Hiroshima Video Reaction

posted at 11:09 am on December 29, 2006 by Bryan

I’m connected to Japan and to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a personal way. My thoughts on the video recently posted on Hot Air, and comments about that video, are here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bryan, do you believe based on the content of this thread that I’m a racist?

.

GT on December 29, 2006 at 6:18 PM

BTW, you said….

I’ll add one final thing. In our entire time in the US, my wife and I have experience overt anti-Japanese racism exactly two times. One was while walking down a street in San Antonio, TX and a black lady leaned out of her car and yelled at us “Go back to China!” Which was more than ironic, since we had never even been to China.

Do you realize you just proved one of my earlier points?

I agree with you that such blatant racism as per your example is completely unacceptable and despicable. I’m sorry you and your wife were exposed to such stupidity and hatred.

.

GT on December 29, 2006 at 6:27 PM

GT, no, I don’t. I just think you’re not seeing why the term is offensive and won’t accept a simple explanation from me, and I have an up close understanding of how offensive “Japs” actually is. But that doesn’t mean I think you’re a racist. I don’t.

The thing about terms that get loaded with racial baggage is, it’s not always rational or easily understood. The comparison to Gerrys etc is flawed imo, because for whatever reason (and I think it has to do with the racial makeup of Japan vs Germany and Europe generally and their similarity to the US) Gerrys doesn’t carry the same baggage that Japs undeniably does to Japanese people. Neither does “ChiComs” for some reason, at least to me, and I think that’s because that term attacks their politics and policies as opposed to attacking their ethnicity. I’ve used “ChiComs” as a way of separating the government from the people, in my wish that the Communists would collapse and leave China a free country that’s no longer a threat to Taiwan or anyone else. Same with “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” for the French, to slam their disgraceful history of buckling at the first hint of trouble. There is no similar utility for using “Japs” that I know of, and I do know that most Japanese find it offensive.

But like I said, it’s not always based entirely on logic.

Bryan on December 29, 2006 at 6:30 PM

Thank you. Thats the kind of well thought out from the heart response I like to read from people I who’s opinions I respect.

:)

.

GT on December 29, 2006 at 6:43 PM

Bryan- If you’re still around, i’ve been meaning to ask if you’re originally from Texas?

I used to know a Bryan Preston years ago.

Scot on December 29, 2006 at 6:52 PM

It is the basis of all communication that the speaker has an idea and they attempt to convey that to the audience. This is done by using agreed apon definitions of words, of which there can be more then one. There can at times be genuine misunderstanding, but communication will always fail when the audience feels they have free reign to simply reinterpret what the speakers intentions are. This is the basis of political correctness. I am dismayed to see in both this and other threads the moderators of Hotair embracing it.

Resolute on December 29, 2006 at 6:52 PM

Bryan, I understand exactly where you are coming from. I am also married to a Japanese. When one of my relatives found out (God rest her soul) she looked me straight in the eye and said “I don’t trust those sneaky Japs.” – and meant it. I felt sorry for her.

With that being said, I do not think EF should have been banned for being “intentionally obtuse”. One side of my family is as liberal as can be. If I as the sole conservative banned them from my family, I would be the only one at the dinner table. Who would do the dishes?

You are coowner of this site, so you can re-instate him if you choose. Not telling you what to do – just making a suggestion.

Finally thank you for bringing this subject to the table. I really do think that too many people were not aware of the impact the word has.

jman on December 29, 2006 at 7:29 PM

This thread is unbelievable. Of course it’s an offensive term. It just is. You can go through all sorts of rhetorical contortions to try and prove otherwise, but that doesn’t change anything.

And why would you want to go through the effort to prove it isn’t, unless the point was still to offend.

Take it to a nutroots site. I hear their into that.

Coyote D. on December 29, 2006 at 7:45 PM

I apologize to Bryan if any of my posts were borderline offensive. I make a conscious effort NOT to use terminology that other people find offensive. That’s just good manners. In the Christian tradition, my momma’ taught me not to be rude to other people.

I AM on record here at Hot Air as having said that I do NOT hate Muslims — but I DO hate Islam. So does that make me an elitist or a racist or a xenophobe or a crusader? I don’t think so. Criticizing an ideology or denigrating the doctrines of a religion is not the same thing as using derogatory labels for people simply because of the color of their skin or because they comes from a different culture. I would agree that hurling verbal abuse at someone for superficial reasons is inexcusable. But I would defend my position on Islam as being akin to the Christian doctrine of “hate the sin, love the sinner.” (BTW, Mahatma Ghandi is on record as having said/advocated that principle. I greatly admire Ghandi, even though I have to admit that I am not very much like him.)

I think that a pretty good argument can be made that ALL humans are racist and elitist and xenophobic to some extent. Judaism and Christianity teach us that it is part of the human condition as sinners and as a fallen race of beings. Some people just keep those unsavory aspects of human nature in check better than others. The point at which we all have to draw the line is when we see someone that advocates/encourages/perpetuates racist attitudes and behaviors. THAT’s what is truly offensive.

It can sometimes be difficult to figure out who’s racist and who isn’t. Twenty seven years ago, I played on an intramural basketball team. I was the “token white guy” on the team. All the other players were black. The other players sometimes referred to me as “snowflake.” I didn’t take offense. Moreover, I don’t really believe that any of the other players were racist (or else why would they let me play on their team?). Actually, I was kind of fond of the “snowflake” moniker. After all, urban legend has it that each and every snowflake is unique. Does that mean that I give all black people a “pass” on racism. Nope. I will unabashedly tell anyone that asks me that Louis Farrakhan is a racist. But I don’t believe that someone is a racist just because they call me “snowflake.”

CyberCipher on December 29, 2006 at 7:48 PM

I make a conscious effort NOT to use terminology that other people find offensive. That’s just good manners. In the Christian tradition, my momma’ taught me not to be rude to other people.

That should be good enough. I’m amazed at the level of intensity some people exhibit when trying to defend offensive terms.

Would anyone here call Michelle Malkin a “flip”? It’s just short for Filipino, you know. Why would she be offended? Shouldn’t she just get over it?

John from WuzzaDem on December 29, 2006 at 8:24 PM

Wow, I left for a couple of hours and all heck broke loose. Sorry Bryan that you felt put upon. I think the thread was valuable, it made people rethink the “if I think it is ok, then it must be ok” attitude. Civility is not saying whatever you feel like in whatever location. I think a lot of people now realize, because of this thread, that they have offended a lot of people, unknowingly. I am sure GT is not a racist, maybe a little insensitive, but not a racist. Words do hurt, that is why Hot Air is different from many others, we want to be more honest, but also respectful. Sometimes a balancing act, and some fall off the beam.
Thanks for your patience, you took a couple of hits.

right2bright on December 29, 2006 at 10:15 PM

Well, I’m sorry. I think its all silly.

Abbreviating the word “British” is Ok.

Abbreviating the word “Australian” is Ok.

Abbreviating the word “Japanese” is highly offensive.

I just sit here rolling my eyes wondering what’s next.

As for referring to Ms. Malkin as a Filipino, I’d be careful. She’s not. She is an American. Ameri for short.

;)

.

GT on December 29, 2006 at 10:23 PM

I am sure GT is not a racist, maybe a little insensitive,….

Nah. I’m not insensitive. I just grew up. Name calling stopped bothering me a long time ago. Just wish more would do the same.

.

GT on December 29, 2006 at 10:28 PM

wow so much BS over words. Seriously banning people too? sigh… hot-air RIP?

maybe I’m just jealous that other races can make such a big deal over so-called slurs and whites can’t even wear a shirt that says ‘I’m white and I’m proud’ without being called a Nazi and a racist. Oh but don’t refer to someones race abbreviatedly!!! I’m just really disgusted.

sirmyth on December 30, 2006 at 3:19 AM

I just sit here rolling my eyes wondering what’s next.

As for referring to Ms. Malkin as a Filipino, I’d be careful. She’s not. She is an American. Ameri for short.

;)

.

GT on December 29, 2006 at 10:23 PM

Her heritage begins in the Philllipines. I would suspect that some of the slurs and terms used about this country offend her simply because she has relatives who are subjected to them. Michelle has mentioned some of the stereotypes and insults she has been subjected to and in none of those writings I’ve seen there was nothing I saw that even hinted that she approved of that type of behavior.
Why can’t you apply the same logic to people with a Japanese heritage?

maybe I’m just jealous that other races can make such a big deal over so-called slurs and whites can’t even wear a shirt that says ‘I’m white and I’m proud’ without being called a Nazi and a racist. Oh but don’t refer to someones race abbreviatedly!!! I’m just really disgusted.

sirmyth on December 30, 2006 at 3:19 AM

They are slurs and the issue is not a desire to wear a Tshirt saying I’m Japanese and I’m proud.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that what most people really seem to like is to be called by their given name, have proper descriptions of the people from particular countries, and to be respected?

And to be perfectly blunt I have never met any whites who want to wear the Tshirt you mentioned unless that expressed desire was specifically tied to issues involving black-white conflicts in our country. Has it ever occurred to you that the Nazis and white racists use the term as a rallying cry? If it bothers you that much, grow some cojones and take on the skin heads and aryan nation so you can reclaim the term you seem so attached to….. No? Thought so.

Bradky on December 30, 2006 at 8:49 AM

Bradky,

I seem to recall an incident not too long ago where a student or a small group of students went to school wearing “GayPride”
t-shirts. That was fine with the school. However, another student went to school wearing a “StraightPride” t-shirt. He was sent home and told not to wear it to school anymore because it was homophobic.

And not too long ago, some we trying to make the term “Illegal Ilien” a racist term. Now the correct term is “Undocumented Worker”.

Its not that I’m insensitive. Its that others are overly sensitive.

What is the difference between a black person wearing a shirt that reads “Black Power” and a white person wearing a shirt that reads “White Power”? We’re too afraid to call the black person a racist for fear of being labeled as such. But call the white person a racist for doing the same thing and its OK. We automatically think of him as a Nazi or skinhead. Its stupid.

There was a time when “Black is Beautiful”. Today, some find it insulting and racist preferring “African-American”.

As to your response about Michelle and her ancestry, it was people from the vitriolic Left who attempted to slur her by using the word “Filipino” and its derivatives. I thought her response was perfect. She didn’t allow them the satisfaction. I think perhaps the Japanese ought to do the same. Its only a slur if you let it.

Do we really want to allow what amounts to elementary school behavior determine what is acceptable in society?

Bryan says I “don’t get it”. And while I respect his opinion, he’s wrong. I do get it. I think its the other way around. I’m too old to worry about which word is going to hurt someone’s feelings. All we are doing is throwing eggshells at people’s feet.

Will you and Bryan be sensitive to all the illegal aliens here in the US? Will the two of you be sensitive and call them undocumented workers? Anyone see how stupid this all is?

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 9:34 AM

GT,

Your description of the “vitriolic left” can be as aptly applied to the “vitriolic right” who insist on the right to offend people in the name of destroying PC behavior. It sounds great as long as you are in the white group that demands on being offensive.

Disagree all you like but in my opinion this behavior is what makes the “far left” and “far right” identical twins – they just use different tactics to offend others. News flash for ya GT: Sixty percent of the voting public falls in the middle and are put off by this behavior.

I can’t speak for Bryan but your question about the illegal aliens is unrelated to this discussion. They are illegal but by your logic you should have the right to call them illegal and add a slur after that description that they (And the LEGAL hispanics in the country) have no right to be offended by. And it doesn’t make you biased or boorish?

IMHO All your examples do is show some rather weak logic for a desire to be offensive. Is your self-esteem really that low that using terms that you know offend others is the only means of improving your confidence?

Impress me with eloquence and logic, not offensiveness. You win debates with the first, you ostracize others with the latter.

Bradky on December 30, 2006 at 10:03 AM

Your description of the “vitriolic left” can be as aptly applied to the “vitriolic right” who insist on the right to offend people in the name of destroying PC behavior. It sounds great as long as you are in the white group that demands on being offensive.

Oh good grief. Here we go with the “only the whites can be offensive” stuff again.

Disagree all you like but in my opinion this behavior is what makes the “far left” and “far right” identical twins – they just use different tactics to offend others. News flash for ya GT: Sixty percent of the voting public falls in the middle and are put off by this behavior.

I’d love to see the documentation on that one.

I can’t speak for Bryan but your question about the illegal aliens is unrelated to this discussion. They are illegal but by your logic you should have the right to call them illegal and add a slur after that description that they (And the LEGAL hispanics in the country) have no right to be offended by.

I see. Yes, an illegal alien is illegal, but I don’t have the right to use the word illegal. And to use the word alien is a slur.

(Chuckle)

And it doesn’t make you biased or boorish?

No. It makes you overly sensitive and thin-skinned.

IMHO All your examples do is show some rather weak logic for a desire to be offensive. Is your self-esteem really that low that using terms that you know offend others is the only means of improving your confidence?

Well, I bow to your expertise in weak logic. And my self-esteem is just fine. As I said before, call me anything you want. You’re not going to hurt my feelings try as you might. You don’t have the power. That’s the point.

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Oh good grief. Here we go with the “only the whites can be offensive” stuff again.

No not really.

I see. Yes, an illegal alien is illegal, but I don’t have the right to use the word illegal. And to use the word alien is a slur.

Not alien but any derogatory description regarding Hispanics – you know the terms and probably feel justified in using them.

You’re not going to hurt my feelings try as you might. You don’t have the power. That’s the point.

Pretty much as expected – hide behind the cloak of anonymity of the internet but gutless to call people names in public. If you are so right in the forums why aren’t you using the terms in public?
If someone calls your loved one a bunch of names in public, especially your spouse, do you tell the loved one “Just say sticks and stones three times and it will be okay” or do you confront the person and call out their behavior? If it is the latter you are a hypocrite, if it is the former you are gutless.
My guess is that it is neither – instead you mumble slurs under your breath about the person based on their looks or speech when they are out of hearing range. Then you log onto hotair….

Bradky on December 30, 2006 at 10:35 AM

No not really.

Uh huh.

Not alien but any derogatory description regarding Hispanics – you know the terms and probably feel justified in using them.

You prove my point. Why must the term “illegal alien” refer to only Hispanics? It didn’t before. Seems to me you are only looking for an excuse to be offended. The term “illegal alien” isn’t inherently offensive. Unfortunately, there is a small group of thin-skinned ne’er-do-wells who don’t like being correctly identified for what they are. The only reason its being called racist is because it works even though race has nothing to do with it. And you fall for it.

Silly.

Pretty much as expected – hide behind the cloak of anonymity of the internet but gutless to call people names in public.

OK, Bradky. Sorry, but that’s just stupid.

If you are so right in the forums why aren’t you using the terms in public?

I have. You weren’t paying attention. If you are going to argue with me, at least have the courtesy of reading my other posts on this thread before making an accusation.

If someone calls your loved one a bunch of names in public, especially your spouse, do you tell the loved one “Just say sticks and stones three times and it will be okay” or do you confront the person and call out their behavior?If it is the latter you are a hypocrite, if it is the former you are gutless.

Ah….situation ethics. “Have you stopped beating your wife” argument. How weak.

My guess is that it is neither – instead you mumble slurs under your breath about the person based on their looks or speech when they are out of hearing range. Then you log onto hotair….

I don’t mumble. You see, the problem with your argument is that you say that my intent is to offend. You’re wrong.

It isn’t the word that offends. Its the intent behind it. My point to you is that no one can offend you unless you allow them. And I think that the sooner people realize that, the sooner the power behind those words evaporates and with it political correctness.

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 11:05 AM

Ah….situation ethics. “Have you stopped beating your wife” argument. How weak.

Your refusal to answer speaks volumes. Mumble….

You see, the problem with your argument is that you say that my intent is to offend. You’re wrong.

No your intent is that people must accept your way or the highway – compromise is a one way street in your mind. If they accept your way of thinking they are fine upstanding conservatives with principles. If they disagree, well “Katie bar the door, we got ourselves a vitriolic leftist in the room. Get the rope verne we need to correct their attitude”

See ya in another thread I’m sure, I’m done with this one.

Bradky on December 30, 2006 at 11:14 AM

After reading all of the posts on this thread, I think Coyote D. nailed it when he said:

Of course it’s an offensive term. It just is. You can go through all sorts of rhetorical contortions to try and prove otherwise, but that doesn’t change anything.

It is not being overly sensitive – it is what it is. I really have nothing more to add to this topic so this is my last post.

jman on December 30, 2006 at 11:14 AM

Your refusal to answer speaks volumes. Mumble….

Nah. It just means I’m not an idiot. But you’re welcome to keep trying.

No your intent is that people must accept your way or the highway – compromise is a one way street in your mind.

But you’re not. Riiiiiight.

If they accept your way of thinking they are fine upstanding conservatives with principles. If they disagree, well “Katie bar the door, we got ourselves a vitriolic leftist in the room. Get the rope verne we need to correct their attitude”

What does this have anything to do with Conservatives or Liberals? Besides, aren’t you doing the same thing? Yes, you are.

After reading all of the posts on this thread, I think Coyote D. nailed it when he said: Of course it’s an offensive term. It just is. You can go through all sorts of rhetorical contortions to try and prove otherwise, but that doesn’t change anything.

Well, that’s just stupid. It just is.

See how that works?

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 11:21 AM

Ah…stupid no edit buttons. Lets try this again….

After reading all of the posts on this thread, I think Coyote D. nailed it when he said: Of course it’s an offensive term. It just is. You can go through all sorts of rhetorical contortions to try and prove otherwise, but that doesn’t change anything.

Well, that’s just stupid. It just is.

See how that works?

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 11:23 AM

The term “illegal alien” is a specific legal term that even appears in the United States Code. It describes a STATUS of persons who are (1) not citizens, and (2) in this country in violation of US immigration law. It is NOT a racial epithet.

For example, it is used in 2 USC 658: “providing education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens;”

It also is used in the following specific statutes:

29 USC 1816: “prohibited employment of illegal aliens.”

18 USC Appendix Secs 1201 to 1202: “or transportation of firearms in commerce or affecting commerce by a convicted felon, dishonorably discharged veteran, mental incompetent, former citizen, illegal alien,”

42 USC 6705: “Performance of projects by State or local governments prohibited; competitive bidding; illegal aliens”

49 USC 40125: “The term ‘governmental function’ means an activity undertaken by a government, such as national defense, intelligence missions, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement (including transport of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens),”

You get the picture.

If some ILLEGAL ALIENS are offended by this term, too f-ing bad. Maybe they should leave and reenter under the rules.

If some ethnic groups feel the need to take offense by presuming that the term refers to THEM, one can only say that it is THEIR problem. THEY choose to be offended. The term is RACIALLY NEUTRAL and does not identify any ethnic background and refers to ALL persons, regardless of origin, who are in the United States illegally.

The use of the term “illegal alien” was not invented as a term of derision the way the “N” or “J” words were. Those who choose to make it a racial epithet do so for their own political reasons. This “homey” don’t play that game.

georgej on December 30, 2006 at 3:28 PM

I’d find it interesting to see GT self-righteously exclaim slurs in certain neighborhoods, and then hear the yelps of “its your problem you’re offended” or “you’re skinned” as he suffers the consequences. Might serve as a reality check.

And there is a difference between calling a non-white race a slur and calling a white person a honky, slavery and systematic discrmination attached complex, strong social meaning to the n- word which doesn’t exist in the word “honkey”. The same line of reasoning can be applied to other slurs…

crr6 on December 30, 2006 at 4:49 PM

And there is a difference between calling a non-white race a slur and calling a white person a honky,….

What an entertaining idea. So slurs come in varying degrees based on how offended one feels. The more one feels offended, the more offensive the word is required to be perceived by others.

Hmmmmm……

.

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 6:09 PM

I now call for a banning of the word “Redneck” because being a white male southerner I find the term to be very racially offensive.

EnochCain on December 30, 2006 at 6:19 PM

BTW, is “Nip” short for Niponese offensive? Just asking.

Also, there is a company in California called “Jap-Tec”. It was named by its owner who is Japanese.

Ever heard of the “Jap-Surfer-Dudes”? That is what a group of Japanese engineers in California who had custom t-shirts made and passed out to friends.

Then there is a Time Magazine article titled “Jippo for the Jap?” from 1942. An excerpt reads….

Sending his troops into action last week, Major General Bennett told them: “Our job is not only to delay the Jap, but also to destroy him.” His Aussies rushed right out and destroyed 20 enemy tanks, ten armored cars.

Now notice an abbreviation of “Japanese” and “Australian” was used in the paragraph. Was the writer trying to slur the Australians?

Notice the last sentence in the article….

Either the Aussies must give the Jap his jippo above those reservoirs, or Singapore would catch the Japanese for hell.

Again, was he trying to slur both nationalities??

How about http://www.jap.com? Such an offensive company! And its Japanese too!! Gasp!

So, you’ll just have to forgive this old gaijin. I can’t help but wonder how the Kiwi feel about being called Kiwi’s.

.

GT on December 30, 2006 at 6:55 PM

Could someone explain to me how whitey isn’t a slur but “jap” is?

I’m a little lost here. I never used the term in posting. I Purposefully avoid that sort of thing to keep people from going all symantic on me, and keep the conversation focused on content. Seriously though, I don’t get it.

I hear people use “white trash” or “whitey” or “cracker” all the time, and I don’t see anyone sticking up for those of us who happen to have a little less pigment.

I don’t find a lot of the so-called “offensive terms” offensive. Maybe it’s because I come from a place where if you wanted to offend someone you made comments about their verility rather than their race, or just out right beat them down.

Thankfully, I got away from stuff like that, but seriously it seems kind of petty to me. Someone calls me white trash or whitey I simply stand two feet from their nose and ask them to repeat themselvse.

It’s amazing how cowardly people who use terms like that actually are, and frankly most of the times I’ve actually heard those terms were in context of humor.

White guys making fun of white people, and black guys using the N word making fun of their own people, and so on.

Personally, I think we all just need to … get over ourselves.

One Angry Christian on December 31, 2006 at 11:59 AM

I discovered the big fuss in these two threads a few days ago, several weeks after it had blown over. My remark, “Well, I guess there’s always a downside,” was a tart remark. Tartness is something I think HotAir readers and hosts understand. If Bryan and “dalewalt” aren’t sure, I know a half-Italian, proudly beta male in Queens who will provide fresh examples.

So, yes, as I said, there’s always a downside, even to nuclear explosions, which sometimes have the unfortunate effect of saving lives. One ought not imagine I was thinking of Hiroshimans; I’m not fighting the last war. Nor should one imagine I think it’s good in warfare to kill more people than, well, than it’s good to kill. One should always aim at the good. Quite enough people died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I think; the Americans need not wish for more.

But surely what I said meant something? Yes, it did. I had in mind that it’s worse than evil, it’s bad, to make death-minimization an absolute or ruling principle of warfare, as the Americans have done in the years since their Viet Nam War. Anything I say about war has special application to the greatest war, the present war. The war against Islamic global conquest is part of the war I’m presently trying to guide. As of February 26, 2007, not enough muslims have died. I’ll know when enough muslims have died, when the the power and spirit of the remainder are crushed. That’s how the Americans knew they had killed enough Japanese in 1945.

Kralizec on February 26, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2