On 2 March, 2014 appearing in
The New York Times was an editorial titled:
“Mr. Abe's Dangerous Revisionism.”
The title immediately informs
the reader Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has sinister intentions by inserting
the word “Revisionism” in the editorial’s title.
The word “Revisionism” as
defined by the Marriam-Webster dictionary:
“…..support of ideas and
beliefs that differ from and try to change accepted ideas and beliefs
especially in a way that is seen as wrong or dishonest.”
By that meaning employing the
word “revisionism” into Mr. Abe’s actions is a total fabrication and cannot be
supported with facts and seems to escape reality. Based on the fictional title a further examination
of this editorial is warranted. The editorial
consists of five paragraphs and will examine each paragraph with a rebuttal /
correction following it.
Paragraph one:
“Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s brand of nationalism is a
becoming an ever more serious threat to Japan’s relations with the United
States. His use of revisionist history is a dangerous provocation for the
region, which is already struggling with China’s aggressive stance in
territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas.”
Rebuttal / correction:
Mr. Abe has no brand of “nationalism.” The author of this editorial inserted the word
“nationalism” to purposely sway the opinion of the American reader. “Nationalism” with its corresponding word “Nationalist,”
has always been plagued with a negative connotation in the United States. The origin can be traced to the rise of
Nationalism (loyalty to the nation / state and not the religion, ethic, or tribal
identity previously) which was viewed negatively in the United States. Americans saw the rise of nationalism in
Europe correspond with European wars and conflicts: Americans were warned to avoid, starting
with George Washington.
“Nationalism / Nationalist”
used in the United States in reference to Japan is meant to invoke the militarist
of Imperial Japan and the subsequent entry into World War Two. The use of those words are only employed to
portray a negative image.
Using the word “revisionist”
in the paragraph also is a distortion and a purposeful misinterpretation of Mr.
Abe’s stated intention. Mr. Abe’s office
announced a group of scholars will gather to study the historical documents and
evidence that lead to Japan’s 1993 apology concerning the Comfort Women issue. How is examining an historical event “revisionist?” All aspects of history are continually examined
and reviewed by historians world-wide to gain further knowledge. The study of history is not static it is
alive and fluid thanks to continued historical analysis. It is with this academic discipline the 1993
apology will be studied. It can only be
stamped “revisionist” if one is hostile to advancing knowledge or fearing a
change in an anchored reality.
The editorial in the paragraph
then assigns a “dangerous provocation” to Japan’s examination of history while
making it seem to incite China’s aggression in the region. Really?
China has been aggressive in Asia long before any examination of the
Comfort Women issue. The editorial seems
to absolve China’s belligerent behavior as it can be viewed as a reaction to
Japan’s “revisionism.” Hooey!
Paragraph two:
“Mr. Abe, however, seems oblivious to this reality and
to the interests of the United States, which is committed to defend Japan by
treaty obligation and does not want to be dragged into a conflict between China
and Japan.”
Rebuttal / correction:
Mr. Abe is “oblivious to this
reality” because “this reality” is anchored in fiction and Mr. Abe’s reality
does not include fiction. Yes the United
States does not want to be drawn into a conflict between China and Japan. The editorial left out, a conflict initiated
by China, causing Japan to react to protect their territorial integrity from aggression. “For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction” - Newton’s Third Law.
Paragraph three:
“Mr. Abe’s nationalism can be hard to decipher,
because it is not directed against any country. It is directed instead against
Japan’s own history since World War II, which he finds shameful. He wants to
shed what he calls the self-effacing postwar regime and recreate a renewed
patriotism.”
Rebuttal / correction:
The reason “Mr. Abe’s
nationalism can be hard to decipher,” is because Mr. Abe’s nationalism only
exist in the minds of his detractors. Mr.
Abe wants to “recreate a renewed patriotism.”
So? What is wrong with love of
one’s country through expressions of patriotism? Liberals in the United States of which The
New York Times is their printed proponent, detest patriotism as they feel love
of nation is evil. They believe we are
citizens of the world and not nations, also only through that belief can peace
among the people of the earth be attained.
A Harvard University study in
2011 concluded “Republicans more patriotic than Democrats.” Since The New York Times supports the Democratic
Party it is easy to understand their vilification of “renewed patriotism.”
Paragraph four:
“But before he gets to Japan’s postwar culture, he
also whitewashes the history of the war. He and other nationalists still claim
that the Nanjing massacre by Japanese troops in 1937 never happened. His
government on Friday said that it would re-examine and possible rescind an
apology to Korean women who were forced into sexual servitude by Japanese
troops. And he insists that visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan’s
war dead including convicted war criminals, merely shows respect for those who
sacrificed their lives for their country. Despite clear signals from Washington
to refrain from visiting the shrine, he went in December.”
Rebuttal / correction:
Once again The New York Times
illustrates their Japan / Abe bashing by affiliating him with “nationalist” and
lying about him “whitewashing” the 1937 Nanjing incident. Where is the quote from Mr. Abe “whitewashing?” Mr. Abe or his office never stated there
would be a possible “rescind” to the 1993 Comfort Women apology. Can The New York Times provide that
quote?
The Yasukuni Shrine to Japan
is what National Arlington Cemetery is to the United States. Where does Washington or any other nation get
to dictate to the people of Japan where they should not travel within their own
country? American style liberalism feel they have a right to dictate to
people their movements, behavior, and ideology.
If people in Washington have an objection to the Prime Minister of Japan
traveling to certain locations within Japan then those people need to be told “mind
your own business.”
Paragraph five:
“A confrontational relationship with China at this
time could help him convince a deeply pacifist people of the need for
heightened defense preparedness. It seems a peculiarity of Japan that those who
advocate a greater military posture tend to overlap with historical
revisionists. Mr. Abe’s nationalism aside, however, neither he nor other
mainstream Japanese leaders are about to enhance Japan’s military capabilities
without American consent because they are deeply committed to the U.S.-Japan
security alliance.”
Rebuttal / correction:
The “confrontational
relationship with China” should be noted is the result of China’s aggressive actions
resulting in Japan’s defensive response.
The result of which of course would lead a pacifist people to appreciate
“the need for heightened defense preparedness.”
Why does Japan need America’s consent to protect their territory? It is peculiar here where American liberals constantly
berate the USA for injecting influence around the world, yet finds it
acceptable to have Japan get blessings from Washington to defend themselves from
Chinese aggression. When it comes to
American liberals there is no consistency.
This editorial was filled
with hallucinations and should perhaps have revealed the authors as being Jacob
and Wilhelm Grimm (they wrote “Grimm’s Fairy Tales”).
It seems like the only “revisionism”
in this editorial was not Mr. Abe’s intention, but the intention of the
editorial. Shame on The New York Times, the
once proud “newspaper of record.”
Link to the editorial:
No comments:
Post a Comment