Hypocritical Westerners

Americans and Europeans are never hesitant to lecture a certain country on its supposed failure to "honestly address its past" or the "insincerity" of its apologies for same, but guess how they react whenever anyone dares to bring up their own inglorious pasts? That's right, by calling such critics "idiotarians", and then not only insisting that the abolition of an evil is apology enough for hundreds of years of prior state endorsement of it (by which standard the Russian state must also be blameless for 73 years of Communist dictatorship), but also by reaching for that old standby called "everybody does it":

Ah. See, it’s all our fault and we should cough up the dosh to apologise. No recognition of the fact that nations and tribes have been conquering others since time immemorial...it was just the level of technology at the time that led to the European Empires, not some innate evil on the part of the people of the time.

Note how Mr. Worstall makes the unfounded leap to the conclusion that someone somewhere is asking him to "cough up the dosh" merely by daring to ask for involvement in the commemoration of Britain's colonial past; his attitude, which is perfectly in line with that of "liberal" Labour minister Gordon Brown, is par for the course where sanctimonious Western whiners about Japan are concerned: "Our adventures in colonial aggression and slave labor are far in the past and only a fool would dare to suggest we dredge up the negative aspects of our 'mission civilatrice', but you lot are uniquely evil and unrepentant for entertaining milder forms of the same attitudes which are so commonplace amongst us." The following claim made by one commenter on the post is interesting:

Bristol was having this debate last week and I discussed it on my blog - this spilled over to the Devils Kitchen and Robert Sharpe's blog.

While the debate voted in favour of an apology, the people of Bristol polled by the BBC voted 97% against an apology.

Who doubts that the world's press would be blaring about "rampant" or "resurgent" Japanese "fascism", "racism" and "militarism" if a similar figure were ever reported from that country with respect to its past, and who disputes that most of this very same 97% would be nodding their heads in agreement about the "unrepentant Japs" [sic]? What do you think would be said of any Japanese person who made a comment like the following?

Given that most of Africa is a hell-hole and that blacks in "The West" are far richer than African blacks, it seems to me that the Western blacks should be rewarding someone - the obvious candidates being those African blacks who are the descendants of the original capturers of the slaves.

Don't hold your breath expecting this ignorant racist scum to be called out by Tim Worstall or his readers, however ...

Hypocritical rhetoric aside, it would actually represent tremendous progress from present conditions for the British, the French and the other former European empire builders to be as forthcoming about the wrongdoings of their ancestors as the Japanese have been about theirs, and until that day comes - which I doubt it ever will - I will continue to disregard anything I read in American or European newspapers about Japan's "problems" with history as the racist double-standard it is; get the logs out of your own damn eyes before belaboring me with the same motes about Yasukuni, Taro Aso, school textbooks and so forth.

Comments

[Chuckles]

You see Abiola, this is why this entire charade amusing to me on a fundamental level. Say you're standing next to a fella whose been to Japan and Korea and China and he rants on and on about Japanese iniquity - then you point about slavery, Native Americans, the Herero, Benin, Cecil Rhodes etc and you know, the facial expression just changes! "That was in the past by gum! - and besides, the Africans enslaved themselves! It wasnt us (wink, wink)". Its all so absurd, so idiotic - that when I talk to some of these types, there's this surreal atmosphere - something that can only be generated by the presence of a basically unhinged mind. But then: What is at work here is Racism: First, the notion that while the Germans have the "right" to start world wars and stomp on everybody (hey come on in...guys, its only a Nazi) - how dare does gaddem Japanese bomb pearl Harbor. They will suffer eternally for that (Hey, Benito - have a pint man!) Secondly, it is that the sufferings of Africans are fundamentally inferior to the sufferings of others, in so far as those sufferings were inflicted by the West: Point out western evils in this regard and watch the Tu Quoque, the sudden disavowal of collective responsibility with respect to iniquity side by side with the lustful consumption of collective British or American etc pride - watch all that fly.

The whole thing is so stupid, the reaction of the Brits to this puts them right up there with the behavior of the Koreans. Blockheads all of them.

[Abiola Lapite]

You know what I find most annoying about the usual British response to having the negatives of their Empire pointed out to them? That it isn't even true, as they are so fond of claiming, that the evils committed weren't apparent when being carried out: it was Trietschke who, in speaking of the Opium Wars, referred to "The hypocritical Englishman, with the Bible in one hand and a pipe of opium in the other", all the way back in the 19th century, while we mustn't forget Hillaire Belloc's "Whatever happens we have got, the Gatling gun and they have not".

The only thing that changed between the 1920s when Europeans were still dividing "mandates" between themselves, and the 1930s when they suddenly "discovered" that Japanese imperialism was wrong, was that an unwelcome non-white newcomer got into the same game, and even that didn't stop these hypocrites from repeating the same actions they'd been condemning later on, e.g. Britain's brutal suppression of the Mau-Mau and underhanded support for Rhodesia, France in Algeria and Vietnam, the Dutch in Indonesia, etc. Even if we draw a line at, say, 100 years, and say everything before that is off limits, Europeans have done a hell of a lot of nasty things of their own since then which they're in no hurry to face squarely, let alone apologize for.

[Matt]

Hear Hear! The hypocrisy of it all is plain to see. Why is Japan to be held to account especially just because it was late in joining 'The Great Game'?

[Ross]

{Note how Mr. Worstall makes the unfounded leap to the conclusion that someone somewhere is asking him to "cough up the dosh" merely by daring to ask for involvement in the commemoration of Britain's colonial past}

Isn't that implicit where the article states:

{Just as in France, those seeking remembrance and reparations for Britain's colonial past will first have to overcome government and mainstream media spin}

[Abiola Lapite]

Ross,

The fact is, though, that no one has actually *asked* for any reparations, at least from what one can glean from the Guardian article. In any case, if Japan is supposed to be singularly unrepentant in refusing to cough up yet more money to China and Korea for past wrongs, despite having given both countries gigantic sums over the years, then surely all the Westerners making such demands should begin by taking their own medicine. Japan's empire was smashed in 1945, while the Europeans only got around to winding down theirs in the 1960s and 1970s, yet we're supposed to accept that Japan is guilty of dodging reparations while Europeans aren't? It's just infuriating to see the same old hypocritical rubbish trotted out all the damn time in every Western newspaper one cares to read.

[Andrew]

Has Worstall actually criticized Japan for not apologizing / making reparations? Maybe he's not a hypocrite on this point and just thinks no one should apologize for past imperialism. A quick Google doesn't turn up anything, but then I don't read him so maybe I'm just missing something.

[Abiola Lapite]

I'm not saying he himself has, just that his dismissive attitude is par for the course in a West which has no problems belting out the same stale old tunes where Japan is concerned. Hardly anyone thinks twice when people in Europe or America say the sorts of things Worstall does, but everyone goes ballistic about Japanese "ultranationalism" as soon as, say, Taro Aso makes a (factually true) statement like "Japan improved Taiwan's education system", or some Japanese scholar makes the (factually true) claim that Korea prospered under imperial rule, both of which assertions fall far short of saying the West need not apologize for anything whatsoever. It will be a cold day in hell before you see Tony Blair apologizing in a forthright manner for Britain's imperial aggression in as forthright a manner as Koizumi has done for his country's on many an occasion, yet no one sees anything wrong in Britons piously lecturing on the latter leader's "insincerity" and "unrepentant" attitude.

To put it succintly, Europeans are almost completely lacking in anything approaching the introspection, candor and remorse they routinely demand of Japan, and even the Germans are only really sorry for Nazism, not for what they did in Africa.

[Chuckles]

Indeed. When you do it, its bad. When we do it...well...its just us doing it! The other thing here (not WRT Worstall but WRT to Western attitudes in general) is that simple Occidental anxiety of yore (acutely evidenced in present times by whites who whine on and on about Japanese Racism towards whites and the stereotype of the Angry Black Man).
The supposedly devious, cunning, mysterious East has nothing on the West. You wanna see two-facedness? Look no further than the realms of Europe.

[Steve Edwards]

The German Empire was piddling compared to what the British, French, Spanish, Portugese etc picked up. Most Germans are probably not even aware they had any colonies in Africa!

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"To put it succintly, Europeans are almost completely lacking in anything approaching the introspection, candor and remorse they routinely demand of Japan, and even the Germans are only really sorry for Nazism, not for what they did in Africa."

I wonder if time frame is important. Personally I don't have any problem with trying to force introspection, candor and remorse on population of a society which was actually involved in something like Nazism. It might even be ok in the young generation which lived through it. I'm not so convinced that it is helpful much after that. So the argument that the Japanese and Germans should do so in the 1950s and 1960s makes sense to me. In the 2000s, not so much. Similarly current British citizens with respect to the past empire.

[Chuckles]

What really interests me about time frame arguments and how they border on historical relativism is the flip side of such collectivism. If we say - Yes! There are statutes of limitation and after a period, griping about iniquities is not apropos (since individual guilt cannot be derived from a collective; a bygone collective at that) - then how does this apply to deriving individual self esteem from bygone collective glory? French children are taught to take pride in the deeds of Empire, as are British, Portuguese and Belgian children. If guilt is unapplicable by virtue of times passage, how come glory?
If such and such territories are "ours" by virtue of what our forbears did: Then how come such and such blame *cannot* be ours by virtue of what our forbears did? Since when did debts and liabilities become disaggregated from the inheritance of estates?

But thats just being nitpicky: The reality of the matter is that regardless of time frame - every single argument applied to the Japanese condition also applies exactly to Europeans, even more so. Rhodesia was decolonized in the 70s and we have wars in IndoChina also to think about. There are people alive *today* - many of them - who recollect vividly, being victims of European Imperialism: And more to the point, a sizeable chunk of their victimizers, both individually and institutionally are still extant. So how then does one talk about Japan and Germany in the 50s and 60s without mentioning the rest of Europe: and how does one arrive at the conclusion that Britain is absolved of liability in the 2000s just because time has passed?

[Delmore Macnamara]

"French children are taught to take pride in the deeds of Empire, as are British, Portuguese and Belgian children".

As far as English children go, this appears false. To the extent that they are taught history at all, it is the c.20 "men with moustaches" stuff. Certainly they feel little guilt for the slave trade, the potato famine etc. But by and large they also feel little pride in their country's history, neither in the Empire, nor in its less wicked aspects.

In truth, guild and pride are equally beside the point - it is sheer ignorance that is England's real shame.

[Delmore Macnamara]

And the notion that the British generally give a monkey's either way about Japan's treatement of the Chinese and Koreans seems implausible too. So far as demands for apologies / reparations go, they usually relate to Japan's inhumane treatment of British POWs. It must be admitted, however, that one rarely heard anything about British treatment of Japanese POWs... If anyone knows of any material on the subject I'd be interested to read it.

[Chuckles]

Delmore;

I'll be having a side of salt with that argument. After all, this is England where Nazi costumes raise a hue and cry but a "native and colonial" themed outfit goes generally unremarked.

As for British opinions on the Japan-Korea-China spat, that's all very well: The point remains however, that the British never fail to denounce the Japanese for injuries inflicted on the British without ruminating on their own imperial history - much like Koreans denouncing the Japanese without ruminating on the viciousness of the Communists - and that this process also involves coopting the sufferings of the Chinese and Koreans as part of the argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,,1774435,00.html

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200605150118.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/103060.stm

Such blatant hypocrisy as this:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20060517rl.html

should not go unremarked.

[Abiola Lapite]

That Japan Times article is particularly ludicrous given that Australia's 1901 "Immigration Restriction Act" and post-WWI obstruction of Japan's efforts at getting the League of Nations to pass a racial-equality clause contributed in a *major* way to the rise of Japanese ultranationalism in the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/ep2/ep2_places.htm

To read that sanctimonious article, one would think the Japanese suddenly woke up one morning and decided to go on a spree of conquest, entirely unprovoked ... People shouldn't go obsessively dredging up old history if they've got skeletons of their own in the closet.

[Tim Worstall]

Andrew is correct, I haven’t made any references to whether Japan should or should not pay reparations but I’ll do so now.
To my mind there’s a huge difference between historical injustices and things done to people still actually alive today.
On the issue of slavery, for example, what happened 200 years ago can be condemned, just as the abolition can be celebrated. But this leads to no requirement, moral or otherwise, for there to be compensation paid (and yes, there are attempts made to insist upon this, there are many cases within the US of this happening) from the descendants of one side to the descendants of others. A whole lot of awful things happened in history and we can’t go around insistingthat all are compensated for.
For people still alive who have directly suffered an injustice, yes, I think compensation is justified. I had a piece in The Times about prisoners found innocent....they shoud receive compensation for the time they served. Perhaps this might extend to the Korean "comfort women"?
But to extend such demands to hte descendants of the dead? No....for then we’d be insisting that the Romans compensate the Sabines, that someone whose great great grandfather was unjustly executed gets money now.
If it is possible to compensate the precise person who suffered the injustice then I think it’s justified (whether it’s Japan or the UK, Germany or Russia etc) but go no further.

[Julian Elson]

In our historical narratives, we still believe, in some ways, that might makes right, or vice versa: that victory is proof of the justness of the initial cause, or defeat its refutation.

The Japanese lost, therefore they must have been really wrong in their actions in China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indochina etc. And, really, they _were_ wrong. What about the Americans in the Philippines, the British in Malaysia, or the French in Indochina? Well, that's a whole different story! They didn't lose with the end of World War 2, so clearly the justness of their actions were never given a decisive refutation!

Of course, the French needed wait less than a decade for the justice of their cause in Indochina to be refuted in Dienbienphu, but for those who managed to disengage from their colonies with a touch more grace and stylishness, like the British from Malaysia or the Americans from the Philippines, well, they never "lost," so clearly, their actions were right all along, from start to finish!

[Abiola Lapite]

Julian,

You've nailed it right on the head. Unless one takes this point onboard, one will find it hard to understand why some Japanese people find the 1946-48 Tokyo trials to have been nothing more than the vengeance of victors on Japan's equivalent of General Gordon, Clive of India, Cecil Rhodes and company, all dressed up in a thin veneer of retroactive "justice." A lot of what people call Japanese "insincerity" and "revisionism" is simply their refusal to go along with the charade that what went on in those days was all their fault alone, especially in light of the fact that they only embarked on the course they did after 250 years of isolationism in order to gain respect from Western imperialists who insisted on treating them as racial inferiors: that the likes of the Soviet Union should also have been sitting in judgment of Japan, while today's unrepentantly dictatorial China is feted by the rest of the world, only adds insult to injury.

[emmanuel goldstein]

[But to extend such demands to hte descendants of the dead?]

yup. Holocaust survivors and their descendants have been able to recover damages from the German govt.

[Delmore Macnamara]

"this is England where Nazi costumes raise a hue and cry but a "native and colonial" themed outfit goes generally unremarked".

The news story to which you refer puzzled me at the time. The English have always regarded Nazi parephanalia as inherently hilarious (see the TV series "Allo Allo", the performances of Freddie Starr, even the "Don't mention the war" episode of "Fawlty Towers"). On the other hand, I have _never_ been invited to a "natives and colonials" party, nor have I met anyone who has been.

The attitudes of the aristocracy, and the reactions of the press differ radically from those of the majority English population and one cannot generally read off one from the other.

[Delmore Macnamara]

Tim, I have some sympathy for your point, but Emmanuel has already pointed out one difficulty above.

Presumably most of us are agreed that there would be little point in an apology or reparations from (say) the Saxons to the Celts, or the Vikings to the Saxons or whatever, not least because a lot of people would be apologizing to or compensating themselves.

Similarly it seems unlikely that anyone could deny that Britain ought to compensate the families of those it tortured and killed in the suppression of the so-called Mau Mau.

But I suspect that any attempt to establish some statute of limitations for historic injustices will give rise to sorites-type paradoxes, which it is far from clear to me how to resolve in cases such as the Atlantic slave trade or indeed the Irish potato famine.

In a few generations' time presumably the same difficulties may arise as respects the descendants of victims of Nazi persecution.

[emmanuel goldstein]

Delmore, thanks for the kind words.

I don't think that vagueness objection is insurmountable.

I took Tim to be arguing for a form of nihilism about the statute of limitations: we don't know exactly where the boundary is to be drawn, so the boundary isn't to be drawn.

But that's prima facie silly. One needn't have precise knowledge of the location of a boundary, in order to be justified in drawing it here rather than there.

[Randy McDonald]

Americans and Europeans are never hesitant to lecture a certain country on its supposed failure to "honestly address its past" or the "insincerity" of its apologies for same[.]

Don't forget Canadians, of course!

But supposed? At best, you're demonstrating that some societies and some commentators critical of Japan's own imperialist crimes are being hypocritical, that they demonstrate the same faults. You're not demonstrating that there weren't crimes and that there aren't lapses. If anything, all that you're doing is providing evidence for the theory that the only reason why Nigerians and Senegalese aren't loudly criticizing British and French colonialisms is because those countries are poor and depend on their links with their former colonizers. All it would take is a sustained economic boom ...

As for the crimes, never mind that Japan's rulers were planning on turning their entire empire into a hecatomb to ward off the Allies, including their unwilling colonials. I'm not aware of any atrocity akin to the Rape of Nanjing committed in the course of British and French colonialism in Africa.

[Chuckles]

But seriously, what is all the above supposed to mean? Has this ever been about a demonstration of crimes and lapses? In the course of this - over and over again, it has been pointed out that Japan has apologized for these crimes and lapses to an extent which Europeans have not done. This only makes the hypocrisy more glaring.
And yes, Nigerians and Senegalese have loudly criticized colonialism - up to the point that colonialism *is* responsible for immanent depredation. How is this the case in China and Korea? How many Nigerians turned on the British to ward off engaging Abacha directly? Have the Chinese done as much with respect to the CCP? And yes, there was an economic boom in the 70s. Tell me that relationships between Nigeria and Britain worsened then.