Setting the record straight.

"Racism" is a relative term. It is more acceptable to say, "Shoot that Jap!" than it would be to say, "Shoot that family man!." This might not be racism so much as making the horrors of combat more palatable. US troops in Vietnam referred to the NVA as "dinks' and "gooks" but we developed a healthy respect for them. I suspect this is the case in all wars.

 

In that sense I would agree that it is not used in a racist manner but one where the enemy is degraded to make them insignificant. If that makes any sense. For example, the terms Japs, Krauts, Charlie, etc, are used more like slang but have been turned racist afterwards.

The Japanese were ferocious fighters but the US military did not want to tell the GI that they were up against Ferocious fighters. Instead they told the GI that the Japs had inferior equipment and were crazy savages....you get the picture. The GI was given something to hate versus something to fear.

 

I tend to agree with Opanapointer on the issue of whether Americans harbored excessive racism toward the Japanese during WW II. Certainly documents like those produced by the US military services to inform their personnel about Japanese military practices and doctrines were not racist and treated the subject with the realism and seriousness that it deserved. Of course, individuals might hold racist beliefs about the Japanese and still respect them for their military prowess. And some individuals might hold no racist stereotypes whatsoever, yet still underestimate Japanese fighting ability.

John Dower in "War Without Mercy" attempts to advance the theory that the violence and brutality of the Pacific War was due almost entirely to racism on he part of the Allies. But any objective observer of his evidence would conclude it was the extreme widespread inhumanity and brutal behavior of the Japanese themselves that engendered the savagery that was characteristic of the war. American servicemen might have hated the Japanese, but they had good and sufficient reason to do so without resorting to racist motives.

 

I haven't read the book but find that an interesting and ironic perspective on Dower's part. Does he make any mention of Japan's long held beliefs of social and racial superiority? It was this arrogant viewpoint that lead Japan into its war of aggression and conquest in the first place, IMHO.

I agree with your point, war is hell and the PTO was hell. I don't think one needs to look for further explanation.

Sounds like he's just another revisionist. An apologist, too?

 

Dower is a bit of a "Japan scholar" and is married to a Japanese woman. I don't know if that qualifies as "bias" or not. He also fancies himself a bit of a psychologist. But reading the book is an interesting experience; the author sets out his contentions, then presents supporting evidence that absolutely obliterates his own theories without seeming to realize it. He does mention the racism and arrogance of the Japanese, but seems to excuse, or simply ignore it. Halfway through the book, Dower, examines the Japanese concept of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, and concludes it was a deliberate scam, although some ill-informed Japanese apparently believed in it.

The book is very interesting for the data it presents, it's just difficult to take Dower's contentions seriously.

 

i thought all was fair in war? would you make a thread like this if you were fighting orcs or some other sentient non-human? that tolkien. the enemy was always dark, filthy, uncouth, devious, and stank to high heavens.

 

I believe it happens today in the military. We are over in the middle east fighting "towell heads". The "towell heads" have put up a pretty good fight so far IMHO. I am not trying to offend anyone, just give anouther example.

 

That really brings up the question of what "racism" actually is?

Is referring to someone as a "towelhead" evidence of racism?

What if the person using that term is prepared to give up his/her own life to improve the lot of someone they refer to as a "towelhead"?

Is it possible to use such slang words without any racial connotation?

Is making distinctions based on a person's race the same as making distinctions based on a person's culture? What about discriminating based on behavior?

 

It would be more accurate to call them "Sheet heads". As the turbans they wear are more like small sheets than towels............

 

If there was any racism toward the Japanese during WWII it was certainly on the home front with the Federal interment of hundreds of thousands Japanese American citizens.

Many had to sell their farms and/or homes at low prices when forced to leave their property. Many Americans treated many returning Japanese American troops with racist remarks and disdain.

I would think that there is also an element of racism toward the "Japs" on the battlefield; But they brought it on themselves with their own racial superiority attitude (which I feel is still unchanged to this day).

Demonizing the enemy is necessary if you want to win a war. You have to kill other humans to fight a winning war. (Some still feel you can talk your opponent to death or pretend they are just misunderstood and that there really isn't a war going on.)

If you're happy to fight to a draw or lose ground, then by all means call him , "A good Chap" or "A real sport"; that should do it.