17 years ago I asked my future father in law for his daughter’s hand in marriage. Surprisingly or suspiciously, he quickly offered it up and then we spent the rest of the night drinking beer and sake. The next step was to introduce me to the relatives, so a family reunion was arranged at the grandmother’s farmhouse in Chiba. Aunts, uncles, and cousins came from Tokyo, Kyoto, and Shikoku to meet me, the goofy American that would soil their gene pool.
Grandmother was a semi-retired rice farmer and had taken care of the farm ever since grandfather had died of a stroke some 30 years earlier. As we pulled into the dirt driveway, we saw her standing in the doorway, cane in hand and flashing us a smile that exposed two of her remaining three teeth. It was a large, traditional Japanese house with a small garden attached and a few persimmon trees on the western side. Mother quickly waddled from the car and gave grandmother a succession of quick bows. No hugging. This is Japan where you could go a decade as an adult and not even realize you haven’t touched either of your parents. Father gave a formal bow to his mother-in-law and my wife followed with the same. Of course, I did likewise, but to me the grandmother flashed a grin and chuckled slightly.
Finally, all the relatives showed up and we had a dinner of hairy crab, shabu shabu, vegetables from the garden and beer from the liquor store. Lots of beer from the liquor store because father likes to drink on vacation. A little prodding about where I was from and my natto abilities by the relatives, but otherwise they treated me like a new member of the family. I only wish I had understood more than 8% of what they were telling me.
Around nine o’clock grandmother was ready for bed. The uncles, aunts and cousins left to stay at a nearby hotel and mother and my wife went off to bed after taking a bath. Father, God bless him, stayed up drinking with me until 11pm before his head got wobbly. I helped father up and asked him where I was sleeping. Not being technically married yet meant that my wife and I couldn’t sleep in the same room even though we were living together in Tokyo. Grandmother’s house, grandmother’s rules. Father gathered his wits enough to make zero sense, so I had no idea what room to go to.
I walked down the hallway and saw my luggage stacked neatly in front of a fusuma, so I slid it open to see if that was my room for the next two nights. The curtains were open so the moonlight shone into the tatami room. I couldn’t find the light switch, so it took a few moments for my eyes to adjust. In the center of the room was a perfectly made up futon and pillow. The only other thing on the floor was a butsudan against the wall with a black and white framed picture of a man that must have been grandpa. About two thirds up the wall were dozen framed pictures of scowling men, some of them in WW2 soldier uniforms. They were hung in a manner that allowed them to lean forward and it seemed like they were all staring directly at the pillow. Right where I, the American who was banging one of theirs, was to sleep.
Rural Chiba in the winter is dead silent at night. No streetlights or passing cars to flash in the window allowed for the perfect environment for the moon to do its business on the room. I undressed and crawled under the futon and spread out on my back, scanning the men who were obsessed with me. This was grandma’s prayer room and she had decided this is where I needed to sleep.
The scowling men weren’t really scowling I figured out after staring back at them for a few minutes. These were Japanese men of the early 20th century and you didn’t smile in pictures then. These were men whose lives were necessary for me to have the wife I have. Even the soldiers, at whom I first recoiled at upon seeing, became human. One of them was about 30, which was my age at the time. He had on the flat Japanese army hat and a few medals pinned to his chest. All of them were dead now and grandma was praying for them every morning.
Do I hate what Japan did in WW2? Without hesitation. But I didn’t realize until then that I didn’t really hate the average Japanese person who lived at that time. These were fathers and sons that had been sucked from their rice farms to kill other men on the whims of their government. Should all the memories from the Japanese that died in the war be locked into a museum like some kind of eternal prison of shame for China and Korea to wield like a baton for political advantage? I watch what’s happening in the U.S. and the scorn and hatred for Southern heritage and think, “Why can’t they honor their dead?”
Very interesting corollary. From the standpoint of “do whatever you want, just don’t force me to pay for it or support it” I don’t care what memorials do or don’t exist, so partially I am against even making this argument because that accepts their idiotic premise. However, I do appreciate that it is could be a compelling case for those on the fence.
Well written and reasoned. All people should be allowed to mourn their dead. This doesn’t diminish history’s judgement on their cause. Allowing people to mourn their dead allows us to view them as individuals, something they were denied in war.
I might add, though, that this was my favorite line:
“They were hung in a manner that allowed them to lean forward and it seemed like they were all staring directly at the pillow. Right where I, the American who was banging one of theirs, was to sleep.”
This was my favorite line:
mother and my wife went off to bed after taking a bath
I assumed that there was one of those fancy communal bath things that I’ve heard about in eastern cultures.
Yes, I am sure you are correct. Just being glib.
Riven is kind of right. They did take a bath together. Oddly enough, today is Keironohi or Respect-For-The-Aged day and a common practice is for children to wash their parent’s or grandparent’s backs in the bathroom.
Aww…that’s so sweet and just a little weird.
I’ve always wanted to go to a bath house like that… ever since I saw one for the first time in Sailor Moon.
._.”
…go on.
Naruto here. 😛
Shogun here.
Disrobing in public, though… eugh.
Lol! Well, at least I’m not the only one who grew up watching Toonami and developed a deep fascination for Eastern culture.
I would definitely try it, despite being a little uncomfortable about “disrobing in public,” as commodious said.
This thread has turned into a Sugar Free story rather quickly
Not enough kink…
Oh My Goddess for me.
Very nice, Straff. A very interesting read, and you make a very good point as well.
Nice article Straffin.
I had a similar experience in ’98. I was working in Tokyo for several months and one day it was Pearl Harbor day. Looking around the office, I realized that all my new friends in the office and I would have been bitter enemies 40 some years earlier.
The post war relationship between America and Japan is a modern miracle. It took mere decades to achieve in Japan what took centuries for America to achieve with England.
Same for Germany.
I met a German girl a while back, she was born just after reunification. Her family lived in East Germany. When I tried asking questions she seemed almost like she had no idea about East Germany. Made me wonder what they teach about their own history there.
If I were East Germany I would whitewash the shit out of the cold war. No need to make yourself look worse than you already do historically.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/85325/kolejka
Poland is trying to teach the history.
Shame. And that’s about it.
But to straffinrun’s point, can’t really blame it on the East Germans. They had no choice at all. Before they built the wall over 2 million left via West Berlin, then after the wall, lots of heroic people got killed trying to get out.
Beautiful piece. It gets to a thing I’ve been sorting through in my head for a while now. It seems really weird to me that, over the last decade or two, we’ve come to insisting heroes be fighting for the right cause (or maybe I’ve just noticed it more as I’ve gotten older). But, that seems insanity in itself. Almost no one who fights in a war fights on behalf of a cause. Every veteran I’ve heard from insists that he was mostly worried about staying alive and not seeing his buddies get killed. But, if that’s the case, there’s no more reason to think that your enemies can’t just as easily have their own heroes. Are we to think that people who fought gallantly and nobly are somehow less gallant and noble because their politicians were worse than our politicians?
Almost no one who fights in a war fights on behalf of a cause.
You might volunteer because of a cause, but I think that motivation quickly fades once you are in the military machine.
If you are part of a conscript army, then I think it pretty much goes without saying that you are there because you have to be, and are doing what you need to do to get out alive.
“You might volunteer because of a cause, but I think that motivation quickly fades once you are in the military machine.”
You fight for the people next to you. They call it a band of brothers (not going to figure out how to make that PC for the woke people) for a reason..
I like what you’ve brought up here. I think a big problem is that to some people, EVERYTHING has to be about politics as seen through the filter of today’s popular opinions.
And they demand perfection. No matter how great your accomplishment or contribution, if you did but one thing that they have on that list that changes daily that defines the heretics, you are to be undone. That is unless you claim to be a proggy. Then you are a hero even when you you use your office as a means to cajole easily cowed chubby young interns to let you use their private parts as a humidor.
Or you can be totally un-progressive, but part of a prog-anointed ethnic or religious group.
When people are shooting at you, I doubt that your motivation for fighting is anything other than ‘I want to live’.
I was just thinking about this yesterday. The average American probably has a pretty low opinion for the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, or Kriegsmarine personnel, but I don’t think it’s quite fair to paint them all as irredeemably evil because of what Hitler did. For starters, a lot of them were conscripted. And I think a lot of them probably wanted to stop a Soviet invasion of their country (which, when it happened, involved a lot of looting and rape followed by decades of the horrors of communism).
And I think a lot of them probably wanted to stop a Soviet invasion of their country (which, when it happened, involved a lot of looting and rape followed by decades of the horrors of communism).
During the last stages of the European war, I understand that some? many? German army units on their western front were essentially either pulling back and heading east to fight the Russians, or standing aside to let the Americans and English cover as much ground as possible to keep the Russians from taking it. The Germans knew the gig was up, and knew that they would rather be under the western allies than the Soviets. In fact, the main reason the Russians took Berlin was because FDR agreed to let them extract their revenge on the Germans. It may be the last time in modern history that a capital city was declared an “open city”, meaning the conquering army had license to loot, rape, and kill. And they did. It wasn’t Nanking bad, but it was definitely a massive war crime that was swept under the rug.
The Germans got what they deserved.
Did the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, … deserve it too?
RC Dean said that the capture of Berlin and Germany by the Soviet Army was very brutal. It was. You know why? Because no matter how harshly Russians treated Germans at the end of war it was not any worse than how Germans treated Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Germans knew what they did on the Eastern Front and tried very hard to surrender to the Western allies.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up Hungary, Poland or Czechoslovakia.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up Hungary, Poland or Czechoslovakia.
I think the point is that, if the Germans got what they deserved, what they got was also gotten by the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians. And I think any honest assessment will say Soviets were pretty damned brutal in their treatment of those groups while passing through to deal with the Germans.
As I read it, R C Dean’s comment was about both the destruction of Berlin by the Red Army and the occupation of Germany by the Soviet Union. The latter of these was inflicted upon Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia as well as Germany.
I’m not aware of any particular hostility from the Soviet troops toward the population of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia at the end of WW2. They were liberated from the Nazis by the army that was exhausted after long years of fighting. So, I’m sure it wasn’t as photogenic as Canadians welcomed in Belgium or Holland. But any hatred among the Soviet soldiers was directed toward the Germans, not the Poles or Czechs.
The Soviets – were not particularly gentle liberators. This is a reasonable, summary.
Read this:
Red Army troops raped even Russian women as they freed them from camps
But any hatred among the Soviet soldiers was directed toward the Germans, not the Poles or Czechs.
The Soviets pretty clearly had two goals in “liberating” Poland: getting to Germany and ensuring Poland did not become independent. Despite benefiting from the sabotage and guerilla fighting, the Soviets treated the Polish resistance as an obstacle at best and no different from the German forces at worst. They deported Polish resistance fighters to Siberia when they took territory from the Germans and they stood outside of Warsaw offering no assistance to the Polish resistance when they rose up against the Germans, waiting until they had been crushed to do anything.
The Germans deserved it, the Poles didn’t.
Neither did the French.
Really makes you think they might have been safer at an American college!
The Germans deserved it, the Poles didn’t.
Really? The Germans “deserved” this?
grrizzly, are you seriously comparing the magnitude of the crimes committed by US soldiers during their time in England vs those committed by the Red Army during the 1944-1945 period?
For one, the amounts committed differ by at least two orders of magnitude, and that is if you believe the worst case for the US, and the best for the Soviets.
Again, it’s this conceit that “they’re all the same”, and they really aren’t even close. If you’re desperate to hang a mass rape case on the Allies, go read about the Marocchianate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate
The most famous movie that was inspired by that atrocity, Two Women, is supposed to have one of Sophia Loren’s best-acted roles.
Stalin deliberately refused any assistance to the Warsaw Uprising.
The Germans “deserved” this?
That’s how people react after 27 million of their compatriots perished during the war. The war that was deliberately started to “kill, deport, or enslave the majority of Russian and other Slavic populations and repopulate the land with Germanic peoples, under the Generalplan Ost.” Nothing to be proud of, but that’s human nature.
So, two wrongs make a right?
That’s how people react after 27 million of their compatriots perished during the war.
Saying “that’s what happened” or even “no surprise that’s what happened” is a long way from saying “they deserved it”, which is another way of saying “there was nothing wrong with it, and under the same circumstances I would do the same and expect everyone I know to do the same.”
I’m hoping you’re more on the former end of the spectrum than the latter, because I cannot even begin to justify and defend the Red Army’s conduct toward the end of the war. They committed massive, systematic war crimes, and their commanders should have been hung for it.
I cannot even begin to justify and defend the Red Army’s conduct toward the end of the war.
Too bad, because they are the people who defeated Nazi’s Germany in Europe. The Western allies had an important but mostly supporting role. [I visited a whole bunch of museums on the Normandy beaches this summer, so it’s not like I’m unaware of it.] You may not like it but no victory over Hitler was achievable without the Soviet Army. The Soviet soldiers may not be the liberators of Europe from Hitler we want but they are the ones we have.
The scale of the German atrocities on the Eastern Front is rarely discussed in the US: WWII is all about the Holocaust for the Americans. All actions committed by the Germans during the invasion of the Soviet Union were war crimes, the attitude displayed by the Germans toward the POWs and local population was completely different in the East and the West because Slavs (unlike Western Europeans) were Untermenschen for the Nazis. It should not be surprising that the conduct of the Soviet Army was affected by the end of the war by the enemy they were fighting.
Yes, the Germans got what they justly deserved.
Especially the children.
If you’re interested and haven’t read it, Beevor’s “The Fall of Berlin” is excellent, if grim. The Germans had some idea of what to expect because they had some idea of what had happened in Russia. Vienna, as I recall, was also brutalized.
The people of Berlin also knew what had happened in East Prussia.
On the drive from the airport to downtown Moscow, there is a memorial with a bunch of big metal structures. That’s how close the Germans got to Moscow. Under ten minutes on the freeway from the memorial to downtown Moscow. The Russians had a right to be aggrieved with the Germans.
The national socialists and the international socialists went at it, and it was a pity both sides couldn’t lose.
My mom grew up in Cambridge, England during the war. It being a college town, some of her relatives had rented rooms to students before the war, and Cambridge being a pretty prestigious university, a lot of the students were foreign. Apparently, one of her aunts and cousin’s house got hit by a bomb when Germany was bombing England generally. I don’t know all the details, but apparently the family found out that a German pilot captured as a POW had a breakdown when he found out about the house getting blown up. He’d been one of their student boarders
And I think a lot of them probably wanted to stop a Soviet invasion of their country
That was, you know, preventable before June 1941.
That was, you know, preventable before June 1941.
The Nazis and the Soviets were going to war sooner or later. The only way to prevent the Soviets from invading Germany eventually was to defeat the Red Army further east. The Germans got geared up for the war quicker, so they invaded first, but there is no doubt in my mind that there was going to be an eastern front.
Say what you want about Stalin but he didn’t start a war with Germany. The country that invades another country, which causes death of 27 million people in the Soviet Union, has nothing to complain about it when it gets defeated. To their credit, the Germans don’t do it. In fact the post-war generations of Germans have been bearing the guilt toward the Russians. They might have led them to withdraw from criticizing the Soviet Union at times, but that’s something for the Germans to deal with.
And the Finns…
Read “The Bloodlands” if you think Stalin was better than Hitler. There was a reason the Ukrainians, Belo-Russ and Baltic States welcomed the Germans- Stalin had been exterminating them.
The Bloodlands is a very good history of how the Eastern Euros were screwed over by the USSR, Germant and then the USSR again.
Say what you want about Stalin but he didn’t start a war with Germany.
Well, he actually started a war with Germany as his ally. He had zero qualms about being an aggressor against other nations.
And nobody should have any illusions that the Reds and the Nazis weren’t going to war sooner rather than later. Germany beat him to the punch, certainly. Probably, if memory serves, by about a year.
Did German soldiers get up in their barracks every morning in 1943, and gleefully anticipate the prospect of being evil? Of course not.
Black Hat/White Hat distinctions are the preserve of simpletons and shallow thinkers, but here we are, surrounded by simpletons and shallow thinkers, who think “problematic” history can be erased by hiding the artifacts that remind us of the problems.
Obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
By far and away the single funniest Nazi joke in history.
Hilarious!
Hans, are we the baddies?
They are in great company. Most of the Islamist cults out there use the same tactics to sell themselves…
Not necessarily, but that pre-suppose that the IJA fought as gallantly as the Allies. Despite the sometimes-stated conceit in Libertarian discussions of foreign policy, all countries, and all of their armies, are not the same, are not interchangeable, and they don’t all behave the same way. Some armies do fight more honorably than others.
The IJA fought well—the invasion of Singapore is a classic of land warfare, defeating a bastion of the British Army and Navy, with an inferior numerical force—and they also committed some of the most horrifyingly baroque war crimes of the 20th Century. Nanking is familiar to most, but go also read about what the IJA did to Manila before they were driven off. 100,000 dead Filipinos, the IJA found time to rape and butcher, while they were also in theory occupied with fighting off an American invasion.
Plus a predilection for cutting the heads off of POW’s just “because” doesn’t endear them to me.
In the heat of combat war crimes sometimes happen and it is well known that you don’t want to surrender to those who you were trying to kill moments before. Human nature in combat is unchanging for our species.
But when your culture says that PW’s have no humanity because they surrendered so killing them far removed from combat is a good thing – then that culture deserves to be on the ash heap of history. Germany, the USSR and Japan all were guilty of sustained and officially sanctioned crimes against PW’s, civilian populations (both their own and enemy) and dissidents. Good riddance to them all.
I really don’t get people who hold grudges over things that happened before they were born. But, it seems a common human trait, one which causes many of the problems in the world.
Historical ignorance is a dangerous thing.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/09/17/sam-houston-ben-franklin-thomas-jefferson-among-dallas-isd-campuses-require-research-possible-name-changes
Dallas ISD is set to remove the names of noted confederate generals Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Sam Houston from its schools. Ben Franklin owned zero slaves in his life and Sam Houston refused to swear allegiance to the confederacy. Historical ignorance is a hell of a drug. Get woke
Of all people, Sam Houston is persona no grata in Texas?
Sam Houston is probably why Harvey hit the US.
/prog
I can’t wait for them to run out of statuary and start demanding towns and cities are renamed.
Madison, WI becomes what? Zeidlergrad?
Don’t be daft. Marx, WI of course. Or maybe Caitlyn Jenner, WI. Your choice.
To be fair, I think most Madison residents would applaud that change.
No way. She’s a Republican.
“Marxgrad”
Or entire states, like Washington.
I sure hope Amerigo Vespucci doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet.
He’s Italian. You know who else allied with the Italians?
Chrysler?
The Teamsters?
Queen Isabel?
We dodged a bullet on that one. We could’ve been the United States of Vespucci.
Uh-oh “The expedition found some gold, pearls, and emeralds and captured some slaves for sale, but still was not very profitable.“
Yeah, but they weren’t black so it was OK.
If you watch a lot of anime there are a ton of passive aggressive digs at America and their use of atomic weapons. I have lost track of how many animes I have seen where the bad guy is either actually America (or a thinly veiled proxy thereof) or some other western shadow organization, and how often the story involves the bad guy using nukes to level a city of innocents because they were losing.
Sometimes, it’s not subtle at all. Fear Team Evil!
What? I don’t remember a single reference to the US (or western countries) in that movie.
There is a fair argument to be made that the dropping of nuclear bombs was immoral and unnecessary. Such noted anti-Americans like General Eisenhower and Senator Robert Taft believed this to be true
Anything that indiscriminately kills and targets known civilian population centers is inherently evil, so I would agree with them.
The Romans want to disagree with that idea. And so does the concept of war. We have sanitized it to the point today where we can think of it in these ludicrous terms, which is why we will sooner than later end up with a real ugly one. The best way to avoid war has always been to make sure the enemy know you would kill all its people and break everything of value to them. Short but brutal. We have forgotten that, which is why we have more and endless wars now.
The point of progress is to make the world a less violent and dangerous place. The fact that massive civilian casualties are no longer acceptable in war is a testament to that progress, and undoing that would be a fatal error. Also, I’m not sure where you got the idea that we have ‘more and endless wars now’ since the modern wars have been significantly less bloody than anything prior to WW2.
The fact that massive civilian casualties are no longer acceptable in war is a testament to that progress, and undoing that would be a fatal error.
There’s another part of this, which is “what counts as victory”. For a long time, through the end of WWII, it was US doctrine that if we went to war, it was to unconditionally defeat the enemy, which requires “total war”.
Now, we don’t go to war to unconditionally defeat the enemy, and so instead we fight innumerable “small” limited wars which drag on, as such wars will, for long periods of time and impose their own costs. Since we don’t really fight wars in the old sense of the word any more, we don’t even bother to declare war, with the solemnity and reluctance that should require. Instead, we pass vague “authorizations” that metastasize into regional small wars.
It also use to be American policy to reflexively avoid wars that did not impact our national security (up until the turn of the 20th Century for a brief period, before we reverted back to our previous position until WWII).
The fact that massive civilian casualties are no longer acceptable in war is a testament to that progress, and undoing that would be a fatal error.
Which planet do you live on? I live on the one where the U.S. government targets Pakistani weddings and classifies any male over the age of fifteen as an ‘enemy combatant’ in a war they haven’t declared.
John, I maintain a certain skepticism regarding claims that a particular gathering of Pakistanis who caught a bomb was a “wedding” or “birthday party”. I’m sure we’ve bombed some, sure, but considering the source of the information, I don’t take these claims at face value.
Eisenhower’s views:
He was wrong about world opinion. I think he was an outlier, at the least, on his view that the Japanese were defeated and would surrender on acceptable terms. The US was also beginning to worry about its ability to sustain the war in the Pacific with a war-weary public. At a minimum, I see it as a topic that was debatable, and in the context of this industrial/mass war, the atomic bombs were within the range of acceptable tactics, especially following the firebombing Tokyo and other cities which produced similar(ish) results.
” I think he was an outlier, at the least, on his view that the Japanese were defeated”
Richard B. Frank’s “Downfall” makes this very clear. There was no clear decision on the part of the Japanese High Command to seek terms after Hiroshima. Frank also documents how many people were dying monthly in territories still occupied by the Japanese.
There were others who questioned the wisdom of dropping the bomb, including Robert Taft (he and Eisenhower are the only ones that come to my mind at this time), who also claimed that the Nuremberg trials were ‘victors justice’ (which is not entirely untrue either).
I think everyone should agree, though, that there is no morality in war and to assign ‘good guy’ and ‘bad guy’ monikers retroactively is asinine and dangerous. The more people understand the evil perpetuated by all sides during war, the more cautious they will be in consenting to war.
I am quite comfortable calling the SS, Taliban, HIG and Jaish al Mahdi the “bad guys”.
Some conscript grunt in the Iraqi Army of 2003 or German Army of 1944…not so much (always depending on individual behavior).
This Eisenhower quote gets cited frequently, but it omits the fact that Eisenhower is making a judgment from thousands of miles away. He had absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of the war in the Pacific. Six weeks prior to Hiroshima, the Japanese were still fighting on Okinawa, a battle for a small island that nevertheless took two months and 82,000 casualties to capture. Yes, Japan’s defeat was already certain, but their willingness to surrender was far from demonstrated at the beginning of August.
It’s easy to play morality police with 20/20 vision. At that time there was a choice for unconditional surrender between bombing, an invasion that probably would have killed a lot of Americans, a starvation plan that probably would have killed a lot of Japanese, and letting the Soviets take over most of East Asia. Rough choice but it was probably the best one given the information they had.
*20/20 hindsight argh.
I’m not playing morality police retroactively. I’m saying that men who experienced the war first hand, such as Eisenhower, disagreed with the use of nuclear weapons. I’m actually saying that we should NOT be playing morality police in retrospect, because there is no morality in war, just as there are no ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. And that is the problem with the mentality today. We are fed lies about who were the righteous combatants in conflicts, when no one is righteous or pure. The bombing of Dresden, for example, had no strategic purpose other than punishing the Germans. Sherman’s March to the Sea served no purpose other than breaking the will of the Southern population by virtual starvation.
They should teach World War I in colleges more. That was a conflict that highlighted the stupidity and pointlessness of most war. Who was the ‘good guy’ and ‘bad guy’ in that war?
Sherman’s March to the Sea served no purpose other than breaking the will of the Southern population by virtual starvation.
Sounds like it served a purpose. The breaking of the morale of the core civilian population in order to ensure a defended enemy. Ain’t about righteousness, it’s about how to win.
Who was the ‘good guy’ and ‘bad guy’ in that war?
Obviously the British Empire, fighting against degenerate Hun attempts to rule the continent.
(The propaganda was hilariously dickish though)
When is it appropriate to target civilians in war time? Because, this always seems to be either excused or condemned in hindsight by the victors.
Also, you Canadians really need to get off the British Empire’s nuts. My God, if there was one country that had no business being in the First World War it was the British, who just saw an opportunity to check the Germans. Don’t give me any sob stories about poor Belgium.
When is it appropriate to target civilians in war time?
Depends on who you ask. I lean towards the Sun Tzu school of thought, that attacking cities is probably the worst option of a target but is sometimes necessary for particular strategic purposes.
it was the British, who just saw an opportunity to check the Germans.
My grandfather slept in ditches and ate rotten produce while taking pot shots at patrols and grandmother was almost starved to death by Hun scum. Germans need to be checked, preferably into a thousand smaller countries.
“Germans need to be checked, preferably into a thousand smaller countries.”
You’re in luck. Germany isn’t really even a country anymore, so much as it is a region in Europe.
And are you suggesting that Germany be reverted back to the Holy Roman Empire with a Catholic Hapsburg ruler? That would be magnificent. So long as the ruler recognizes his subservience to the Pope.
You know who else is in favor of smaller countries?
With subservience to the current bishop of Rome, the revamped Holy Roman Empire wouldn’t have to change any policies, at least.
A region that, despite decades of wiping out their military culture, still has the pathological desire to dominate the continent.
And are you suggesting that Germany be reverted back to the Holy Roman Empire with a Catholic Hapsburg ruler?
Nope, Napoleon’s model. ‘Weak and ineffective’ is a selling point.
Of course, the Papists dream of the days they were ruled by warmongering inbreds.
Again, Eisenhower’s war experiences were entirely in the ETO. He had no special insight into the state of the war in the Pacific in the summer of 1945.
Also, Sherman’s march to the sea was actually conducted with rather low casualties on either side. It was enormously destructive to the infrastructure of Georgia, and thus greatly impeded the CSA’s ability to conduct the war there, but was far from my idea of a war atrocity.
Ah, because he did not directly see the conflict in Asia, his opinion should be discounted, even though he was the supreme allied commander in both theaters. Does that mean that we should have heeded MacArthur’s assessment that we drop several nuclear bombs on North Korea during the Korean conflict? After all, he had seen the war there, so why should President Truman have been allowed to override him?
And Sherman’s March to the Sea and the different perspectives that people seem to have highlights my point that we cannot assign ‘good guy’ and ‘bad guy’ in war. The people of Atlanta wouldn’t celebrate the Fourth of July again until the Spanish-American War, as they still held a grudge for what was done to them during the Civil War. Are they right and you wrong? No, because everyone has their own view of a conflict and it is impossible to say that one interpretation is definitively correct.
My point is simply that the commanders in the Pacific, who were actually there and fighting that war, had a different opinion than Eisenhower did from his office in Europe. There is no evidence at all that any of the top commanders in the Pacific, or any of the JCS, ever expressed opposition to the bombing prior August 6th and 9th. All of the quotes people given, variously from Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, and others, are quotes given in hindsight.
I don’t think Eisenhower had any firsthand experience with the Pacific War.
“Let others make war, you, happy Austria, marry”
Sure sounds like the words of warmongers. Just because a country is not as reflexively passive as Canada does not make them ‘warmongers’. Switzerland’s history looks like expansionist monstrosity in comparison to the Canadians.
Thirty Years War, War of Austrian Secession, most of the wars Spain pissed away their new world wealth on, Austro-Prussian War to name a few…
Passive? We’re a bunch of assholes. There wasn’t a colonial conflict that English Canadians didn’t go “fuck yes, send me to some shithole to kill Boers/Spanish/Huns/whomever!” Fucking hell, Canadians volunteered to go to Vietnam for some godforsaken reason.
Are you seriously blaming them for the Wars of Austrian Secession and the Austrian-Prussian War?
Half-jokingly. Of course I could have just said ‘World War I’ and left it at that.
HEY?! You leave the Confederatio Helvetica outta this!
Also, as an aside, I was in a fraternity in college which Harry Truman was also a member of (at a different university). One year as our rush shirts we printed “WHO DROPPED THE BOMB?” on the front with “Harry Truman, Lambda Chi Alpha Chapter…”
We thought they were genius, but the administration and the national chapter thought otherwise.
stanhope has some ideas.
FYI: This is what a butsudan looks like. Fusuma are the sliding doors with pictures of Mt. Fuji, cranes, etc…
Happy to hear some of you enjoyed this. I gotta get to bed though.
Still sleeping under a futon rather than on one?
Nicely written, straff
Thank you, straffin. I wouldn’t mind seeing more retrospectives from a gai-jin.
Did g-mom not take your bow seriously? Or was she just poking fun at the nervous white boy?
She was about 80 at the time. Lovely elderly lady that had lived through tougher times than most of us will ever see. I imagine it was more of a, “Hey, I haven’t seen one of these in our village in while” kind of smile.
Heh.
Some hot steaming derp fresh from San Francisco:
Everyone Who Works at Equifax Should Be Put to Death Tomorrow at Sunrise
This one is neapolitan flavored, becaused it starts off with one type of derp and then instantly switches to the opposite flavor at the end. So fresh!
So, a link in the article saying “three executives knew about it and dumped their Equifax shares as soon as they could,” links to a piece that says “All of the executives still owned thousands of shares of the company after the sales were completed, filings show. Equifax said in an emailed statement to Business Insider that the executives had no knowledge that an intrusion had occurred at the time they sold their shares.”
They don’t even try to get the facts right.
Personal credit information is already easily accessible to fraudsters a without hacking. Hell most of the time they can establish an account using the information from the white pages. Especially when most of the people taking credit applications at the register are low level/wage employees who don’t give a shit about fraud prevention.
Great post, man. Most people buy into the dehumanizing brainwashing that occurs when there’s an “enemy” lurking about.
The same brainwashing that occurs during wartime to make it possible for young boys to go out and kill other young boys that they’ve never met before. The irony is sad.
Terrific essay, straffin. I enjoyed it very much!
What are the photographs?
First one looks like a rice paddy, second one google image search says is hiroshima peace memorial park.
The second one’s easy. That’s the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.
The first one is just a rice paddy, I’d guess.
Thanks, boys!
Very nice, straffin.
I think one of the difficulties in seeing our (former) foes as just people is that wartime entails, maybe even requires, the dehumanizing of the enemy. Once the wartime drumbeat of “Krauts” and “Nips” dies away, its hard to shift gears back to “Germans” and “Japanese”. Its something of a modern miracle that this has actually happened to the degree it has.
What’s sad is that we had pretty well cleared the same hurdle with our Civil War, but because there is a new, culture, war to be fought, the SJW belligerents are reviving the time-honored tradition of dehumanizing their enemies. Hillary’s remark about “deplorables”, and even moreso “irredeemables”, is part and parcel of dehumanizing those on the other side.
Recently I was having a conversation with a coworker. I mentioned that my wife and I were planning a trip to Germany. My coworker responded with “what are you a Nazi?” Couldn’t tell if he was joking, stupid, or both. But that kind of propagandist stigma has really stuck even through to current generations.
NOZING HAPPENED! VE VERE ALL ON VACAYSHUN!”
Absolutely. Kulaks, wreckers, hoarders, white supremacists, privileged, etc…..
Good ol’ Libertarianism.org put up an article re-litigating the Civil War yet again from the “it was solely about slavery” angle. I’m not going to open that particular can of worms here because I know there are strong, differing opinions among Glibs on that. I bring it up because I was thinking about how soldiers in that war (and vets afterwards) seemed to largely have no trouble whatsoever seeing each other as fellow humans. Hell, a friend of mine has a German grandfather and an American grandfather who both fought on opposite sides of a tank battle in the European theater, and they’re great friends now.
A heartwarming meeting between former enemies.
Blonde girl: would.
Similar
There’s a great little story in the Oktoberfest review post here, where old WW2 opponents are gathering in a festhall, drinking together, and expressing glee that they weren’t able to kill each other during the War.
Australians and New Zealanders have been welcomed as guests at Gallipoli for at least a decade.
In 2015, there was a joint ceremony commemorating all the dead ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLI4lw9IC3o ). It’s almost an hour long and this is only part of it. I watched it live online – there must have been a lot of pollen around that day because my eyes were watering the whole time.
Much longer, in fact:
Attaturk was supposed to have penned this in 1934, but there are claims that the following was authored in the 1950’s and retconned:
Regardless of who first wrote it, that is the wording on the monument built by the Turks in the late 50’s.
Ataturk was a great man. It’s a shame how Erdogen and his lackeys are undercutting his legacy (although, not directly as no one in Turkey would ever dare besmirch Ataturk)
True. But the practice of young Australians traveling to Gallipoli for the April 25 services is relatively recent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxoWWnWK3lc
Well said, Straff.
10/10
Thank you.
OT, but this is a pretty cool short film.
Society wedding, January, 1946, London:
Tory MP Chips Channon: “How quickly normal life has been resumed. After all,” pointing to the crowded room, “this what we have been fighting for.”
Lady Cunard: “What, are they all Poles?”
Good stuff, man. Thank you
Since we’re on the subject of Japan and WW2… and anime… does anyone remember Grave of the Fireflies? I thought about it the other day for the first time in maybe fifteen years and might dig up a copy.
Owned the old DVD. Thought about picking up the BR….but honestly….not sure I want to sit through it again. Worst thing is that the ending was completely avoidable with a little common sense and/or less pride (at least from what I recall).
I’ve read lots of history and knew many old Marines and Soldiers who fought the Japanese. That old stereotype of the nerdy 5’0 Japanese soldier with coke-bottle glasses wasn’t right at all.
In the early battles, they were tough hard veterans who had conquered much of Asia.
Japan for a very long time was the hegemonic tyrant of Asia and it was only their defeat in WW2 that broke them of that tendency.
I’m reading a new book right now callled ‘Implacable Foes’ about ’44 and ’45 of the Pacific War.
An interesting perspective it brings is the the politics and bureaucracies at work in the US for fighting the war. War time economy and industrial stuff.
They had to bring all these guys to the Pacific as the war was winding down in Europe and a bunch of people being decommisioned.
As far as the atom bomb, the objective was unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Anything to achieve that quicklu was on the table, they had plans in place to fight until ’47 with an Army invasion of Japan home island, or the Navy cordoning off Japan and starving them out.
Figuring out what to do when all the options are bad is hard.
You have to concede that it’s easier when 3 generations have passed and we’re all sitting in nice, comfy Aerons.
I read a really good history of US subs in the Pacific during WWII. The author’s position was that the atomic bombs were unnecessary. He claimed the navy was within 30 days of completely blockading Japan using subs. Japan has no natural resources such as oil and iron, so they’d have run out of the materials to fight quickly. Not saying he was right, just another take on the subject.
Frank, in “Downfall” would agree with the lack of supplies but argued they would have fought on anyway. Hard to know this far past the events.
I agree with him. Starving garrisons, even those reduced to cannibalism of prisoners or even their own dead, still fought viciously. I see no reason why the casualty ratios from the Okinawa invasion would not have been replicated during a land invasion of Japan. Moreover, Operation Starvation was, in essence, a siege of Japan, primarily through mining its interior waterways and harbors. Game of Thrones should have shown even lay people by now that sieges kills civilians first and foremost, and only at the end do they reduce the effectiveness of the defending military.
The atom bombs killed far fewer Japanese than would have died in either a land invasion or pure blockade and starvation. Dower’s, “Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II,” is supposed to go into detail about the volume of food shipments required in the 1945-46 period to prevent massive famine in Japan. I understand they were substantial.
If the Allies were forced to perform a land invasion of Japan, the Japanese people would not have been eradicated, a la Carthage, but the Allies would have come close. Finally, if nuclear weapons hadn’t been used in Japan, I’m pretty sure they would have been used somewhere else by now. And they would have been a lot more powerful than the 15-20 kiloton devices that were used.
“Embracing Defeat” has one of my favorite lines of all time from a history book:
“MacArthur, in whose mind Supreme Commander and Supreme Deity were sometimes confused….”
That is really funny, and on point. That mindset did wonders though in making him the ideal man for the Supreme Commander of Occupied Japan job. And not great at all when he confronted the reality of civilian control of the U.S. military in Korea.
It’s been awhile since I skimmed the book. I’ll have to re-read it.
His “War Without Mercy” is also good. He works a little too hard to draw an equivalence between the US & Japan but overall it’s pretty solid.
The blockading of Japan has also been argued in historical circles, and an argument that pops up is that the starvation that would have resulted may have extended the death toll of the atomic bombs.
I think a blockade without any invasion, the “starve them out” strategy, would have resulted in multiples of the 250K dead from the two atomic bombs. It wasn’t the peasants and factory workers who needed to surrender; it was the military and political elite. And as we all know, when food runs short, they are the last ones to miss a meal.
There’s plenty of documentary evidence that the Japanese public were being prepared to defend the home islands armed with nothing more advanced than punji sticks and kitchen implements. Remember the comment made by Yamamoto, about an invasion of the US, and how there would be a ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’? Same goes for Japan. Lack of natural resources is a heavy blow to a country’s war effort, but it’s not a decisive blow, especially when manpower is inexpensive, loyal and disposable.
It’s axiomatic that in order to obtain a surrender, you need to force the guy you want to surrender to the table. An amphibious assault on the home islands would be costly (and probably unacceptable to the American Public) – just how costly, we’re fortunate to remain ignorant of. But without a massive display of overwhelming force, the conflict would have dragged on.
The deployment of atomic weaponry was a pragmatic solution to the problem, regardless of how one views the morality of its use. The latter issue will – I suspect – be discussed until way after we’ve gone.
Also think about the shitstorm in American politics when the Soldiers/Sailors/Marines and general public found out that the US had developed and successfully tested a weapon that would have shortened the war and save untold US casualties but we did not use use it on the Japanese because of feelz. Do you think Japan wold be an Allied nation today or would our occupation turned into a curse instead of a blessing for the Japanese? What would our internal politics and lives have become?
Existential wars carry the terms of the acceptable far into areas that would be unacceptable otherwise. I am writing this from Seoul among people who know that if the Korean War 2.0 kicks off that at the end one Korean State will be gone forever. The fighting on the peninsula will return combat to the historical norms practiced for millennia.
Adding to the bad options was the clock. The Soviets were committed to entering the war. If we dithered too long getting Japan to surrender, we would have ended up with a communist North Japan. As it was they were too late but still demand to be part of the occupation force – MacArthur told them to piss off.
Drake, how were they going to get there? They barely had enough amphibious power to take the southern end of Sakhalin (thanks to the US gifting them the LSTs et al). Maybe, they could seaflift a brigade or two, and annoy Hokkaido, but the threat of the Soviets invading the Japanese home islands is, IMHO, really overblown.
Mainly by historians desperate to conjure a Soviet boogeyman that, in their minds, the atom bombings were primarily designed to deter.
Just checked – the casualties from firebombing Tokyo are estimated to be 88K – 97K killed. Hiroshima lost 90-146K within a few months of being bombed, and Nagasaki 39K-88K. Leaving aside the kind of bomb, I’m not seeing a big moral difference based on body count between conventional bombing of cities and the nuclear bombs used in WWII. The argument should be over whether any bombing of cities is allowable in wartime, with the caveat that times and norms change.
I think you would find a lot of people who question the morality of firebombing Tokyo along with the nuclear bombings of Heroshima and Nagasaki
None of them WWII Vets or their families. Certainly not the ones in my family.
I think this is exactly correct. Sure, nukes make it easier to bomb cities: one plane instead of several squadrons are required. That makes them uniquely horrible.
HOWEVAH… it’s really like arguing that killing someone with a gun is worse than killing them with a sword because the gun makes it easier. From a moral or ethical standpoint, it doesn’t. Unless one has a labor theory of ethics.
Labor theory of ethics
That’s awesome.
Yeah, that quote’s a keeper.
Let me just say that only among Libertarians could an article about how people should be allowed to honor their war dead devolve into a heated debate about the use of nuclear weapons during WWII.
That is true diversity of opinion
And a discussion about the Holy Roman Empire, because Titor doesn’t want to admit that the Hapsburgs are a superior royal house than anything that the British ever crapped out
Just Say’n’s definition of ‘superior’ apparently means ‘genetically broken’.
That is Spanish Habsburg….ugh.
Oh well then, I guess it’s fine to fuck your cousin if you’re Austrian.
Or a pioneering American.
/sips delicious turnip juice
They imported some Bavarians, I believe… same thing, right?
How hot of a cousin are we talkin here?
So, I guess the GOP are getting ready to vote on healthcare again. This latest bill was apparently co-written by none other than Lindsey Graham. Wow, I’d love to see what’s in that. Rand Paul has already said he’s a NO.
Cue Ken Shultz in 5, 4, 3…
lol
That was more or less my first thought too. 🙂
Oh shit, you’re right. Here we go again. Damn Rand, that obstructionist!
He’s got a point.
Rand voted for straight out repeal and yet people are blaming him for this mess. Because he’s doing what they all said they would do, straight up repeal.
I found this guy through Diversity & Comics.
…Alright, fess up, which one of you is this guy?
Roll left and die in action.
I have just finished reading Retribution. It’s a historical non fiction about the last year of the pacific war written by limey who also did a book on the last year in Europe, it was his opinion, well supported, that the a bomb was the correct way to end the war, given that the palace coup failed. Had the hardliners captured the emperor it might have been different.
lol – captures it nicely:
(edited from original tweet)
I don’t get it. /ENB
But he told a woman to go make a SANDWICH!!!!! He’s evil!
Yeah, that’s fucked up. It’s ‘SAMMICH’.
Now this is comedy of the highest order – Ben Rhodes has a sadz over Sean Spicer being at the Emmys:
That would be Ben “We created an echo chamber. They [the seemingly independent experts] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.” Rhodes.
Projection is really all they have, isn’t it?
Ben “failed novelist who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, clueless about foreign policy yet is somehow qualified to be on the National Security council” Rhodes?
I heard a couple of snippets of the Emmy’s on the radio today. It only served to cement my refusal to watch awards shows ever, and that most of Hollywood is made up of grade A ignorant assholes.
This is especially rich coming from the prick who couldn’t help but brag about leading young reporters, “Who don’t know anything about anything*”, around by the nose in service to his boss’s agenda.
(*words to that effect)
Bam. Thank you. It’s right up there with Jonathan fucking Gruber in terms of chutzpah and disdain, not because he’s wrong but because he’s so smug about it.
A key part of Bernie’s Medicaid for all bill bans private care. And 15 Democrats in Congress have already joined him. Bans private care? Holy fuck this old commie really hates people. Even most European countries and Canada don’t go that far. Are they really going down this road? Sounds like political suicide to me.
Bernie Care
+1 death panel
Well he loved the Sandinistas, that should be an indication.
Terrible album.
I found some on topic derp:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9789
***
The editorial board of the student newspaper at Pennsylvania State University-Behrend wants America to ends it “obsession” with 9/11, asking in exasperation, “Will we never forget?”
Arguing that “there are plenty of other things in other countries that were a result of the terrorist attack,” the editorial declares that “The thing that caused 9/11 is not a specific thing that can be beat [sic].”
***
One or two decent points buried in a heap of stupid.
***
The editorial board of the student newspaper at Pennsylvania State University-Behrend wants America to ends it “obsession” with 9/11, asking in exasperation, “Will we never forget?”
The Behrend Beacon published an editorial on September 12 claiming that “the general consensus in the Beacon newsroom is that the U.S. needs to remember September 11, but that our society’s obsession with the day needs to fade.”
“There are plenty of other things in other countries that were a result of the terrorist attack.”
Observing that “the majority of us have little to no memories of that day,” but have grown up with the consequences in the form of “increased airport security, the PATRIOT Act, [and] hatred towards people that look anything remotely like the terrorists,” the editors go on to point out that “there are plenty of other things in other countries that were a result of the terrorist attack.”
***
I wonder if after they got done writing, they immediately began drawing up plans to topple a statue because it reminds them of the Civil War.
I predict much wailing and gnashing of teeth in response, while the important points go completely unaddressed.
The editorial board of the student newspaper at Pennsylvania State University-Behrend wants America to ends it “obsession” with 9/11, asking in exasperation, “Will we never forget?”
Imagine replacing “9/11” in that sentence with breast cancer and pink ribbons in October.
Replace it with MLK day if you want a real shit storm.
The avalanche of pink shit for the entire month dwarfs whatever memorials/remembrances there are for 9/11.
Might as well post this too:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9787
***
During this year’s annual Constitution Day Lecture at Princeton University, titled, “F%*# Free Speech,” anthropology professor Carolyn Rouse argued that “the academy has never promoted free speech as a central value.”
Rouse asserted that “culture is what helps us determine the appropriateness of speech by balancing our rights as enshrined in the Constitution with understandings of context.”
…
Rouse began her lecture by asserting that “the way which free speech is being celebrated in the media makes little to no sense anthropologically,” because she does not consider freedom of expression a panacea.
“Language is partial. It relies on context for comprehensibility, and can have implications that go far beyond simply hurting somebody’s feelings. Put simply, speech is costly,” she said. “So, contrary to the ACLU’s statement on their website regarding the role of free speech on college campuses, the academy has never promoted free speech as its central value.”
The professor stated that the goal of the lecture was to “rethink academic freedom and academic values” without renewing academic debate over ideologies such as Nazism, or the potential of policies such as the forced internment of Japanese Americans by the Roosevelt administration during the Second World War.
The central thesis of the lecture was twofold. Firstly, Rouse argued that words and grammatical constructs can have different meanings in different contexts, and that cultural competence requires knowing how to self-censor according to context, in order to avoid being misunderstood.
Thus, different “language ideologies” and styles of rhetoric develop for different contexts; for instance, “there is hate speech, therapy speech, parent-child speech, parent-infant speech, incitement speech, courtroom speech, polite speech, religious speech, academic speech, [and] ‘locker room’ speech.”
Rouse claimed that while Americans embrace free speech as a value, “free-speech absolutism doesn’t exist” genuinely, since everyone willingly self-censors for the sake of appropriateness. Moreover, she claimed that “no political side can claim [inaudible] victimhood,” saying, “the true victims when it comes to speech and suppression are the people you never hear from, because their speech is truly suppressed.”
***
[head desk]
“Rouse began her lecture by asserting that “the way which free speech is being celebrated in the media makes little to no sense anthropologically,” because she does not consider freedom of expression a panacea.”
She’s right. Back in the good old days if she would have mouthed off, she would have received a good old beating. I guess that’s ok with her. Got to get back to our natural state before that pesky Constitution ruined stuff. They even stuck something in there to give women the right to mouth off and even vote! We need to get rid of that stuff.
I wonder what Prof. Rouse’s response would be if Sec. DeVos were to mandate that the good professor is no longer employable in any academic role and that any college or university that employs her is now ineligible for federal funds? What principle would she have to rely on to oppose it? The duly elected government of the United States would have decided that her speech was no longer compatible with community values. I mean, I could see why I would oppose such a move. But, I believe in all that fuddy duddy free speech stuff. It sounds to me, from what she’s saying, that she really wouldn’t have any moral basis to do anything but shut the fuck up and start submitting applications to Starbucks.
But she only uses good think speech and Trump is a Nazi. Or something like that.
I actually don’t know what her point is. She talks about how people self moderate their own speech. Sure, and that is perfectly acceptable. But then it’s like she tries to equate that with being able to forcefully moderate other people’s speech, but she can’t quite pull it together so it’s just a word salad with no substance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn-kxUEySy0
The Left are incapable of actually thinking things through. After Donald Trump was elected, I asked some friends from the Left whether they finally understand my point about limited government and their answer basically was that government power is okay when it’s in the right hands.
government power is okay when it’s in the right hands
Their hands, specifically. Really, why bother with all this democracy business? Oh right, you have to give people the illusion of choice.
Yes, she appears t be a master (word) salad tosser. Or, just a tosser.
She conflates so many different things at the same time, she should write for Salon, or, DU.
She must be irony impaired.
Rouse, honey? If some edgelord retard says “Hitler did nothing wrong,” and you misunderstand the context viz. edgelord retards, that’s on you. That’s entirely on you. His right to say that is absolute whatever context you choose to put on it. And the thing is, he’s not going to care whether or not you understood the proper context. In fact, he’s going to get a kick out of the umbrage you take with it.
the academy has never promoted free speech as its central value
I’m pretty sure in the US it actually has, for at least a couple of generations, if not longer. That’s what makes this sudden reversal into the most hostile environment for free expression so shocking.
“free-speech absolutism doesn’t exist” genuinely, since everyone willingly self-censors for the sake of appropriateness.
How does someone who is obviously quite stupid get and hold a job as a professor?
My parents are college professors and I grew up surrounded by college professors in a small college town. Most of them were entirely obnoxious, without skills not in their specialty, often stupid…and ass kissers. That is how they hold jobs.
Sort of OT: My wife’s family on her Mother’s side are from Virginia and predictably had some family members who served in the Confederacy during the Civil War. Along with that tidbit of information, my wife’s great grandmother was the head of her chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy at one time. And while people especially in today’s environment would rush to call her a racist and require everyone in the family to repent of her so called racist, I don’t take that view, because she was a really generous person and as far as I know, didn’t do anything that anyone would construe as being racist.
I’m fucking happy that the Confederacy was defeated but to dehumanize the soldiers that fought for the South during the Civil War and those who take some pride in Southern values is stupid and does nothing but create more division. All this controversy about the statues and memorials is nothing more than an exercise to make those on the Left feel morally superior to unwoke whites.
“does nothing but create more division”
That’s the whole point. It’s Marxist, Alinskyite tactics to divide and conquer; make things stop functioning so you can bring the country to its knees then replace all the old institutions with your new Glorious People’s institutions.
My grandmother used to tell me stories her grandmother told her about the war years. I have many Confederates in the family from that side, but almost all of them were drafted. Unwillingly, I’m guessing, since only one that I’m aware of enlisted on their own prior to 1864. They were dirt poor Georgia farmers – while I’m sure they weren’t opposed to slavery, they didn’t own any slaves themselves and they sure didn’t seem to eager to die for old Dixie.
Ironically enough, the one who DID join up early on, in 1862, died only three months later of an unspecified disease without ever seeing combat.
This Current Affairs novel review has some real gems in it. The post-modernist novel bingo card made me larf.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/09/how-novelty-ruined-the-novel
***
Critics from major publications were united in their praise. They agreed not merely that The Nix was good, but that it was breathtakingly good. Said The Independent: “Reading The Nix—all 620 pages of it—is an experience of complete unadulterated pleasure.” Said The New York Times: “Hill has so much talent to burn that he can pull off just about any style, imagine himself into any person and convincingly portray any place or time… the author seems incapable of writing a pedestrian sentence or spinning a boring story.” Said The Guardian: “Hill is an assiduous selector of words whose artistic concentration seldom lapses. He is also a very musical stylist—the book is full of long, beautifully counterweighted sentences and subtle cadences that change from voice to voice as different characters take up the narrative.” Booklist compared Nathan Hill to John Irving. John Irving compared Nathan Hill to Charles Dickens.
….
All told, The Nix is not the most extravagantly awful critically-acclaimed novel I’ve ever read—that would probably be one of Cormac McCarthy’s or Don DeLillo’s howlers. It’s just not very good. The plot is a real mess, with contrived framing devices, jittery narrative focus, and little forward momentum. On a sentence level, Hill dutifully sprinkles unusual metaphors throughout his text in order to demonstrate that he is a serious literary stylist. A luxuriously wealthy home, for example, is described as having “Corinthian columns that were so intricately detailed at the top they looked like muskets that had backfired and been torn apart.” (Intricately-carved scroll-and-leaf stonework that looks just like a piece of metal that’s been randomly blown apart—yes, I can definitely picture those exotic Corinthian columns now, thank you.)
…
Sometimes it is harder to write a simple thing than a complicated one; sometimes it is harder to portray goodness than selfishness; sometimes it is harder to nourish readers spiritually than to simply impress them with clever tricks. I wish that more authors would try to do the things that are hard. But until they get it all sorted out, I will probably go back to rereading books by dead people.
***
Fools mocking fools. Wheels within wheels.
[puffs thoughtfully on toy bubble pipe]
It’ll be one helluva circle jerk at the next cocktail party.
I have not heard of it until now. Searching for it brought this headline from the NYT’s review: ‘The Nix’ Is the Love Child of Thomas Pynchon and David Foster Wallace.
Yeah, gonna’ have to pass on that one.
Thanks for this article, Straffinrun. I enjoyed it very much.