It was an explicit US goal that Japan see no flourishing of postwar left wing politics. Other countries went through that and theyre better off for it.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ah shit, the CIA Time Squads establishing long-standing culture roles centuries before the foundation of the United States strike again.
Daaaamnnnn yooouuu CIAAA Tiiime Squaaaaadsssss!!
Again: Japan is not somehow unique in having a patriarchal society in the 1600s. And yet other nations with less overt interference in their politics to bias their governments to the right have stronger gains for queer rights.
This is like trying to say Uganda’s animus towards its queer members of society is a result of something uniquely Ugandan, ignoring the now-decades of deliberate US-based fundamentalist Christian interference in the nation’s government to outlaw any expression of queer identity and life.
Ah shit, the CIA Time Squads establishing long-standing culture roles centuries before the foundation of the United States strike again.
Daaaamnnnn yooouuu CIAAA Tiiime Squaaaaadsssss!!
Who do you think is simplifing things over much? The people talking about how the US, in its role as de facto ruler of Japan, shaped Japanese politics in such a way that the effects are still seen today, or the people talking about the Meiji Restoration and whatever?
"Japan was conservative 300 years ago, of course its conservative now, and its oversimplistic and problematic to say its conservative because the US undermined any left wing organization for decades" is just a bizarre hill.
This is the "temporarily embarrassed socialists" argument that winds up undercutting a lot of leftist arguments because it presumes that people were artificially kept from viewing leftist thought instead of the more complicated truth that people wind up rejecting it for a number of reasons - some of it through active campaigns, but also through societal and cultural bias. Did the CIA undermine the Japanese left? Yes - but it's also worth noting that they did so via emphasis of aspects of Japanese culture.
Ah shit, the CIA Time Squads establishing long-standing culture roles centuries before the foundation of the United States strike again.
Daaaamnnnn yooouuu CIAAA Tiiime Squaaaaadsssss!!
Who do you think is simplifing things over much? The people talking about how the US, in its role as de facto ruler of Japan, shaped Japanese politics in such a way that the effects are still seen today, or the people talking about the Meiji Restoration and whatever?
"Japan was conservative 300 years ago, of course its conservative now, and its oversimplistic and problematic to say its conservative because the US undermined any left wing organization for decades" is just a bizarre hill.
This is the "temporarily embarrassed socialists" argument that winds up undercutting a lot of leftist arguments because it presumes that people were artificially kept from viewing leftist thought instead of the more complicated truth that people wind up rejecting it for a number of reasons - some of it through active campaigns, but also through societal and cultural bias. Did the CIA undermine the Japanese left? Yes - but it's also worth noting that they did so via emphasis of aspects of Japanese culture.
“The CIA actually didn’t do it because when they did it they manipulated the targeted people into self-sabotage” is not a sound argument
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How do you think that was possibly orientalist?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It was an explicit US goal that Japan see no flourishing of postwar left wing politics. Other countries went through that and theyre better off for it.
It was an explicit US goal that the United States see no flourishing of postwar left wing politics, though
We just stirred up that shit everywhere, but we didn’t originate it, and the isolationism was always innate
We’ve aggressively politicked against Japanese isolationism since Perry thugged his way through the Pacific 150 years ago
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How do you think that was possibly orientalist?
Nobody was talking about Japan being "unique"ly "backwards...".
It was an explicit US goal that Japan see no flourishing of postwar left wing politics. Other countries went through that and theyre better off for it.
It was an explicit US goal that the United States see no flourishing of postwar left wing politics, though
We just stirred up that shit everywhere, but we didn’t originate it, and the isolationism was always innate
We’ve aggressively politicked against Japanese isolationism since Perry thugged his way through the Pacific 150 years ago
I can think of a pretty obvious reason we were more successful in Japan than domestically.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How do you think that was possibly orientalist?
Nobody was talking about Japan being "unique"ly "backwards...".
I’m not saying they are, but that the arguments that you all are using, even if you don’t intend it so, are rooted in that kind of chauvinism, and even in western liberal circles still permeate much of the perception about Japanese society and history because of how deeply that perspective is enmeshed within the gestalt US view of Japan
Ah shit, the CIA Time Squads establishing long-standing culture roles centuries before the foundation of the United States strike again.
Daaaamnnnn yooouuu CIAAA Tiiime Squaaaaadsssss!!
I mean, you know that's peak CIA though. You send them back in time to kill Hitler and instead they end up putting Iemitsu in charge in Japan. Just complete fuck ups every time.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How do you think that was possibly orientalist?
Nobody was talking about Japan being "unique"ly "backwards...".
Not in those exact terms, but when folks are saying that anti-LGBTQ sentiment is a Japanese problem due to the preservation of 1600s values, it's a strong (if unintentional) implication.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
Ah shit, the CIA Time Squads establishing long-standing culture roles centuries before the foundation of the United States strike again.
Daaaamnnnn yooouuu CIAAA Tiiime Squaaaaadsssss!!
Again: Japan is not somehow unique in having a patriarchal society in the 1600s. And yet other nations with less overt interference in their politics to bias their governments to the right have stronger gains for queer rights.
I mean, it's not like Japan went through two centuries of enforced cultural stagnation after a brutal civil war that had left the nation devestated, followed by a rather violent bootstrapping of the nation's economic and industrial engine that relied on the pushing of conservative cultural ideals to "unite" a country that was fracturing under the pressure of said bootstrapping, leading to the development of a toxic brew of nationalism and militarisn that would direct the nation through the first half of the 20th century.
Oh, wait - that's exactly what happened.
As for Uganda - bringing up that the nation was targeted by Western Dominionists without discussing why they would target Uganda in particular is the whole issue people are bringing up!
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
"The orient" is not a real thing, but Orientalism is, and the notion I described in my prior post smacks of it.
(BTW the argument that "the orient is not a real thing" fails against criticisms of Orientalism for largely the same reason that "race is not a real thing" fails against criticisms of racism.)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How do you think that was possibly orientalist?
Nobody was talking about Japan being "unique"ly "backwards...".
Not in those exact terms, but when folks are saying that anti-LGBTQ sentiment is a Japanese problem due to the preservation of 1600s values, it's a strong (if unintentional) implication.
Americans are still using values preserved from Hellenistic Greece.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
…okay I legitimately need to ask: are you unfamiliar with “orientalist” as a term that describes a Western sociopolitical tendency to exotify and other Asian societies from the Middle East to East Asia in a myriad of ways that ultimately serves as a form of separating their cultures from Western ones as compatible and capable of broader societal integration?
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
…okay I legitimately need to ask: are you unfamiliar with “orientalist” as a term that describes a Western sociopolitical tendency to exotify and other Asian societies from the Middle East to East Asia in a myriad of ways that ultimately serves as a form of separating their cultures from Western ones as compatible and capable of broader societal integration?
I'm quite aware of it. You were engaging in it. It's like if you walked in to a conversation about Native American tribal politics about Casinos and you started yelling about how the "noble savage" bullshit is terrible instead of the topic.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
…okay I legitimately need to ask: are you unfamiliar with “orientalist” as a term that describes a Western sociopolitical tendency to exotify and other Asian societies from the Middle East to East Asia in a myriad of ways that ultimately serves as a form of separating their cultures from Western ones as compatible and capable of broader societal integration?
I'm quite aware of it. You were engaging in it. It's like if you walked in to a conversation about Native American tribal politics about Casinos and you started yelling about how the "noble savage" bullshit is terrible instead of the topic.
Im really at a loss as to what youve been taking away from the posts youve been arguing with here.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+7
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
As usual you can track this all down to good ol CIA interference
The way this was stated has the implication. Not "partially to blame", not "contributed to", but "track it all[emphasis added] down"
As in historical origin, yes, which is true. We ensured there would be no organized left wing politics of significance in the country and that kind of think reaches out for generations.
Yeah, this attitude is exactly what people are reacting to. The CIA may have helped, but the foundation of it is absolutely Japanese.
What, specifically, do you find to be “absolutely Japanese” about this issue?
Japanese social and cultural norms. I don't think they were invented by the CIA.
The CIA is not in fact the origin of all sin. They are not behind the banning of women from acting in various Japanese plays in the 1600s.
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
…okay I legitimately need to ask: are you unfamiliar with “orientalist” as a term that describes a Western sociopolitical tendency to exotify and other Asian societies from the Middle East to East Asia in a myriad of ways that ultimately serves as a form of separating their cultures from Western ones as compatible and capable of broader societal integration?
I'm quite aware of it. You were engaging in it. It's like if you walked in to a conversation about Native American tribal politics about Casinos and you started yelling about how the "noble savage" bullshit is terrible instead of the topic.
Im really at a loss as to what youve been taking away from the posts youve been arguing with here.
Sometimes people are just talking about people as people instead of as Others.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its’ queer populace and recognizing their rights because of a long, entrenched history dating back to 1600s bushido culture. [does not elaborate further on how 1600s Bushido = modern resistance to Queer Rights]”
This is an orientalist take on Japanese society and the struggles that marginalized people have there. It proffers that the issue at play is a unique, dare say exotic element present in their society that holds them back from progressing to the level with modern peer states that they have yet, mysteriously, to shake off.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its queer populace and recognizing their rights because the post-war era has been dominated by effectively single-party rule by a one conservative political party whose hold on politics was bolstered by being funded behind the scenes by one of the two major superpowers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars across three decades, as well as that country using it’s foreign intelligence agency to sabotage the left wing movements and figures of the country during those vital and formative post-war decades.”
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its’ queer populace and recognizing their rights because of a long, entrenched history dating back to 1600s bushido culture. [does not elaborate further on how 1600s Bushido = modern resistance to Queer Rights]”
This is an orientalist take on Japanese society and the struggles that marginalized people have there. It proffers that the issue at play is a unique, dare say exotic element present in their society that holds them back from progressing to the level with modern peer states that they have yet, mysteriously, to shake off.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its queer populace and recognizing their rights because the post-war era has been dominated by effectively single-party rule by a one conservative political party whose hold on politics was bolstered by being funded behind the scenes by one of the two major superpowers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars across three decades, as well as that country using it’s foreign intelligence agency to sabotage the left wing movements and figures of the country during those vital and formative post-war decades.”
As usual you can track this all down to good ol CIA interference
The way this was stated has the implication. Not "partially to blame", not "contributed to", but "track it all[emphasis added] down"
As in historical origin, yes, which is true. We ensured there would be no organized left wing politics of significance in the country and that kind of think reaches out for generations.
Yeah, this attitude is exactly what people are reacting to. The CIA may have helped, but the foundation of it is absolutely Japanese.
What, specifically, do you find to be “absolutely Japanese” about this issue?
Japanese social and cultural norms. I don't think they were invented by the CIA.
And how, exactly, do those social and cultural norms differ from those of any Western nation regarding queer people?
That is: In a world where Western nations have seen political gains for queer people at a faster rate than Japan has seen, what norms do you believe are so different from those of the West as to set Japan back compared to peer western nations? And how do you juxtapose this with the reality of Japanese Queer Rights, which in recent months has seen major gains in the recognition of trans rights regarding issues such as no longer requiring gender reassignment surgery or sterilization to have one’s gender be legally recognized and reflected in the family register?
+2
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
Not saying any of this is unimportant, but maybe y'all have gone off into the weeds a bit?
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its’ queer populace and recognizing their rights because of a long, entrenched history dating back to 1600s bushido culture. [does not elaborate further on how 1600s Bushido = modern resistance to Queer Rights]”
This is an orientalist take on Japanese society and the struggles that marginalized people have there. It proffers that the issue at play is a unique, dare say exotic element present in their society that holds them back from progressing to the level with modern peer states that they have yet, mysteriously, to shake off.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its queer populace and recognizing their rights because the post-war era has been dominated by effectively single-party rule by a one conservative political party whose hold on politics was bolstered by being funded behind the scenes by one of the two major superpowers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars across three decades, as well as that country using it’s foreign intelligence agency to sabotage the left wing movements and figures of the country during those vital and formative post-war decades.”
Not Orientalist.
So their past and agency is Orientalist?
The orientalism is assuming, let alone arguing, there was something about their culture (in this case “Bushido”) that made them progress at a slower rate when the social mores of Japanese culture were not particularly different from any other nation in the 1600s when it comes to queer culture.
As usual you can track this all down to good ol CIA interference
The way this was stated has the implication. Not "partially to blame", not "contributed to", but "track it all[emphasis added] down"
As in historical origin, yes, which is true. We ensured there would be no organized left wing politics of significance in the country and that kind of think reaches out for generations.
Yeah, this attitude is exactly what people are reacting to. The CIA may have helped, but the foundation of it is absolutely Japanese.
What, specifically, do you find to be “absolutely Japanese” about this issue?
Japanese social and cultural norms. I don't think they were invented by the CIA.
Your culture's norms look little like they did 100 years ago let alone 300. Whys it supposed to be different here?
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
What's the alternatives? The problem is their genetics?
Cultural arguments are where you end up when you go "ok, people are basically all the same and race is a bullshit social construct, so what explains the difference between this group and that group".
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
...why do you think Americans have outrageous levels of gun violence completely disproportionate to any other nation with high levels of civilian gun ownership? Something in the water? Genetics?
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
What's the alternatives? The problem is their genetics?
Outside political motivations being quite literally violently imposed on their country with a goal of preventing left wing political movement.
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
What's the alternatives? The problem is their genetics?
Outside political motivations being quite literally violently imposed on their country with a goal of preventing left wing political movement.
That doesn't even explain this specific issue, let alone all the other differences in all sorts of other countries and groups.
In response to today’s Sapporo High Court and Tokyo District Court rulings that highlighted the Japanese government’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, Amnesty International’s East Asia Researcher Boram Jang said:
“The court decisions today mark a significant step towards achieving marriage equality in Japan. The ruling in Sapporo, the first High Court decision on same-sex marriage in the country, emphatically shows the trend towards acceptance of same-sex marriage in Japan.
“By recognizing that the government’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, these rulings make clear that such discrimination has no place in Japanese society.
“The Japanese government now needs to be proactive in moving towards the legalisation of same-sex marriage so that couples can fully enjoy the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
“The law passed by the government last year to ‘promote understanding’ of LGBTI people is not enough. There need to be concrete, legal measures in place to protect same-sex couples and the LGBTI community in Japan from all forms of discrimination.”
Responding to a petition filed by an unnamed transgender woman, a 15-judge Grand Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held the sterilization requirement of the GID Act to be unconstitutional. Her petition for change in gender marker had been previously denied by two lower courts in 2019 and 2020. At the Supreme Court the plaintiff argued that the last two requirements of Article 3 of the GID Act “violated her constitutional right to pursue happiness and live without discrimination, and posed significant physical pain and financial burden to transgender people.” The Court held that the mandatory surgical removal of reproductive organs was “highly invasive” and “too restrictive” as a requirement for legal change in gender and violated the individual’s right to pursue happiness under Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution. The Court also held that the GID Act forced transgender persons into a “cruel choice between accepting the sterilization surgery that causes intense bodily invasion and giving up important legal benefits of being treated according to their gender identity”.
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
What's the alternatives? The problem is their genetics?
Outside political motivations being quite literally violently imposed on their country with a goal of preventing left wing political movement.
That doesn't even explain this specific issue, let alone all the other differences in all sorts of other countries and groups.
It doesnt explain the stunted state of lgbtq rights in Japan?
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
...why do you think Americans have outrageous levels of gun violence completely disproportionate to any other nation with high levels of civilian gun ownership? Something in the water? Genetics?
???
Easy access to firearms designed to efficiently kill people which is maintained by firearms industry patronage of one of two major American political parties to keep rational restrictions seen in other countries at bay because that would cause the firearms industry to hemorrhage revenue to such a degree it would likely see a major collapse as the market restricted in the wake of such regulations on type and number of firearms people are allowed to own.
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
Maybe dial back the patronization. Everyone's problem is culture. We carry stupid bullshit forward and either fail to question it or actively reinforce it, or have it reinforced by those in power. This is true for every culture in the planet.
Culture needs to be constantly questioned and challenged and agency both taken and asserted. We are not bound by the past but we need to be aware of how it influences us. Regardless of history, CIA-related or otherwise, every culture on Earth needs to continue examining the choices they make going forward and, hopefully, choose greater respect for the humanity and choices of others.
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
What's the alternatives? The problem is their genetics?
Outside political motivations being quite literally violently imposed on their country with a goal of preventing left wing political movement.
That doesn't even explain this specific issue, let alone all the other differences in all sorts of other countries and groups.
It doesnt explain the stunted state of lgbtq rights in Japan?
No, I don't think it does. That's what this whole argument y'all have been having the past few pages has been about.
But more to the point here, Feral claiming arguments about culture are used to justify stereotypes is pretty silly because cultures are different and result in different outcomes. And arguments about culture are, as I said, the result of rejecting the idea that people are different for reasons that aren't culture.
Posts
Again, there is nothing I can think of particularly unique in the expression of the Patriarchy in Japan in the 1600s compared to the expression of Patriarchy in western countries for the same time period. You are talking, again, 400 years ago, a period of time in which Western society was was also deeply patriarchal and where queer life wasn’t exactly flourishing in the open.
Like you all don’t see how this gets into racist, orientalist readings the proffer a kind of unique backwardsness onto Japanese society compared to other nations? And further ignores the history of queer culture in their society?
Again: Japan is not somehow unique in having a patriarchal society in the 1600s. And yet other nations with less overt interference in their politics to bias their governments to the right have stronger gains for queer rights.
This is the "temporarily embarrassed socialists" argument that winds up undercutting a lot of leftist arguments because it presumes that people were artificially kept from viewing leftist thought instead of the more complicated truth that people wind up rejecting it for a number of reasons - some of it through active campaigns, but also through societal and cultural bias. Did the CIA undermine the Japanese left? Yes - but it's also worth noting that they did so via emphasis of aspects of Japanese culture.
“The CIA actually didn’t do it because when they did it they manipulated the targeted people into self-sabotage” is not a sound argument
Ironically orientalist take you've got there, good job. Europeans also banned women from being in plays. It's not a uniquely Japanese thing by any means, it's just a thing cultures with shitty gender politics do.
How do you think that was possibly orientalist?
It was an explicit US goal that the United States see no flourishing of postwar left wing politics, though
We just stirred up that shit everywhere, but we didn’t originate it, and the isolationism was always innate
We’ve aggressively politicked against Japanese isolationism since Perry thugged his way through the Pacific 150 years ago
Nobody was talking about Japan being "unique"ly "backwards...".
I can think of a pretty obvious reason we were more successful in Japan than domestically.
How is mine the Orientalist take when I’m arguing there was nothing unique about Japanese Patriarchy in the 1600s compared to contemporary western societies?
Like the argument that was fronted is that modern Japanese queer struggles are primarily rooted in a centuries long patriarchal aversion to queer life and culture, with a dash of “because Bushido” tossed in because it’s Japan. That’s orientalist, singling out Japan because of a heavily romanticized perspective of the culture of the aristocratic class that doesn’t comport with the lived experiences of the lay classes.
I’m not saying they are, but that the arguments that you all are using, even if you don’t intend it so, are rooted in that kind of chauvinism, and even in western liberal circles still permeate much of the perception about Japanese society and history because of how deeply that perspective is enmeshed within the gestalt US view of Japan
I mean, you know that's peak CIA though. You send them back in time to kill Hitler and instead they end up putting Iemitsu in charge in Japan. Just complete fuck ups every time.
Not in those exact terms, but when folks are saying that anti-LGBTQ sentiment is a Japanese problem due to the preservation of 1600s values, it's a strong (if unintentional) implication.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The "Orient" is not a real thing. Japan is Japan. They're just a culture, like any other. Talk about Japan the way you talk about Ireland, not like some special group that needs to be treated like an Other whether offensively or defensively.
I mean, it's not like Japan went through two centuries of enforced cultural stagnation after a brutal civil war that had left the nation devestated, followed by a rather violent bootstrapping of the nation's economic and industrial engine that relied on the pushing of conservative cultural ideals to "unite" a country that was fracturing under the pressure of said bootstrapping, leading to the development of a toxic brew of nationalism and militarisn that would direct the nation through the first half of the 20th century.
Oh, wait - that's exactly what happened.
As for Uganda - bringing up that the nation was targeted by Western Dominionists without discussing why they would target Uganda in particular is the whole issue people are bringing up!
"The orient" is not a real thing, but Orientalism is, and the notion I described in my prior post smacks of it.
(BTW the argument that "the orient is not a real thing" fails against criticisms of Orientalism for largely the same reason that "race is not a real thing" fails against criticisms of racism.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Americans are still using values preserved from Hellenistic Greece.
…okay I legitimately need to ask: are you unfamiliar with “orientalist” as a term that describes a Western sociopolitical tendency to exotify and other Asian societies from the Middle East to East Asia in a myriad of ways that ultimately serves as a form of separating their cultures from Western ones as compatible and capable of broader societal integration?
I'm quite aware of it. You were engaging in it. It's like if you walked in to a conversation about Native American tribal politics about Casinos and you started yelling about how the "noble savage" bullshit is terrible instead of the topic.
Im really at a loss as to what youve been taking away from the posts youve been arguing with here.
Japanese social and cultural norms. I don't think they were invented by the CIA.
Sometimes people are just talking about people as people instead of as Others.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its’ queer populace and recognizing their rights because of a long, entrenched history dating back to 1600s bushido culture. [does not elaborate further on how 1600s Bushido = modern resistance to Queer Rights]”
This is an orientalist take on Japanese society and the struggles that marginalized people have there. It proffers that the issue at play is a unique, dare say exotic element present in their society that holds them back from progressing to the level with modern peer states that they have yet, mysteriously, to shake off.
“Japanese society has problems with modernizing its approach to its queer populace and recognizing their rights because the post-war era has been dominated by effectively single-party rule by a one conservative political party whose hold on politics was bolstered by being funded behind the scenes by one of the two major superpowers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars across three decades, as well as that country using it’s foreign intelligence agency to sabotage the left wing movements and figures of the country during those vital and formative post-war decades.”
Not Orientalist.
So their past and agency is Orientalist?
And how, exactly, do those social and cultural norms differ from those of any Western nation regarding queer people?
That is: In a world where Western nations have seen political gains for queer people at a faster rate than Japan has seen, what norms do you believe are so different from those of the West as to set Japan back compared to peer western nations? And how do you juxtapose this with the reality of Japanese Queer Rights, which in recent months has seen major gains in the recognition of trans rights regarding issues such as no longer requiring gender reassignment surgery or sterilization to have one’s gender be legally recognized and reflected in the family register?
I suggest stepping back from the keyboard, taking a break from this conversation, and really thinking about how 'the problem is their culture' arguments are used to justify stereotypes.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The orientalism is assuming, let alone arguing, there was something about their culture (in this case “Bushido”) that made them progress at a slower rate when the social mores of Japanese culture were not particularly different from any other nation in the 1600s when it comes to queer culture.
Your culture's norms look little like they did 100 years ago let alone 300. Whys it supposed to be different here?
What's the alternatives? The problem is their genetics?
Cultural arguments are where you end up when you go "ok, people are basically all the same and race is a bullshit social construct, so what explains the difference between this group and that group".
...why do you think Americans have outrageous levels of gun violence completely disproportionate to any other nation with high levels of civilian gun ownership? Something in the water? Genetics?
???
Outside political motivations being quite literally violently imposed on their country with a goal of preventing left wing political movement.
That doesn't even explain this specific issue, let alone all the other differences in all sorts of other countries and groups.
News on the ban on same sex marriage being declared unconstitutional, from 10 days ago:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/japan-groundbreaking-same-sex-marriage-rulings-a-long-awaited-victory-for-lgbti-rights/
From November, on the Japanese Supreme Court October ruling striking down the sterilization requirement for transgender recognition:
https://www.ilgaasia.org/news/2023/11/10/japan-supreme-court-strikes-forced-sterilization-requirement-for-gender-recognition-in-landmark-victory-for-transgender-rights
It doesnt explain the stunted state of lgbtq rights in Japan?
Easy access to firearms designed to efficiently kill people which is maintained by firearms industry patronage of one of two major American political parties to keep rational restrictions seen in other countries at bay because that would cause the firearms industry to hemorrhage revenue to such a degree it would likely see a major collapse as the market restricted in the wake of such regulations on type and number of firearms people are allowed to own.
Maybe dial back the patronization. Everyone's problem is culture. We carry stupid bullshit forward and either fail to question it or actively reinforce it, or have it reinforced by those in power. This is true for every culture in the planet.
Culture needs to be constantly questioned and challenged and agency both taken and asserted. We are not bound by the past but we need to be aware of how it influences us. Regardless of history, CIA-related or otherwise, every culture on Earth needs to continue examining the choices they make going forward and, hopefully, choose greater respect for the humanity and choices of others.
No, I don't think it does. That's what this whole argument y'all have been having the past few pages has been about.
But more to the point here, Feral claiming arguments about culture are used to justify stereotypes is pretty silly because cultures are different and result in different outcomes. And arguments about culture are, as I said, the result of rejecting the idea that people are different for reasons that aren't culture.