Post by Justin Yu on Nov 12, 2015 9:17:01 GMT
"Men with discrimination will be viewed as schemers; second, men with deep farsightedness will be seen as cowards; and third, men with rough behavior will be mistaken for real warriors." Takeda Shingen
In "Barefoot Gen", Keiji Nakazawa and his literary persona, Gen, both dealt with severe societal abuse due to not supporting the war (or at least due to his father's public stance on the war). The abuse he faced reminded me of a certain quote (above) made by Takeda Shingen, a famous military commander from the Sengoku Jidai conflict more than three centuries prior. Takeda's distinction between men during conflict is also seen in the events of "Barefoot Gen".
As with most wars, society had divided into two simple groups: those who support the war and those who don't. Due to the military dictatorship reigning over Japan, the severe nationalist propaganda and "public order" police instated during the war made sure public support for the war was present in every household. Those who did not faced heavy discrimination and abuse from the rest of society as seen in "Barefoot Gen". The father of the Nakaoka family, Daikichi, did not agree with the war in the slightest and only believes that its is those from the top that started the war in order to acquire foreign resources for the militarized Japan (73). From the beginning he understood that the propaganda spread by the Japanese military was falsified information and told very little truth about the battle of the Pacific. And once the American carriers were able to send bombers unopposed to bomb major Japanese cities after Japan's "honorable defeats" at Midway and Okinawa, the war was basically over. While the brainwashed public could not see that, Daikichi did. And as such, he did not support the losing war effort and only worked to preserve the life of his family. Daikichi was a man who was able to discriminate between reality and falsehood, and used that information to look beyond the current war for the future of his family. Society, however, viewed him as both a scheming traitor and a coward for going against the war effort. Even schoolchildren agreed that Gen should be punished for also opposing the war effort (54). And yet it is those people, who attack the Nakaokas for opposing the war, that are considered to be the ideal. Education and police forces further reinforce that ideal on the populace, allowing stomping on the faces of the enemy or attacking those who do not support the war to be considered honorable acts. Those who carried on such behavior onto the battlefield while blindly following orders, even if it meant to die fighting, were deemed heroes. Not the men who understood the difference between harsh reality and military propaganda and definitely not men who understood that the war was lost and that further conflict would only bring more death, including the atomic bomb that claimed so many lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The abuse that Nakazawa portrayed left me quite hollow. It was not just that the events were sad but the events were actually believable. War has destroyed many domestic policies concerning the rights of the people on numerous occasion. Basic human rights that should be guaranteed are often stripped under the pretext of war. But what marks if limitations on the people's rights are too oppressive? And would a relaxed control over the home-front have prevented the continuation of the war past the critical losses of Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa?
In "Barefoot Gen", Keiji Nakazawa and his literary persona, Gen, both dealt with severe societal abuse due to not supporting the war (or at least due to his father's public stance on the war). The abuse he faced reminded me of a certain quote (above) made by Takeda Shingen, a famous military commander from the Sengoku Jidai conflict more than three centuries prior. Takeda's distinction between men during conflict is also seen in the events of "Barefoot Gen".
As with most wars, society had divided into two simple groups: those who support the war and those who don't. Due to the military dictatorship reigning over Japan, the severe nationalist propaganda and "public order" police instated during the war made sure public support for the war was present in every household. Those who did not faced heavy discrimination and abuse from the rest of society as seen in "Barefoot Gen". The father of the Nakaoka family, Daikichi, did not agree with the war in the slightest and only believes that its is those from the top that started the war in order to acquire foreign resources for the militarized Japan (73). From the beginning he understood that the propaganda spread by the Japanese military was falsified information and told very little truth about the battle of the Pacific. And once the American carriers were able to send bombers unopposed to bomb major Japanese cities after Japan's "honorable defeats" at Midway and Okinawa, the war was basically over. While the brainwashed public could not see that, Daikichi did. And as such, he did not support the losing war effort and only worked to preserve the life of his family. Daikichi was a man who was able to discriminate between reality and falsehood, and used that information to look beyond the current war for the future of his family. Society, however, viewed him as both a scheming traitor and a coward for going against the war effort. Even schoolchildren agreed that Gen should be punished for also opposing the war effort (54). And yet it is those people, who attack the Nakaokas for opposing the war, that are considered to be the ideal. Education and police forces further reinforce that ideal on the populace, allowing stomping on the faces of the enemy or attacking those who do not support the war to be considered honorable acts. Those who carried on such behavior onto the battlefield while blindly following orders, even if it meant to die fighting, were deemed heroes. Not the men who understood the difference between harsh reality and military propaganda and definitely not men who understood that the war was lost and that further conflict would only bring more death, including the atomic bomb that claimed so many lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The abuse that Nakazawa portrayed left me quite hollow. It was not just that the events were sad but the events were actually believable. War has destroyed many domestic policies concerning the rights of the people on numerous occasion. Basic human rights that should be guaranteed are often stripped under the pretext of war. But what marks if limitations on the people's rights are too oppressive? And would a relaxed control over the home-front have prevented the continuation of the war past the critical losses of Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa?