![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsWhile there's a lot to admire with the way the Japanese have managed to reconstruct their country along Western lines since the ruling class there consciously decided to do so back in 1880, there is much there to not admire. For one thing, when reading manga I ocassionally stumble upon some really disturbing material that, while not mainstream, makes Larry Welz or Reed Waller's "underground" material seem tame by comparison. Even the wilder American and European artists, like Luis Ruyo or Michael Manning, look restrained.
Today, though, there's a very disturbing story out of Japan about the three hostages who were held in Iraq a couple of weeks ago. You might remember them: three non-governmental organization aid workers, all of Japanese citizenry, held by some previously unknown group in Iraq. The terrorists threatened to burn them alive if the Japanese government didn't withdraw its troops. Everyone wondered if the Japanese government would blink.
The world held its breath, the Japanese government stood firm, and the hostages were eventually released unharmed.
As it turns out, the Japanese government didn't care much for the hostages in the first place. When the hostages got home, they were confronted with a banner reading "You are Japan's Shame" (New York Times; registration required).
By ignoring the government's warning that Iraq was to be avoided, the three young people who went to Iraq in the hopes of doing well defied authority, the "okami", and that's something that Japanese sensibility cannot stand. They had acted selfishly, in pursuit of interests that were not Japanese. The government has charged them the cost of their flight home, and may impose other costs related to securing their release. An editorial in the Yomiuri Shimbum said that might "deter other reckless, self-righteous volunteers."
Today, though, there's a very disturbing story out of Japan about the three hostages who were held in Iraq a couple of weeks ago. You might remember them: three non-governmental organization aid workers, all of Japanese citizenry, held by some previously unknown group in Iraq. The terrorists threatened to burn them alive if the Japanese government didn't withdraw its troops. Everyone wondered if the Japanese government would blink.
The world held its breath, the Japanese government stood firm, and the hostages were eventually released unharmed.
As it turns out, the Japanese government didn't care much for the hostages in the first place. When the hostages got home, they were confronted with a banner reading "You are Japan's Shame" (New York Times; registration required).
By ignoring the government's warning that Iraq was to be avoided, the three young people who went to Iraq in the hopes of doing well defied authority, the "okami", and that's something that Japanese sensibility cannot stand. They had acted selfishly, in pursuit of interests that were not Japanese. The government has charged them the cost of their flight home, and may impose other costs related to securing their release. An editorial in the Yomiuri Shimbum said that might "deter other reckless, self-righteous volunteers."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-26 08:35 pm (UTC)But the way you worded that last paragraph reminded me of what's become the policy, and I think rightly so, of most search & rescue operations here in the Colorado mountains. Backcountry skiers and other adventurers now must pay all fees related to rescuing them if they get in over their heads. This includes paying for the hours logged on medevac and national guard helicopters, compensating the S&R teams for their time and expenses, and anything else. There are also punitive damages added on the top, IIRC, if said adventurer in need of rescuing blatanly ignored a warning to not enter an area under particularly dangerous conditions.
Maybe the UN or whatever charities or journalistic agencies the former hostages were working with should cover the expenses. I'd have thought it was totally unreasonable and tacky to treat the hostages like that (making them pay anyway), save for the way you worded it. It's an important question though, whether the taxpayers of any country should have to pay for their civilians doing risky things that require gov't assistance, when the gov't has officially warned them against doing such things outside of the official business umbrella.
I was rather angry after finally getting around to viewing the Daniel Pearl murder video recently. That barbarians could behave in such a way. But what Pearl did was excessively stupid, I don't think anyone with an iota of horse sense would venture into such a lion's den, much less a Jew trying to get the inside story on the Jews' mortal enemies (it was pretty naive for him to think he could accomplish something other than commiting suicide by muslim terrorist). If things had gone differently and I wasn't sitting here mortified at his murder, I would be outraged if American taxpayers had footed the bill to bail him out and fly him home. Feh.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-26 09:46 pm (UTC)Neither nationality nor religioun are in any way appropriate reasons to kill a person.
But for a man with such Israeli connections to go to Pakistan, at that time... ...it certainly speaks of folly.
Shame
Date: 2004-04-27 12:05 am (UTC)Re: Shame
Date: 2004-04-27 05:05 am (UTC)I am complaining that a man with such ties with an enemy of Pakistan would put himself in the mercy of Pakistan's forces of lawlessness.
As long as Israel's being a nuclear power and relying on intimidating its rivals thereby, its citizens should not be stupid enough to visit there.
This is different from the Japanese situation, I think.
(And our government is doing a very bad job of protecting its citizens, but that's a whole nother matter.)
Re: Shame
Date: 2004-04-27 08:51 am (UTC)Re: Shame
Date: 2004-04-27 09:01 am (UTC)Re: Shame
Date: 2004-04-27 10:41 am (UTC)Re: Shame
Date: 2004-04-29 08:48 pm (UTC)