a false equivalency between Japan's aggression against its Asian neighbors and the United States, and the United >States going to war against Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. There is no false equivalency. The US has been throughout its history expansionistic and militaristic. It occupied all of North America, then claimed South America, and continued to project its power to other parts of the world. Even now, it spends as much on its military as what, the next seven countries? Japan's neighbors may have bad feelings about its actions, but do you think the Native Americans felt fairly treated? In sum: Aggressive? Japan, check. The US, check. If you perceived that my argument was that the US's retaliation to Pearl Harbor was unjustified, then you have grossly misunderstood me. Perhaps the fault is mine for lack of organization in presenting my thoughts. But then again, these were for the most part random comments in response to your remarks. **** >And I have never suggested that "the U.S. cannot possibly be criticized in any way" or that I "need for the U.S. to be 100 percent right in every way." That is >imply a facile attempt to launch an ad hominem attack on me in lieu of offering evidence and arguments against my position on the subject under discussion. Where have you ever admitted otherwise? In any of our several discussions on geopolitical affairs, you have never once conceded any wrongdoing or responsibility on the part of the US. Perhaps you have and I missed it. >I offered an explanation of Japan's actions and aggression from the beginning of the Meiji Restoration up to and including World War II. This is what you wrote: >>Japan began "aping" (as you put it) Western technology and structure during the Meiji Restoration beginning in 1868. It was an internally-driven dynamic >>designed to turn Japan into a power. At the time, and as it continued its industrial and military buildup during the first half of the 20th century, there was no "far >>more aggressive civilization" attempting to "swallow up" Japan. In response to what I wrote: >They were an aggressive, dominant, militaristic culture that aped Western technology and structure in order to avoid being swallowed up by a far more aggressive >civilization--and lost. I see no evidence, simply a narrative. You wrote that Japan wanted to emulate the West for its own purposes. I wrote that Japan wanted to emulate the West to avoid being subjugated. To expand on that, the "far more aggressive civilization" of which I speak was, of course, the West, which had recently colonized other parts of Asia and China. The US sent warships to Japan in order to force it to trade (that is, Japan had natural resources the US wanted), a warlike action. Japan wished to avoid being dominated in the way that China had been. This desire played a large part in its modernization/militarization effort. I did not cite these facts because I considered them common knowledge. I am bewildered that you have ignored them. **** >I detailed Japan's aggression and occupation of its Asian neighbors from the 19th century to World War II. Which was noted. Please refer to the earlier part of my post which describes the US as similarly aggressive. **** >And I offered an explanation for why Asian countries have not fully accepted Japan in the way that European countries have fully accepted Germany. That, by the way, is a position gained in large measure through talks with Asian officials with whom I have discussed the issue. Your line of reasoning is that: Japan was aggressive and did not fully apologize, and so the rest of Asia does not embrace it. The evidence you offered was a contention that the apologies were weak. Now you add that Asian officials privately told you this was the case. I am not really sure how one systematically compares apologies. I linked to a page of dozens of Japanese apologies that seemed to be adequate. Many of these are from Prime Ministers, the equivalent of our President, as I understand it, and other highly-placed officials. Other officials have, in several (?) cases, made statements that were much less sincere. Is it really surprising that different people, that different factions, within a country have different positions? How could such a situation make a material effect on geopolitical reality? Perhaps it is the case that what you say is so, but I will forbear from conceding to such a sweeping statement without far more evidence. Do you accept that the Asian officials' dissatisfaction with Japanese apologies is more important than the national interests involved? I am truly curious. **** >The problem is that your ideological predisposition prevents you from considering any points of view that do not comport with your own. Incorrect, I have considered every point of view offered in this thread. Japan has been a nasty, warlike country, as you have pointed out. Also like Stephen said, a trait of its culture as a whole is its ability to mimic. If you say Japan is not accepted by its neighbors because it apologizes poorly, then I have to accept that as possibly true. Yet that is a difficult contention to prove, and you have not done so. **** To turn to your own ideology, how am to interpret a post where castigate Japan (correctly in my view) for its colonization of surrounding areas but then, apparently unreflectively, write: >The United States had taken over Hawaii originally because of agricultural interests, and, after the Spanish-American War, it served as a naval presence and way >station to the Philippines. Did you not notice that you refer to the US seizing former Spanish territories (ie, the Spanish-American War) in addition to seizing Hawaii (previously owned by natives who were subsequently dominated by US settlers) in the same post as you attempt to deny equivalency between the US and Japan as aggressive countries? Surely you are exhibiting ideological bias if you do not notice both countries have been imperialistic? ***** >It is you who have offered no evidence to counter my position. You simply make statements that lack supporting evidence, which, I gather, you consider justified >as long as they appear to advance your ideological agenda. As I pointed out earlier, I have not cited historical data I considered commonly known. Bill, if you forgive me, I do not see that you have appended much historical data here, either. If you look back closely at what you have written, you have stated narratives, but not evidence. Evidence is data that supports your broad statements--the statements themselves do not qualify. For example: >Admiral Perry opened up Japan in 1854, and after the Japanese went through the Meiji Restoration in 1868 and beyond, they clearly were enamored of the >industrial and military capacity of the West and wanted to emulate it. This is a narrative, but the evidence that supports it is missing. In your following paragraph, you _do_, by contrast give evidence (third sentence): >One of the main reasons for those unresolved consequences of WWII in Asia is the inability or unwillingness of the Japanese to formally apologize for their aggression and the atrocities they committed in the Asian theatre of operations, not to mention Pearl Harbor. Their "apologies" are always couched in indirect terms such as "caused suffering," "past relations are regrettable," and "remorse." The closest thing to an absolute apology was when Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama declared in 1995 that Japan’s “colonial rule and aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering,” while expressing his “remorse.” However, your evidence was completely rebutted by _my_ citation of Japanese war apologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan Which, although apparently the point of this thread, you completely ignored. ***** >And you apparently have decided that a personal attack substitutes for an evidence-based challenge. That you have resorted to an ad hominem attack does not become you, and it simply serves to confirm that you have no arrows left in your intellectual quiver. Again, I perceived you to be inserting jibes against me (the post-modern, non-historian remarks). I apologize for stepping across the boundaries of polite conversation if these were not meant as indirect attacks. I do wonder, in the midst of your charges of ideology to me, if you consider yourself free of such bias? I know that you consider yourself to have a rational and scientific outlook. Indeed I have complete confidence in your grasp of historical facts. However, confirmation bias--focusing on facts that support predetermined positions and ignoring those which contradict it--is such a hard thing to perceive in oneself. I feel learning about my own biases and blind spots is a worthy goal, if damned uncomfortable. It appears to me that you are only interested in those facts which show the US in the most pacifistic, moral, and innocuous light, in other words, you have a nationalistic or conservative bias. For what it's worth, I am a "fan" of the US as well--but perhaps not enough of one for many people's tastes. We are not going to change the course of history or how it is viewed here in the Off-topic section. What is most interesting to me is the interaction of our various personalities, the filters of differing perspectives and life experiences, and somehow finding some small bit of common ground, that bit of the Venn diagram where things overlap. It really is fascinating to me that you and I can read the same sentences and focus on completely different things, that I what I consider important facts you completely ignore, that what I consider an obvious similarity you can vehemently deny. Perhaps it really is as simple as the fact that your knowledge of this subject is so much greater than mine that no two-sided discussion can possibly occur. It also may be the case that you are misinterpreting some of my arguments. I have to tried to organize things as well as I am able in this post.
|
|
|
|