When Words Fail Me

Username:	Password:
Forgot your password?	Remember Me

Big Wind in Fair Oaks today
Yeah, I know, brevity has it's own value.

Read it if you must - especially

lifeisacabaret

( The Interview )

Friends Only
The vast majority of my posts are friends only. I typically don't take on new friends anymore as there is too much to explain and I don't have time to get to know others either. If, for some reason, you feel compelled to introduce yourself please let me take some time to review before I set you up as friend. It would be most helpful if I get a referral from somebody I trust. I'm considered friendly but am highly intolerant of people who live soulless spiritless lives.

This is Why I Should Stay Away from LJ
Good lord I've done it again, spent way too much time posting up to another's journal. I'll have to paste it here and link it back in case

pinkville wants to read all this stuff. What's the matter with me anyway?

We must be about the same age as those were also the seminal events that shaped my world view.

I would take exception with two things here, that the Japanese were ready to surrender at the time of the atomic bombing and that the status of the emporer was not respected, at least in some regard.

The emperor was supposed to be a symbol to the Japanese people, a real living connection to their ancient past, a kind of living monument so to speak. The status of the emperor had been in flux throughout their history with the most recent stretch of 250+ years (roughly 1600 - 1858 +/-)of the Tokugawa Era being one marked by rule of the most powerful clan who only paid tacit homage to the emperor out of respect of their heritage, not out of respect to him personally; much like the English monarchy remain as a symbol to their people but wield no great power in everyday affairs. With the Meiji restoration in the late 19th century the emperor did ascend to a higher level of authority but still did not direct the affairs of state without extensive consultations with his ministers and various government section chiefs.

The Japanese military ministers managed to contort the worship of the emporer as a means of manipulating the emperor and the people into supporting an ever more aggressive military build up and finally the take over of the reigns of government by the Tojo government. Blind faith in an established quasi-religious cult with ancient historical ties is something that could easily be put to use to effect the task they needed, overcoming their naturally peace loving ways (after 250 years of no major civil wars in their land they kinda got used to living a more refined and sophisticated life) and inspiring them to make the sacrifices they would need to carry out their ambitious war plans - the total domination of Asia and the Pacific. Their bad guys were not merely the US but all the Europeans who had managed to colonize so much of Asia but who in their eyes had no naturally rightful claims to those lands. The Japanese felt that it was their natural right to rule all those lands! They had never been colonized by the Europeans and they were technically more advanced and united in their organization than any of their neighbors. That is why they worked so hard and made so many sacrifices for the previous few generations, that was their goal and their dreams.

By the time that WWII broke out with the US in 1941 the Japanese had been fighting their war of dominion of Asia for at least 10 years. One could trace the first successful military adventure with their defeat of Russia in 1902 as the start of their expansion. After 39 years of military expansionism, and meeting with success at every turn so far the people were led to believe that their Gods, as respresented by the emperor, were leading them to eternal victory. It didn't happen overnight, these people were completely steeped in the lore of their own invincibility for many years, especially as made manifest for the previous two generations.

So faced with their first taste of total defeat in 1945 do you think they were really ready to surrender? Perhaps there were some who could see that this was inevitable and perhaps some ministers did make overtures but the majority were willing and even desirous that the Americans should try to take control of Japan through normal military means that would have allowed them to demostrate their fanatical loyalty to the end. They were prepared to fight suicidal battles with sharpened bamboo sticks even if it meant that every Japanese citizen would die defending their land. This represented the vast majority of the population.

My mother-in-law was one of them though she wasn't quite as radicalized as most of the others. Her religious affiliation with the Konko church, a kind of off-shoot of Shinto with most Shinto traditional practices retained, had been outlawed as unpatriotic because they believed in a pacifist philosophy. Members of the church were forced to recant their faith or face severe punishment by the military authorities. This was true with people of all other faiths except Zen Buddhism that somehow managed to find justification for this militaristic expansionism through their interpretation of Buddhist doctrine, calling it divine providence, or revealed destiny or some such nonsense. (I have a link to a most interesting article on this topic somewhere if you want to read about that.) So between emperor worship and Zen Buddist priests the people were provided with a faith system that completely compelled their total commitment to war. There was no OFF button for these people, no countervailing social structure to allow for alternative thinking. We must remember this was the truth of their common mentality, not just something that was part of our propaganda.

Was the bomb really necessary? I think it certainly speeded the end of the war. I think it saved hundreds of thousands or millions of American soldiers from dying. I think it saved many many more millions of Japanese from carrying out their almost endless nightmarish suicidal attacks that they were prepared to carry out. The only power on earth that could possibly convince the Japanese of the futility of war was one that was so massively overpowering and destructive as to finally awaken even the most ardent militarists to the new reality of their defeat.

It is largely due to the intervention of the emporer Hirohito at that point that the Japanese finally surrendered. As symbol of his people he could clearly see that continuing the war was pointless and would result in the complete annihilation of the Japanese people, their culture and their history. He stepped in and took charge of the situation in the one and only time he could exert his power, when his military commanders had finally lost all credibility in their government.

The bombing targets were chosen carefully to achieve the maximum effect of psychological terror but still leave the Japanese with something to rebuild upon later. The US considered bombing Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan and the center of many of their most revered cultural achievements but backed away from it as counterproductive to their long term plans to rule after the war - too demoralizing to completely destroy the sacred heart of Japan. They considered other targets as well but in the end it was decided to bomb Hiroshima as that was a large city with a busy port but not the spiritual center of Japanese legacy. Similarly Nagasaki had been the only port open to outside trade during the many years of cultural isolation to the outside world under the Tokugawas and therefore was not culturally as "pure" as other cities. Actually I understand that bad weather prevented them from attacking Kobe I believe so they careened and dropped their bomb on Nagasaki instead. The utter power of the devastation of those bombs made an impression that nobody in Japan could ignore and had the effect the US military was looking for, the almost immediate and unconditional surrender of the Japanese. But as awful as these bombs were, they did not completely annihilate the national foundations, both economic and cultural, upon which the Japanese could rebuild their nation.

When the US military took control of Japan it was with the cooperation of the emperor. Had the emperor not cooperated we would likely still have had major troubles in our occupation but instead we had a relatively easy time taking over the reigns of government and establishing law and order within a very short span of time. Had we jailed the emperor, dethroned him, or shown him disrespect, or murdered him, we would never have completed our victory over the Japanese people, a victory of their hearts and souls that had recently been so completely dedicated to their dreams of military conquests without end.

Productivity returned to Japan slowly at first but eventually the pace quickened as the pangs of war began to fall into a revisionist historical context and the people began to move on. For his cooperation the US owed the emperor a great deal and so his reign as emperor was never abolished, only diminished a little but not beyond the historical norms of the past. His cooperation smoothed the way to real peace which in turn smoothed the way to a relatively quick return to control of sovereignty of Japan back to a Japanese government, one that foreswore military ventures, one that remained dedicated as our eternal ally, one that was molded to resemble our own, but nevertheless Japanese.

I think the reality and the danger of the fanatical mindset must never be forgotten or ignored when considering what the US had to deal with in those days. The Germans, as fanatical as they were, came from a culture that knew how to win and also how to lose wars. Perhaps a bomb on Dusseldorf might have brought a quicker end to the war there as well but it seemed that once the Germans surrendered in large masses the rest of the countryside quietly acquiesed to the inevitable. Every nation in Europe understood how to fight wars, every nation had won some and every nation had lost some. Fanatical as they were we knew once we had taken control of Berlin the war was over for everybody. I don't think we could have been assured of the same if we had taken control of Tokyo, a very different mindset.

Does that justify the use of the atomic bomb, not once but twice? I don't know. The acts of war are so horrifying as to defy justification on any level. Did the use of the bomb bring the war to a quicker conclusion and ultimately did that save lives? I believe it did. Are we to be eternally condemned as the only nation to have used atomic weapons? Does that warrant us a special place in hell for us as a nation - sadly I believe it does. It a quandry of moral values and judgements made outside the context of those times that we now have to face up to our part in this awful destruction. But as much as we are guilty of an unforgivably heinous act let us not lose sight of the fact that is was not done in a vacuum either.

A Response to Youphoric
I started a "little" response to

youphoric who had responded to a post by

userillusion. Anybody who knows me knows I can't keep it short so I driveled on and on about something here. Read it if you feel you must.

I realize I am an interloper in this conversation and perhaps shouldn't have commented. I've read bits of userillusion's journal from time to time and find that we have parallel perceptions on many topics so when I saw a disagreement developing in an area that I also have strong feelings about I jumped into the fray uninvited. I apologize if I came off antagonistic or disrespectful.

That said I do have some rather strongly held perceptions about living in faith but these perceptions are valid for me only and guide only me in my life. I do not expect that others would believe the same way because their lives are not my life, we have not traveled the same path nor are we destined for the same goals in life. I feel, however, that we all play our roles in a greater game of living without knowing the real nature of the whole game.

I frequently find that people who hold religious faith believe quite fervently that they have all the answers to all life's questions neatly figured and wrapped up. I find that offensive. To me life is not so neat and tidy. It is a messy process of getting out there, committing myself to something and flailing about with varying degrees of success - all the while learning and growing in personal stature through the experiences I encounter. If it is true that there is some greater guiding force out there, it is not meant for me to know this force directly nor to understand the direction this force is driving me. As I am a person of limited perceptions I can only know what I experience and my perceptions of those experiences are the only truth I can truly understand and believe. If I am part of a larger game plan who am I to think that I can really understand the larger game plan or the mind of the force that creates and directs that game plan? It seems the height of hubris when I hear others claim that they are close to God so they have some kind of special understanding of God's will - BAH! That's purely self delusional feel-good fantasy in my book. It really diminishes the stature of that God image into one that plays favorites - much like the fickle old pagan Gods of ancient times. The best I can hope for is to do my part in this life and carry out my responsibilities to the best of my ability. What happens after that is not mine to know.

Of those who are religiously inclined I tend to respect those who understand that they hold their God image as a personal guide for themselves, not as an absolute truth for all. My friend, a very devout Catholic, would say as he was contemplating difficult situations that he would get himself "centered in God" and then try to fathom what path to take from there. My friend is now a very respected member of his community and extremely well versed in American history of the mid 19th century, an authority that others reference. My friend came to this point in his life after traveling different roads but finally putting his life together after he committed himself to his faith in God via the Catholic church. Do I agree with my friend about his perceptions of God - no. Do I respect my friend for his achievements and recognition that he has now - absolutely. Do I understand that his faith in God is largely responsible for turning his life around and making him into a self respecting and now well respected citizen in his community - yes I do. Is that something that would work for me - absolutely not. Have I seen this work for others - for some it does, for others it does not. We each have our own path to find in this life.

You do not seem a fanatic zealot with your last comments so much of my diatribe is not meant to be directed at you. You seem to acknowledge there are many who call themselves Christians but who do not have the same take as you, are not able to deal with others of differing views. Those are the kinds of "Christians" that I more typically encounter and am most disturbed when I meet them. They have made a profound presumption of their own righteousness in their faith and carry a fundamental assumption that everybody else also acknowledges their righteousness as well.

That I may be reacting too strongly here is probably not appropriate behavior toward you as I don't really know you. I am reacting to something though, something that has been deeply ingrained in many people and in our culture, a kind of high school clique mentality that divides the world neatly into an US ('good' conservative Christians) and THEM (everybody else). As a true believing Christian I would think much of what I am reacting to would bother you too, even more so if these people hadn't managed to frame their views within a Christian sounding context. Frankly I feel that they use and abuse the strutures of religious doctrines and practices as well as the credibility of those who find their inspiration through their Christian faith. I don't know why that wouldn't be offensive.

That said, I am otherwise a fairly tolerant kind of guy.

Debates
For some unfathomable reason I waded back into a debate community ( right_left08 ) and got wrapped up in a rant that I can't post there so will post ( here )

Don't feel compelled to read this, it's just posted as a matter of expediency for me.

Husbands
I tripped across this today while perusing through another journal ( mail order husbands ).

What a hoot!! They range from not quite old enough to marry, to wannabe American citizens, to backwoods rednecks, to some grotesque diseased postule who posted in German that he wants a woman, he wants beer, he wants (whatever, my German is extremely limited) and if interested reply here. This has got to be a joke site - what a wacked out bunch of guys.

Sample: (with picture of middle aged man in coveralls sitting in his natural environment) "I deal in reality...and the reality is that I'm ready for love. I can chop lots of wood and can even climb a greased pole. I keep in shape by chasing chickens around my back yard. I keep my self clean and take baths weekly.
Country: West Virginia, U.S.A."

Now if that's not impressive I don't know what is!

Ladies, if these are your choices out there I would suggest a single life is in store for you!