This reminds me of how if you confuse a Japanese person with, say, a Korean, they'll call you a racist for having mixed them up with what they consider to be an inferior race. And generally without a sense of irony.

Which isn't to say that *all* Japanese are like this -- that would be racist. But the ones who aren't like this will usually confirm this cultural peculiarity.

Wait a moment...

You say that the defense minister resigned after an outcry over his saying that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "could not be helped"?

How does such a statement "despoil Japan's sense of victimhood"?

That is -- it would seem that the statement *supports* a sense of victimhood -- "we could not have done anything to prevent this" (I would think is a reasonable restatement of "it could not be helped"), that it was a terrible thing that happened to Japan outside of any context or consequences. Is that not a "victim" mentality?

It would seem to me that a statement that would despoil the sense of victimhood would be one that suggested that the bombings were the result of actions (or inactions) on Japan's part; i.e. a statement that would put some responsibility on Japan's war machine.

I don't disagree at all with your other characterizations in this article, but that one puzzles me.

Koreans and Japanese are of the same race, the cultural particularity you speak of is the offense of being identified with a culture not their own. This xenophobia exists, in part, because Japan is such a closed, homogeneous society. This is not to say that racism in Japan doesn't exist - it's just that it's against other races, not other Asians.

Sadaharu Oh, the Babe Ruth of Japan was half Japanese half Taiwan Chinese, Japanese born. Never granted Japanese citizenship. And that's not his real name it's Wang Chenchih but Japanese law requires one have a Japanese name.

sgaana you are misinterpreting the comment. The defense Ministers comments supported the view that America had no choice in using nuclear weapons on Japan in order to end the war without a direct invasion of the Japanese home islands.

There is a great deal of dispute about whether Japan would have accepted surrender without an invasion if America had offered the correct terms. Many Japanese historians (and quite a few America ones) argue that Japan’s leadership made overtures of surrender after the invasion of Okinawa and it was America in its stubborn insistence on ‘unconditional’ surrender who rebuffed Japan’s efforts and decided to kill 10s of thousands of people in nuclear fire. This is basis for the ‘victim hood’ mentality that is talked about.

Many Japanese history texts when discussing the use of the atomic weapons leave out the context of why America felt compelled to deploy nuclear weapons against civilian targets. They leave out the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the treatment of POWs, the bloody campaign in the Pacific that convinced many military commanders that Japan would never surrender and the atrocities committed in occupied Korea and China.

Many historians note that Japan’s offer to surrender came with a number of conditions that were unacceptable and it was never entirely clear if it was genuine or would be followed by senior Japanese military commanders. After nearly four years of war, already winning an unconditional surrenders from both Germany and Italy and given public attitudes it is doubtful Truman and the other Allies were in a position to accept anything less than unconditional surrender from Japan.

When the Defense Minister hinted that America might have been justified and that the decision ‘could not be helped,’ many in Japan responded with outrage.

sgaana,

Take a look at a longer article about what Kyuma originally said, such as:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070630/ap_on_re_as/japan_atomic_bomb_comment

The key point is that Kyuma agreed with the US point of view that dropping atomic bombs was a justified way to end the war. This plays against the view by some in Japan that the war was all the fault of the US, and that the use of atomic weapons was an unforgivable travesty.

So Kyuma was definitely playing against Japanese victimhood. He seems to agree with the typical US view that the war was largely the fault of the Japanese quest for empire, though the US definitely did some things to hasten its start.

I spent two years in a very rural fishing village in Japan. I have to say that the racism is still blatant officially sanctioned.

There was a family in town that owned a small restaurant that primarily served a local factory during their lunch and became a drinking establishment for fishermen in the evenings.

This family is Korean. The parents came over after the war and had two daughters. The daughters, now in their thirties, have spent their entire lives in Japan, have never been to Korea, and don't even speak Korean. They are not Japanese citizens. Every other year, the whole family had to head to the big city 3 hours away to renew their permanent resident card.

Every year, the town has a festival. The town comes alive and visitors from all over come to it. Most other restaurants and shops are sure to open up late and have stands to serve people on the street. They hand out small gifts to children and generally add spirit to the festival. However, this family takes a vacation every year during this time. Why? Because they are not welcome to take part in the festival even though they are an integral part of the community. The reason is: they are Korean.

On an individual basis, this family had lots of friends. Local politicians would often have drinks at the restaurant. The daughters taught English after school to many children.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

...it's just that it's against other races, not other Asians.

The traditional Japanese attitude towards the Ainu tribespeople, who are also Asian, rather belies your statement, there.