Quote:Last month’s Vice President Biden state visit to China, a follow up to last June’s bold and highly promising Sunnylands Summit between President Obama and President Xi, seems to have been fruitless, if not counterproductive. Biden arrived in Beijing after meeting with Abe and declaring that the U.S.-Japan alliance is the “cornerstone” of U.S. security in Asia.



Biden’s words were music to Abe’s ears and elicited one of the intended responses: effective pressure on Okinawa’s governor to approve building a big new U.S. air base that will, in part, replace the Futenma Marine air base but is likely to have expanded missions. The impression that the Pentagon (to the exclusion of others) is orchestrating U.S. diplomacy and overall policy in Asia, both toward Japan and China, is inescapable.



In Beijing, VP Biden admitted to U.S.-China relations being the “central, organizing principle” in international relations in this century. The problem is, while admitting to this principle, the U.S. has been doing virtually nothing to “operationalize” (to use a term favored in Washington) it.

Quote:[color="#0000FF"]Stephen Harner[/color], Contributor 1 week ago

Yes, you are correct that I advocate U.S. military withdrawal from Asia. We should close our bases in Japan and Korea and revert to U.S. territory, Guam and Hawaii. This is what I mean by reversing the “pivot” which, although given window dressing about being comprehensive engagement, has been fundamentally military/strategic, driven by the Pentagon whose self-interested and self-fulfilling China threat myth captured the supine Hillary State Department and Obama’s White House. The Japanese Occupation/Korean War/Cold War legacy “forward deployment” of U.S. power and the alliance system is unnatural and highly destablizing in today’s Asia and the destablizing effect increases by the year.Reversing the “pivot” would be drastic change only because the situation today is so unstable and tense. But the way to greater stability is not to “strengthen” or double up the imbalance, but to begin dismantling it.[color="#0000FF"]The two great Asia powers–China and Japan–and the secondary powers–South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines–will be able to reach a mutually beneficial, stable and sustainable modus vivendi if left along by the U.S. to do so.I would add that by virtue of “American exceptionalism” the U.S. is psychologically, philosophically, emotionally, and culturally unable to insinuate itself into Asian affairs without creating great dysfunction and tension. The U.S. is not an Asian country. It is not an Asia culture or society. Asia is the seat of several of the world’s great and most successful civilizations. Asians can and should be allowed to manage their own affairs.[/color]



[color="#800080"](I like his reason for leaving Asia alone: for the reason of just leaving it alone. But as if AmeriKKKa would ever allow that - not until they create a mess in Asia and it gets too hot for them. At which point, the US govt/military will move its seat of infestation from the E and SE to set up shop in so-called "South Asia", aka India and SL etc - since islam won't allow American infidels in dar-ul-islam - to start a headache there.)[/color]

Quote:academic journals

Chinese Journal of International Politics

CSIS Asia Publications

EJCJS [color="#800080"][uk site on Japanese studies][/color]

European Journal of East Asian Studies

Far Eastern Economic Review

Harvard Asia Quarterly

Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies

Japan Focus

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies

Journal of Japanese Studies [color="#800080"][Washington site on JP studies][/color]

Monumenta Nipponica

The Journal of Asian Studies

Quote:Robert Dujarric said...

[color="#0000FF"]Yes Abe could find common ground, but could American Christian zealots accept it? Shinto is not universalist, so it's OK for Abe and his folks to accept that US barbarians practice other religions. But the Scriptures prescribe death for idolatry, so the Christian agitators in the US are bound by their faith to either convert or terminate those who reject their beliefs.[/color]

Quote:In writing this article, first let me state that today the United States and Japan are close friends and allies and I for one am very pleased about that. For the most part, both countries have gotten beyond the events of World War II and relatively few hold any grudges about it. This demonstrates a great deal of character and goodwill on the part of both countries. Unfortunately, despite the fact that none of what I shall relate in this article is anything less than documented, established fact, a great many still seem to have a very warped view regarding the war against Japan. In spite of all the evidence known even at the time of the war and other information which has been declassified since, many people in both the United States and Japan for that matter, continue to view the start of the war as being the result of Japanese aggression against the United States and nothing more. Some have even tried to twist the facts or simply fabricate their own in order to spread anti-Japanese bigotry to as many countries as possible. It is for that reason, and because truth is to be pursued for its own sake that I address this subject. I do so because I have touched on it a number of times in the past without ever giving a full explanation and I do so today simply because I enjoy offending people who are wrong. It is certainly not my intention to fuel any bad feelings between America and Japan. I wish nothing more sincerely than for the friendship between America and Japan to continue and would prefer that America was friends rather than enemies with all monarchies.





USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor

To start at the beginning of the war, even the most extreme depths of hatred and often unbridled racism against Japan on the part of the United States in World War II is usually forgiven because of the “treacherous” surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The problem with that scenario is the fact that Japan did not intend the attack to come without warning and indeed it was only incompetence on the part of the American government that prevented Pearl Harbor from being warned that an attack by Japan was expected. However, even that is rather disingenuous as the United States had not only planned and worked for quite some time to maneuver Japan into attacking American forces in the Far East or Pacific area but, in fact, had authorized a plan to attack Japan first. Never heard about that? It is true and has been declassified since the 1970’s, the order exists with the signature of President Roosevelt right on it. You have probably even seen at least some evidence of this, even if you do not realize it. For example, most people have probably seen the film, a Japanese and American co-production, about the attack on Pearl Harbor called, “Tora! Tora! Tora!”. If so, you will remember that on the morning of the attack the Japanese planes were picked up on radar but the officer on watch dismissed the report because it was assumed that the planes were a flight of B-17 “Flying Fortress” bombers coming in from the mainland. Those who have seen the movie will also recall the dramatic scene when these bombers arrived later, during the attack, unarmed and out of gas.



Why do I bring this up? Well, ask yourself a question; why were these land-based bombers being sent to Hawaii? They served no purpose in Hawaii but that was actually the first leg of their longer flight to U.S. bases in The Philippines. Why were they being sent to The Philippines and was that their final destination? Remember that the B-17 was a heavy, strategic bomber. Bombers are not defensive weapons, they are offensive weapons. You can defend yourself with fighter planes, you cannot defend yourself with bombers. All you can do with them is attack someone else. Who in the neighborhood of The Philippines would the United States want to attack other than Japan? Of course it was Japan and we have known since the order was declassified in the 1970’s (though it is still mostly unknown) that President Roosevelt had signed off on a plan to attach a bomber force to the American mercenary fighter group in the service of the Republic of China known as the “Flying Tigers”. The plan, JB-355, was for a first-strike against Japan by American pilots flying American bombers but under the flag of China for political cover that entailed the fire-bombing of Osaka, Tokyo and Nagasaki. It was authorized by the President five months before Pearl Harbor was attacked.





FDR

It should also be kept in mind that the Roosevelt administration was breaking American neutrality laws already by funding the American forces fighting for the Chinese against Japan. They were not really mercenaries at all since they were trained, armed, equipped and even paid by the U.S. government secretly while simply being listed as volunteers of the Chinese army of Chiang Kai-shek. Still, many would and have said that all of this was justified because the Japanese were the “bad guys” and “everyone knows that”. The same sentiment is used to justify the undeniable fact that President Roosevelt had maneuvered Japan into a position in which they would be forced to attack the United States. By cutting off all trade with Japan, including the export of iron and oil, persuading the British Empire and the Dutch government-in-exile to do the same, the United States effectively delivered an ultimatum to Japan: they could do nothing and suffer the total collapse of Japanese society for lack of the vital resources all industrialized countries require (and, indeed, Japan had only 18 months of oil left, in total by December of 1941), they could effectively surrender their sovereignty to the United States by giving up the right to manage their own affairs and allow America to dictate Japanese foreign policy or the Japanese could go to war with the United States. Obviously, only one outcome was in any way remotely possible. Again, however, even amongst the relatively few who are aware of these facts (and they are plain for all to see), some still try to justify it by claiming that the Japanese were “bad guys” who would have to be fought sooner or later, one way or another. Well, why was that?



Certainly the Empire of Japan had never attacked or threatened the United States or any part of the American “empire” in the Far East. What were they doing that so outraged the Roosevelt administration that war was the only option, even if America had to be the one to start it? The standard answer, of course, is that Japan had invaded China and the United States didn’t like that. Japan had set up the Empire of Manchukuo in Manchuria and restored the last Manchu Emperor to the throne there and had then gone on to fight Chinese republican forces south of the Great Wall in China proper. There were reasons and “incidents” behind every escalation of this conflict but we do not need to go into those now. The bottom line is that Japanese forces were in China and America did not like that (even though, at that point, China had not declared war on Japan and would not until after America and Britain did). It was an invasion of a sovereign country after all. Whether one thinks it was justified (as Japan did) or not (as America did) this is a fact. The problem with America being so offended by it and compelled to act against Japan because of it arises from another question one cannot help but ask; why was America not similarly prompted to action by other invasions in the East Asia area?





Bogd Khan of Mongolia

After the collapse of the Qing Empire in China both Tibet and Mongolia reasserted their independence. Mongolia had never been part of China after all. The Manchu Qing dynasty had gained control of Mongolia prior to taking over China and so, even while the Qing came to rule over all of China, Mongolia could more correctly be said to have belonged to Manchuria but never China. Besides which, it had been the United States, at least since the time of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, that liked to talk about “self-determination” so, presumably, regardless of their prior relationship with China, the Mongolians could declare independence if they wanted to. However, in 1919 the Republic of China sent troops into Mongolia, seized power and deposed the reigning monarch; the Bogd Khan. No one seemed to care in America. The only one who did care was the rogue White Russian general Baron von Ungern-Sternberg who drove out the Chinese and restored the Bogd Khan to his throne in 1921. However, his forces were soon driven out by the Soviet Red Army that took control of Mongolia and made it a part of the Soviet Union in all but name. Again, no one in America seemed to care.



Some may be wondering what any of this has to do with the matter at hand. It matters because American security or interests were no more threatened by the invasion of Manchuria or China than the invasion of Mongolia. Why was it wrong for Japan to invade China but okay for China to invade Mongolia and then for Soviet Russia to invade Mongolia? Is it only wrong if the country is big enough? Is it only wrong if there are large populations which equate to lucrative markets for foreign businesses at risk? And if Japan was “invading China” by occupying Manchuria because Manchuria had been part of the Qing Empire, why did Roosevelt not condemn Soviet Russia for “invading China” by occupying Mongolia which had also been part of the Qing Empire or when the Soviets invaded Xinjiang in 1934 which had been part of the Qing Empire and is still part of China today? Why the blatant double-standard? Of course, one could also ask why the Soviet attack on Finland was okay or the Soviet occupation and annexation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and eastern Poland was okay but an, as yet, undeclared war between Japan and the Republic of China demanded that America take action, freeze Japanese assets, cut of all trade with Japan, ban Japanese ships from the Panama Canal and even plan to fire-bomb three Japanese cities to start a war. Yes, I think one can very well see that the Empire of Japan was being held to a very different standard from other countries in the neighborhood.





Tokyo -when it did happen

It is rather interesting to just take a look at the text of both the American declaration of war against Japan and the much more lengthy Japanese declaration of war against America. The justifications put forward by the United States, that, “the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:” is a total lie. It has been a matter of public record since the McCollum memo was first widely publicized in 2001 that the Roosevelt administration was doing everything it could to provoke an act of war by Japan against the United States. And even if one disregards the memo, the same President who denounced the “dastardly and unprovoked attack” on Pearl Harbor was also the President who months earlier had signed off on the fire-bombing of several major Japanese cities with the stated intention of causing as much death and destruction as possible. Keep that comparison in mind; fire-bombing major, heavily populated cities versus the attack on Pearl Harbor in which great care was taken so that no civilian areas or targets were hit. Again, that is a matter of public record that has never been in dispute. For the United States to say the attack on Pearl Harbor was “unprovoked” is nothing short of an outright lie.



In comparison, the Japanese declaration of war relates a lengthy list of provocations by the United States and Great Britain (and most of what Britain did was done at the insistence of the United States, in fact going all the way back to the breaking off of the British-Japanese alliance) which are all perfectly true and, again, not in dispute. Japan mentions British and American support for the Republic of China that was waging war against Japan (which also violated U.S. neutrality laws), the build-up of American military forces in East Asia and the severance of all trade with Japan by America and Britain. All perfectly true. Just consider the situation for a moment. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. President had authorized and paid for American pilots and American fighter planes to be sent to China to fight against the Japanese, the Allies were sending 10,000 tons of supplies to the Chinese every month through French Indochina and finally had frozen all Japanese assets in the United States, cut off all trade with Japan and banned Japanese ships from the Panama Canal. Would anyone call these the acts of a neutral or indifferent power?





Chinese Republican troops

Also remember that, at that time, about the only sources of oil exports in the world were the United States, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and Malaysia and the Gulf States which were all under the control of Britain. When the U.S. cut off all oil exports to Japan and persuaded Britain and the Dutch to do the same, this cut off all oil entirely. Can anyone imagine, even with the more diverse sources of energy and greater number of oil producing countries in the world today, just what sort of social and economic collapse would befall a country like the United States if, for example, just the countries of the Middle East decided to cut off all oil exports? It would be nothing short of disastrous and this was exactly the situation that Japan was facing. Likewise, other justifications for American actions do not stand up to scrutiny either. For example, the occupation of bases in French Indochina is often cited as a reason for America to take action against Japan. The problem with that is that it was done with the consent of the French government in Vichy. Aha! I know some are already shouting that this was the terrible, collaborationist government that was pro-Nazi and completely illegitimate. Unfortunately, regardless of how good or bad the Vichy regime was, at that time, the United States itself still recognized it as the legitimate government of France. So try again. In that case, there is the accusation that Japan was simply keeping bad company by having joined the Rome-Berlin Axis with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The problem with that argument is this; guess who was the biggest supporter of those heroic “freedom fighters” of the Republic of China prior to Japan joining the Axis? Go ahead, guess. Give up? It was Nazi Germany of course. Before the outbreak of war more than half of all armaments exported from Nazi Germany went to the nationalists of the Republic of China and Nazi Germany had, for years, been helping China industrialize and modernize their army.





The President who wanted war

So, again, we come down to a blatant double-standard concerning the Empire of Japan. If being friendly with Germany was a crime, why was it not for China? If the occupation of Manchuria was an invasion of China, why wasn’t the Soviet invasion of Mongolia and Xinjiang not treated the same? Given that America was sending military forces to aid the Chinese, diverting long-rang bombers to within striking distance of the Japanese mainland, cutting off all vital resources to Japan and funding those who were waging war against Japan, how can anyone honestly say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was “unprovoked”? And, I will repeat, none of these facts are in dispute. The sanctions against Japan can be found in any history book as can the history of the American volunteers in China. The order for the fire-bombing of Japan before the two countries were at war was declassified and is now a matter of public record. This is not, furthermore, an attempt to whitewash history. Many terrible things happened during the war that are inexcusable. However, it is a matter of fact that the undeclared war between Japan and certain factions of the Republic of China became part of a world war spreading across the whole of East Asia and the South Pacific because of the actions and desires of the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and not those of the Empire of Japan.



http://madmonarchist.blogspot.ca/2013/12/december-7-and-american-double-standard.html

Quote:America and Japan, Who Wanted War?



http://madmonarchist.blogspot.ca/2012/12/america-and-japan-who-wanted-war.html

Quote:With my mission now at hand, my dear old town, my dear old people,

I now abandon everything and leave to protect this country.

To preserve our eternal and just cause, I now go forth.

My body will collapse like a falling cherry blossom

but my soul will live and protect this land forever.

Farewell. I am a glorious wild cherry blossom.

I shall return to my mother's place and bloom.

- Mayumi Ichikawa.

Quote:Japan’s PM Abe defends Taiji dolphin hunt, cites culture and tradition

Jan 28, 2014 John Hofilena National 1 Comment



Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has defended Japan’s dolphin hunt earlier this month, an act that has been strongly criticized by the international community – including by newly appointed United States ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy who said that the corralling of hundreds of dolphins into the secluded Taiji Bay and killing them was “inhumane”. Abe, in an interview with CNN, had asked the world to understand that the controversial hunt was part of Japanese culture and tradition, not to mention that it financially supports the fishing communities involved in the hunt.

“The dolphin fishing that takes place in Taiji is an ancient fishing practice rooted in their culture. It supports their livelihoods,” Abe said in the interview which was uploaded onto CNN’s Japanese website on Friday. “We hope you will understand this,” he added, saying that the Japanese government was aware of criticism of the hunt. “In every country and region, there are practices and ways of living and culture that have been handed down from ancestors,” Abe said. “Naturally, I feel that these should be respected.”



According to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the Taiji fisherman herded more than 250 dolphins into the cove at Taiji on Jan. 18. The annual dolphin hunt caught worldwide attention when it became the subject of a 2009 Academy Award-winning documentary film called “The Cove”. Those who support the Japanese practice say that the dolphins that are targets of the hunt are not endangered, a position that has been echoed by the Japanese government. They say that the criticism the hunt receives is hypocritical, especially as they claim that the dolphin hunt is not different to the slaughter of an obviously bigger number of cows, pigs and sheep to satisfy global demand.

Quote:2013.08.21 (Wed)

Time to Ponder Why Visit to Yasukuni Shrine Is Important



[...]



As we near August 15, the day World War II ended, I earnestly would like for as many people as possible – especially those who have turned their backs on Yasukuni – to come to grips with the history of this shrine.



It is natural for the people of any nation and the government representing them to show their heartfelt gratitude and deference to those who lost their lives as they fought for the nation and its people. However, this very natural act has been discontinued in Japan since the mid-80’s, some four decades after the war ended.



Visits to Yasukuni by Japanese political leaders have attracted stern criticism from abroad – especially from China and South Korea – on the grounds that “Class A war criminals are enshrined together with the war-dead.” However, when Japan regained independence on April 28, 1952 with the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, a vigorous campaign sprang up across Japan demanding the release as well as pardon of war criminals. The movement was touched off by the issuance of “A Written Opinion Regarding Recommendations for the Release of War-Criminals” by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. It may perhaps be possible for those critical of the “joint enshrinement” to change their minds if they come to understand how earnestly the Japanese of those days put their hearts and souls into this campaign. In point of fact, the number of those who signed petitions reached nearly 40 million. In 1952, the total Japanese population stood at 85,850,000, of which those over 20 years of age numbered 47,390,000. This shows that virtually every adult in Japan signed the petition.



I believe we should imprint this important fact in our minds as reflecting the genuine sentiments of those people who lived through that traumatic period. The Japan Socialist Party – predecessor of the Social Democratic Party which stringently opposes Yasukuni visits today – supported the people’s sentiments for this campaign then. It was the very desire of the nation, and of virtually all of its political parties, to see all of the war criminals, beginning with the Class A criminals, pardoned at an early stage.



Every Post-War Japanese Prime Minister Visited Yasukuni



The pardons were eventually granted, but not due to the public opinion of the Japanese alone. Nations that fought each other work out solutions to all problems resulting from their war by signing a peace treaty once the fighting is over. In Japan’s case, however, Article 11 was added to the San Francisco Peace Treaty which took effect on April 28, 1952, stipulating that no war criminal be pardoned without a majority approval by the parliament of all the governments that had sent delegates to the International Tribunal for the Far East (held in Tokyo May 3, 1946-November 11, 1948). The Japanese government took pains in approaching the respective governments in order to win their consent to the coveted pardons.



With each government having given its consent to the request for pardons under a spirit of healing the wounds of the war and building a new peace, all of the Class A war criminals were pardoned by March 31, 1952, and jointly enshrined at Yasukuni in 1978. Class B and C war criminals were pardoned by May 30, 1958 and enshrined.



Because all of the Japanese war criminals, including Class A, were pardoned thanks to domestic and international consent, none of them was enshrined as a war criminal at Yasukuni. Isn’t it curious that we still talk about them as “war criminals”? They once were war criminals, but were pardoned and restored to the status of ordinary citizens.



In a recent TV show, I noted that Japan actually had no war criminals after all of them were pardoned under international law. The woman who hosted the show gave me a questioning look, but the truth stands that war criminals ceased to exist in Japan when they were finally pardoned.



Japanese today have a responsibility to ponder deeply the meaning of the pardon of those war criminals which materialized with virtually every Japanese adult living in that era signing the petition after having lived through the war days and been made painfully aware of the fallacies of the Far Eastern Military Tribunal. It is our responsibility to relate the sentiments of our predecessors to the present generation and further on down to posterity.



Another reason for domestic opposition to Yasukuni visits is objections from nations like China. And yet even this issue can be resolved by looking sincerely back on the post-war history.



During the seven-year American occupation of Japan (1945-1952), Japanese prime ministers, cabinet members, and government employees were banned from visiting Yasukuni under the Shinto Directive of December 15, 1945 separating state and religion. On October 18, 1951, about a month after the signing of the Peace Treaty, then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida visited Yasukuni, thereafter continuing to attend the shrine’s spring and autumn semi-annual observances.



Successive prime ministers followed suit – Nobusuke Kishi, Hayato Ikeda, Eisaku Sato, Kakuei Tanaka, Takeo Miki, Takeo Fukuda, Zenko Suzuki, and Yasuhiro Nakasone. Ony Ichiro Hatoyama and Tanzan Ishibashi, who were prone to illness, did not make any visits to the shrine.



It was during the time of the cabinet of Masayoshi Ohira that the joint enshrinement of Class A war criminals, which nations like China subsequently found upsetting, was made public.



China’s Request for the Strengthening of Japanese Military Power



Scooping its competition, the mass circulation daily Mainichi Shimbun ran an article on April 19, 1979, shortly before that year’s spring observances, revealing that the government had enshrined former Class A war criminals jointly with the war-dead during the fall observances the year before. Attending the 1979 fall observances at Yasukuni, Ohira found himself tightly surrounded by reporters out to verify the Mainichi report. The Christian prime minister replied magnificently: “How others view my visit is their business. I pray at Yasukuni because that is what my heart tells me to do. How others may criticize my visit doesn’t really concern me.”



Having thus made his visits to Yasukuni, Ohira was summoned again to a session of the Upper House Cabinet Committee on June 5, 1979, remarking: “I believe history will be our judge (on the decision to enshrine the former Class A war criminals).”



Ohira attended the fall observances at Yasukuni that year, then visited China in December.



China gave Ohira a big welcome – this prime minister who had visited Yasukuni several times. Although difficult to believe in the context of the recent friction between the two countries, the Chinese government at the time even called on Japan to double its defense budget. China made the request contending that raising the defense outlay up to 2% of Japan’s Gross National Product (GNP) would not significantly impair Japan’s economy.



The Chinese request was believed to have reflected its increasingly hostile relations with the Soviet Union. The important point, however, is that the call for Japan’s increased defense build-up was made after the enshrinement of the former Class A war criminals had been brought to light. In other words, there was no indication whatsoever at the time that China would regard visits to Yasukuni by Japanese political leaders as problematical. That Japan and China maintained passionately friendly relations for the next six and a half years after the enshrinement was made public is proof enough.



It was during the Nakasone administration that the Chinese posture towards Yasukuni changed suddenly. On August 15, 1985, Nakasone visited the shrine for the tenth time as prime minister. A little more than a month later, on September 20, the Chinese government began taking issue with the Yasukuni visits out of the blue, charging that “the official visits by members of the Japanese cabinet to Yasukuni, which enshrines the spirits of Class A war criminals” has “grossly hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.” Clearly, there was a political movitation behind the change in attitude.



The “Yasukuni problem” can hardly be resolved as long as Japan continues to bow to pressure from China and South Korea which regrettably are unable to extend the internationally recognized courtesy of respecting the different values and religious outlooks of other countries. It is best that the Japanese firmly understand the background and readily pay visits to Yasukuni at every opportunity. After all, it is the people’s hearts that support the government as well as the nation.



(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 570 in the August 15-22 combined issue of The Weekly Shincho)

Quote:2014.01.10 (Fri)

Time-Honored History: the Source of Japan’s Strength in 2014

[..]

Compassion for the Weak



Takeda further notes that in ancient times the heavenly gods could at least hear the tearful voices of the earthly gods, citing as examples the story of the “White Hare of Inaba,” who was stripped of his skin and fur for cheating, and then saved by Okuninushi, also known as Onamuji-no-kami, or the story of a hunter god, Hoori-no-mikoto, who was saved by a god of the sea, Shiotsuchi-no-kami. These stories adequately demonstrate the compassion that the ancient Japanese gods had for the weak.



These values shared by our ancestors permeate through the 17-article constitution—Japan’s first constitution written by Prince Shotoku in 604, more than a century before the Kojiki. The fundamental spirit of Shotoku’s constitution called for the rulers to watch prudently what they did and fully devote themselves to the building of a nation on behalf of the general populace based on principles of fairness. For nearly 14 centuries since then, as demonstrated in the teachings of the domain schools and terakoya private elementary schools of feudal Japan—as well as in the teachings of bushido—the Japanese people have, under the guidance of benevolent leaders, nurtured a remarkable sense of responsibility as citizens.



Those values were incorporated into the Charter Oath of Five Articles (1867) setting the legal stage for Japan’s modernization following the Meiji Restoration. Japan can truly take pride in what the oath represented in terms of a pledge by a newly born modern state determined to join the ranks of the world’s advanced nations. The basic posture of the new Japan as seen through the Oath corresponded to what was richly demonstrated in the 17-article constitution, as well as the Kojiki, calling on the new leadership to build a nation by heeding the opinion of every single Japanese regardless of his station in life. And it was at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 that the basic principle of fairness that the Meiji Japanese leaders advocated regarding man’s individual integrity blossomed in the international community. Toward the creation of the League of Nations at the end of World War I, Japan powerfully proposed the abolition of all forms of racial discrimination as the standard operating principle of the international body.



The Japanese proposal was rejected by the US. However, throughout World War II, the Japanese values of detesting racial discrimination remained unshakable. Wasn’t it amply proven by the fact that the Japanese government committed itself to saving Jews where it could, despite its alliance with Nazi Germany? These Japanese actions were an expression of a national determination to create a world without racial discrimination.



Having maintained its silence since the end of the Greater East Asian War, a period of more than 60 years, Japan is now being asked to step forward and play a larger role in international affairs—particularly in checking China’s often irrational behavior. In order for Japan to contribute to building a better international community, I sincerely hope that in 2014 we will spare no effort to connect with our origins as we strive to reestablish our true identity.



(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” in the January 2-9, 2014 combined issue of The Weekly Shincho)

Quote:2013.11.19 (Tue)

Time is Opportune for Prime Minister Abe’s Much-Awaited Visit to Yasukuni Shrine

The annual autumn observance is scheduled for October 17-20 at Yasukuni Shrine in central Tokyo. In view of the current international situation, there appears no more opportune time than now for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to realize his long-cherished dream of a visit to the shrine, where the spirits of the nation’s war-dead are enshrined.



On August 15th, Abe sent his proxy Koichi Hagiuda, who serves as his special advisor, to Yasukuni. Abe instructed him to convey “my heart-felt condolences to the spirits of those who died fighting for our nation and its people during the last war” and to “deeply apologize for my failure to personally be present due to the present circumstances.” Two months later, on October 11th, Abe observed on BS Fuji’s “Prime News”: “I regard it as a very natural sentiment and an intrinsic right of the leader of a nation to show reverence to the spirits of the war-dead who sacrificed their lives fighting for the nation.”



These remarks eloquently convey the strong yearning on the part of Abe to visit the controversial shrine. Violent reactions from China and South Korea, each determined to politicize the issue, have frustrated Abe’s plans to visit Yasukuni. And now, with the autumn observance just around the corner, a visit by the prime minister is again being taken up in China and South Korea as a serious “diplomatic issue”.

(Look, she refers to it as controversial too: because other people make it so.)



On condition of anonymity, a senior member of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party commented:

“Frankly speaking, the biggest stumbling block for Mr. Abe is neither China nor South Korea. In point of fact, it is US. President Obama, ridden with delicate issues such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) negotiations, North Korea, and Syria, among other things. His hands also full with domestic issues, Obama regards discord between Japan and China over Yasukuni as an added burden on the US.”



Those fundamentally opposed to Abe’s Yasukuni visit conveniently take advantage of such sentiments on the part of the US administration, eagerly looking for reasons why Abe should not visit Yasukuni. They say, for example, that: (1) even the Emperor is unable to visit the shrine because of the so-called “Class-A war criminals” enshrined there; and (2) the Japanese people are not convinced that those who did not die on the battleground should be enshrined at Yasukuni. They say that the people do not support a visit by the prime minister.



Although these are essentially trivial reasons, largely groundless, they nevertheless are still frequently brought up. Let us consider reason (1). Emperor Hirohito visited Yasukuni on November 21st of 1975. That was the last time an emperor—either Emperor Showa or current Emperor Akihito—visited Yasukuni. It was not until three years later that the spirits of seven of the “Class A war criminals” were enshrined there. That is to say that the enshrinement of these so-called “war criminals” has had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Emperor has refrained from visiting Yasukuni.



Criticism from the US

I suspect that back in 1975 the Imperial couple decided not to visit Yasukuni Shrine because of concern over how such a visit would be interpreted in view of the separation of government and religion, which was hotly discussed in the Diet at the time.

That, I believe, is why, instead of personally visiting Yasukuni, Emperor Akihito along with Prince Akishino and other members of the imperial family send their emissaries or make votive offerings at the annual spring and autumn observances each year.

As regards reason (2), here’s how I see it.

[...]

[Read at link]



Abe’s long-promised visit to Yasukuni is indepensable not only to respond to the expectations of the general populace, but also to enable Japan to hew a new path through the harsh realities of international politics. Who among us can expect to dedicate himself to a mother country whose prime minister is unable to publicly offer prayers to his own war-dead while still able to present a wreath and offer prayers to America’s war-dead at Arlington National Cemetery? Such a nation cannot possibly sustain itself.

(Exactly.)



And yet, according to Eto, the US—our most important ally—is trying to block a visit by Abe to Yasukuni.

[...]

Quote:May the Gods grant victory to both peoples [Shintos and Hindoos] in these endeavors.

Quote:Why India and Japan are becoming closer: [color="#0000FF"]Abe wants Japan's navy and Indian navy to be seamlessly interconnected.[/color]

Quote:Home worship



The Japanese kamidana (literally, spirit shelf) sits high up on the wall so that one looks up to the kami (kami also means 'above' or 'upper')

In both traditions the home is a central locus of worship, although there is at least one difference that may indicate an underlying divergence in approach or emphasis. In the Greek household, or oikos, the hearth was where the family gathered and was the sacred center of the home, where offerings were made. In contrast, the Shinto home has a kamidana that is placed high up on a wall in the main room, so that it is elevated above the people.



The most common act of Hellenic worship was the “first fruits” offering to Hestia at the start of each meal, a small portion of the meal set aside for the goddess; again, a sacrifice (however token), performed as many times a day as the family ate meals. This offering was thrown into the hearth-fire, where the family were gathered, and consumed by the flames and thus by the goddess herself. Modern Hellenists have varied approaches to these basic meal offerings, often dictated by their personal circumstances (since most homes no longer have an actual hearth fire); but the importance of sincerely making the offering is widely acknowledged as one of the most basic expressions of eusebia (piety).



In the basic Shinto home worship scenario, a family member will present the first-fruits offering of clean rice (cooked or not), water and salt, together with acknowledgement of the presence of the kami. At the end of the day, the offerings are removed from the kamidana and frequently eaten with the evening meal, in order to internalize the blessings of the kami. In both cases, it seems to me, there is a common core of relationship and reciprocity – we receive blessings from the gods or kami, and give them offerings and prayer in return (or sometimes vice versa), and thus we stay in right relationship.

Quote:According to Yamakage Motohisa, Shinto priest and author:

“When the physical body is made clean by water, our heart and mind are purified at the same time. The act of washing our hands before worshiping at a shrine is about more than the magical cleansing power of water. We also make a distinction within ourselves between the secular and the sacred by that act, and thus we change our attitude and our mindset. In so doing, we wash away uncleanness. We purify our heart and mind so that we may connect with the spirit of Kami with a heart and mind that is clean, bright, right and straight. This is the most important goal of misogi.”6

Quote:My name is Erik and I am a modern Hellenic polytheist; I worship the ancestral gods of my (American, Western-European-descended) culture.