Xanthippe,
War is war. Few people, and fewer societies, behave the same way in the midst of a huge, bloody war, cut off from supplies and, in many cases, clear instructions from home, as they do at home, in peacetime.
There’s little serious argument, even within Japan, that the Japanese Imperial Army did not commit atrocities. What’s debated is to what extent that happened and, more intriguing, I think, to what extent Japan was alone in that.
The point is that it makes no more sense to say all Japanese are one way or another than it makes to say that all Americans are one way or another. Some Americans are violent, some aren’t. Same thing’s true in Japan.
During the first year of the Occupation, US forces in Japan committed as many as 300,000 rapes. Does that mean that every American serviceman committed rape? No. Does it mean that American servicemen are now rapists? Of course not. Does it mean that Americans are inclined toward rape? That would be silly, wouldn’t it?
Extrapolation of a social characteristic based on anecdotes, even horrific ones, especially historical ones, is unreliable at best.
John Samford brought up the example of samurai testing new swords on peasants and used this as an example of how the Japanese are violent. You used examples of past wars. Shall we apply this same logic to the US?
During WWII, the US segregated the military, generally sending black soldiers to do construction or maintenance work, such as building the Ledo Road in Burma. This was based on the explicit assumption that blacks had a lower cranial capacity and were not intellectually capable of handling combat or leadership roles. From this, we can assume that
Americans today are racist, or at least inclined toward racism.
Slavery was once legal in the US and a tiny percentage of people in the US owned large amounts of slaves, from this we can determine that Americans are inclined toward slave ownership, like slavery, and are likely to enslave people.
US soldiers present at the Mi Lai massacre in Vietnam have confessed to, or admitted to having seen Americans killing women and children indiscriminately. From this, we can assume that Americans are indiscriminate killers.
Do you see my point here? It would be ridiculous to make such assumptions about Americans based only on the worst actions of some members of our society. It is equally wrong-headed to make the same judgements about the Japanese today.
The fact is that Japan has one of the world’s lowest crime rates. Violent crime might be rarer here than anywhere else in the world (South Korea is a contender, too.) It is exceedingly rare to see people physically fighting, or even verbally at each others’ throats. Japan’s only military actions since the end of WWII have been in auxiliary, non-combat, non-weapons roles supporting the US.
No one is claiming Japan is pacifist, or that no Japanese person is capable of violence, but it is a rather nonviolent place. That’s what makes an incident like Sunday’s so very shocking.
As for textbooks, yes, there is still some level of “oversight,” which I would call censorship. This is generally for junior high school textbooks and is not nationwide, though. Most of the censorship takes the form of vague statements.
Books on Japan’s wartime atrocities are freely published and such topics are discussed in universities. People know. Look at it this way: How are wars presented in American elementary and junior high schools? It’s similar here.
As for an explanation of Japan’s WWII atrocities, I don’t think there will ever be an adequate explanation? Don’t let that make you think that all Japanese people today are violent or not to be trusted, though. A lot can change in 63 years.
