Letters from Iwo Jima

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Methinks I have identified the mental block keeping you from grasping the concept of collective guilt.......you need to remove the "western legal tradition" hat and try to understand the world in non-legal terms.

And why would I want to do that? Moral relativism = idiotic.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong regarding Christian morals. According to the Judeo-Christian myth "we" all carry the collective guilt of Adam and Eve.

You couldnt possibly be more wrong regarding Christian morals, since the one thing that determines our fate is our subjective actions, thoughts or inactions. At the very heart of the Christian message is that you get to choose your own fate.

Guilt CAN be collective. "Guilt" is a human emotion, NOT a legal status. Try thinking in terms of human emotions and NOT in terms of legalities and you might just have a chance of grasping a clue!

Arguing emotions is about as pointless as it gets. At the end, the best argument you will be able to present is "because I think/feel so". And that is completely meaningless.

Here is an example of what a debate regarding emotions looks like.

Poster 1: I think guilt is individual.
Poster 2: I think guilt is collective
Poster 1: I think you are wrong. Look at the history of the western world, our morals, laws religious beliefs etc. They support my position.
Poster 2: Well, I think you are wrong.
Poster 1: Well, I believe Im right, can you make some sort of argument for your position?
Poster 2: I just did. I said I think Im right.
Poster 1: yes but, what sort of evidence do you have for your position?
Poster 2: I know it in my heart that Im right.

Etc
Complete. Waste. Of. Time.
Now if you want to sit and argue that you are right and that collective guilt exists because you think it does and you base that on your emotions, then by all means sit here and talk to yourself.

[HansBolter]

You really couldn't be more clueless.

Identifying guilt as an emotion and arguing that it is possible for an emotion to become "collective" has absolutely nothing to do with what "I" may be feeling.

The argument isn't about what I, or you or anyone else is feeling at the moment. It is about the possiblility of an emotion or "feeling" to become collective.

Furthermore, that the essential "message" of Christiananity is that we each determine our own course, auspiciously by believing in Christ or choosing not to, is also based on the premise that in order to escape the consequences of our "collective guilt" we need to make the "right" choice. It comes back full circle to the issue of collective guilt. Try as you may it is inescapable.

That you avoided addressing the issue of your display of prejudice and steroetyping is quite revealing in, and of itself.

p.s. this one seems to be a perfect fit:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... butter.htm

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
You really couldn't be more clueless.

Identifying guilt as an emotion and arguing that it is possible for an emotion to become "collective" has absolutely nothing to do with what "I" may be feeling.

The argument isn't about what I, or you or anyone else is feeling at the moment. It is about the possiblility of an emotion or "feeling" to become collective.

Ok, how does an emotion become collective? You have a group of people, say 100, in a room. How does the emotions or feelings of one of these people become a collective emotion/feeling? More importantly, how do we determine the emotion/feeling of ONE of these people without looking at his actions or inactions, thoughts or non-thoughts?

More importantly perhaps, what does this "guilt as an emotion" have to do with the discussion, which is about racism, stereotyping and whether there were Japanese soldiers in ww2 who didnt commit warcrimes or not? How do you determine guilt on the basis of "an emotion"?

Furthermore, that the essential "message" of Christiananity is that we each determine our own course, auspiciously by believing in Christ or choosing not to,

We agree, and this was my point.

is also based on the premise that in order to escape the consequences of our "collective guilt" we need to make the "right" choice. It comes back full circle to the issue of collective guilt. Try as you may it is inescapable.

I see this as Adam and Eve doing something stupid and being ejected out of Eden. Their behavior had consequences for all of mankind.

That you avoided addressing the issue of your display of prejudice and steroetyping is quite revealing in, and of itself.

Whats there to say? You threw an ad hom in my direction...or some sort of mix between an ad hom and a strawman. I chose to ignore it and focus on the discussion instead of the personal attack...

p.s. this one seems to be a perfect fit:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... butter.htm

Ok, so what are you looking for now? Do you want me to search the internet for some picture of how I percieve you? Should I throw in some insult here? What?

[HansBolter]

"How" is simply not a relevant and quite possibly beyond the capacity of humans to grasp within the framework of our current understanding of human behavior.

100 people in a movie theater watch a tear jerking scene. Are you actually telling me with a straight face that at least some small percentage of them are NOT experiencing a collective emotion?

100 people sit in a theater watching a magic show and respond with outward expressions of awe. Are you telling me with a straight face that at least some small percentage of them are NOT experiencing a collective emotion?

100 people sit in the tsands watching a football match cheering on their team. When that team wins and the fans COLLTCTIVELY express their elation are you telling me with a straight face that at least a small percentage of them are NOT experiencing a collective emotion?

The relevance it has should be more than clear to the person who has invested considerable time in making it a cenrtral issue of the discussion. That it's relevance seems to escape your grasp is decidely dissappointing.

"I see this as Adam and Eve doing something stupid and being ejected out of Eden. Their behavior had consequences for all of mankind."

And that consequence would be............collective guilt! Nice job of resorting to the use of euphamisms to avoid admitting publicly that you were wrong.

You chose to ignore "the personal attack" because addressing it would be decidely uncomfortable for you as it would require addmitting that you are engaging in the same behavior you have taken others to task for from your deluded position of higher moral ground.

As for the referece to the Tireless rebutter. I was hopeful that you coyuld read between the lines and see it for the message that it is. I will eventually tire of this banter and you, unfortunately will see that as a sign of victory for you in this "debate". All it will truly signify is that I have better things to do with my time than waste it on an endless effort to remove the wool from your eyes.

[HansBolter]

"I see this as Adam and Eve doing something stupid and being ejected out of Eden. Their behavior had consequences for all of mankind."


Let's try substituting other parties.

"I see the Final Solution as Hitler doing something stupid and condemning Germany for all time to carry the stigma of having facilitated it. His behavior had consequences for all of Germany."

Does that spell thing out in simple enough terms for you to be able to grasp the concept of collective guilt?

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

You couldnt possibly be more wrong regarding Christian morals, since the one thing that determines our fate is our subjective actions, thoughts or inactions. At the very heart of the Christian message is that you get to choose your own fate.

That's not quite the heart of the Christian message. It's through no "works" of our own that we are assured of salvation. We are all sinners and saved only through Jesus. Jesus died for all our sins. Everyone is saved by Jesus - not just those that choose to be saved. So it's not about choosing our fate but rather accepting it. The distinction may seem subtle but it's a very important one. Because it's all about Jesus, not us.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Foxtrot Uniform/Panzerjaeger Hortlund
You know, all things aside, I wonder when mjk and Sarge were in fact engaged in a homosexual orgy in a Swedish Army barracks, and why Doggie knows about it?

I always get a kick out of the tard that invents a member just to drum up support [:D]


Edit:
Echoes of Les [;)]

[Dino]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

"I see this as Adam and Eve doing something stupid and being ejected out of Eden. Their behavior had consequences for all of mankind."


Let's try substituting other parties.

"I see the Final Solution as Hitler doing something stupid and condemning Germany for all time to carry the stigma of having facilitated it. His behavior had consequences for all of Germany."

Does that spell thing out in simple enough terms for you to be able to grasp the concept of collective guilt?

Well, why stop there?

"I see killing of Jesus as King Herod doing something stupid and condemning all Jews for all time, etc., etc..."

It's a concept, all right...but, do we really want to embrace it?

[martxyz]

I'm left wondering how this VERY long thread got to this point, from the place that it started. To be honest, I'm now completely lost about what the issue is, what people are using as definititons, what people are disagreeing about, and what the purpose of it all is.

I would be happy to discuss racism. I would be happy to discuss collective guilt, and I would be happy to discuss retribution, but what I can't do is figure out where we are in all this. I'm afraid I'm totally lost.

I don't blame anyone. I don't know who I agree with, why, or what about. I am just plain lost.

Would anybody care to give me a brief and coherent summary of exactly where this discussion is at the moment, and why. No disrespect to ANYBODY intended, and no agendas whatever being pushed.

Cheers all,

Martin

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Dino

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

"I see this as Adam and Eve doing something stupid and being ejected out of Eden. Their behavior had consequences for all of mankind."


Let's try substituting other parties.

"I see the Final Solution as Hitler doing something stupid and condemning Germany for all time to carry the stigma of having facilitated it. His behavior had consequences for all of Germany."

Does that spell thing out in simple enough terms for you to be able to grasp the concept of collective guilt?

Well, why stop there?

"I see killing of Jesus as King Herod doing something stupid and condemning all Jews for all time, etc., etc..."

It's a concept, all right...but, do we really want to embrace it?

Given the choice, probably not. The real question would seem to be do we embrace it by making a choice, or does it embrace us without allowing us a choice.

[robpost3]

Well, why stop there?

"I see killing of Jesus as King Herod doing something stupid and condemning all Jews for all time, etc., etc..."

It's a concept, all right...but, do we really want to embrace it?
Beer!
That is the heart of the matter, it is not if it exists as it certainly does. Collective guilt exists; the modern argument is how far it can lead to and to what end...PjH and others who adamently refuse to believe the existance of collective guilt must think it absolves them from group responsibility.
Dino hits the matter head on...how far does it go before it is detrimental, thats the real argument the world is faced with.

[robpost3]

Ok, how does an emotion become collective?

go to a Handel or Bach symphony, or any musical experience you really enjoy, quite simple...
one of the greatest shortcomings the human race can achieve is to seperate all thoughts and ideas from the heart and the mind; for therein lies the soul and without that we are but brute force.[:)]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Mart

I'm left wondering how this VERY long thread got to this point, from the place that it started. To be honest, I'm now completely lost about what the issue is, what people are using as definititons, what people are disagreeing about, and what the purpose of it all is.

I would be happy to discuss racism. I would be happy to discuss collective guilt, and I would be happy to discuss retribution, but what I can't do is figure out where we are in all this. I'm afraid I'm totally lost.

I don't blame anyone. I don't know who I agree with, why, or what about. I am just plain lost.

Would anybody care to give me a brief and coherent summary of exactly where this discussion is at the moment, and why. No disrespect to ANYBODY intended, and no agendas whatever being pushed.

Cheers all,

Martin

It's in multiple places. Threads, especially long ones, sometimes take on a life of their own.


For me, it's about PH's steadfast refusal to accept that collective guilt not only exists, but the majority of the world practices it. It's also about his rank hypocrisy complaining about prejudice and "ad hom" attacks while exposing his own prejudices with his own attacks.

For PH, it seems to be all about how many times and ways he can call Doggie a racist (and insult other indiviuals & groups) and get away with it. It's gotten so blatant that I'm starting to wonder if he's a Doggie alt.

It's not at all about Letters from Iwo Jima at the moment but Clint's film did spark the discussion.

Cheers!

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

This is quite simple really. Did My Lai happen? Judging from the venomous outrage displayed by certain posters when the topic was brought up one wonders if this is disputed or if you (reluctantly, and with much attempt to sidetrack the subject to something else) agree that the massacre did indeed take place.

If we agree that it did happen, then my question becomes "what would happen if we would stereotype the entire US army based on this one incident?". I use this as an example to show why stereotyping is indeed stupid. It will lead to all sorts of weird conclusions, see.

My Lai did happen. It wasn't representative of the behavior of the US military. It was a disgraceful episode and distinguished as such by the folks back home. So using that incident to stereotype the US army would indeed be stupid because it's a false stereotype. Had it been the norm, and had the US on the whole been fine with the behavior, then we'd definitely be worthy of condemnation.

The Rape of Nanking also happened. Those involved were lauded for their actions by their superiors and also by the folks back home. So that incident is fully representative of what the Japanese Army was like during WW2. You can call it a stereotype but in this case it's also an accurate depiction of their general behavior.

So when Doggie calls them "stinking savages" or I call them a "group of thugs" (in an effort to be generous), that's the label they earned. Every group of individuals that came in contact with them also shares the same low opinion of the WW2 era Imperial Army. If Sweden hadn't sat out the greatest struggle the world has ever known, you might understand why we feel the way we do.

[Ike99]

Doggie said

yep, the poor Japanese were such swell guys

Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable.

It wasn't a "stereotype". Even the most rabid anti-Japanese propaganda films of the era were optimistic when compared to the reality of Japanese savagry. No western theater would have been allowed to present a true portrait of the routine depravity that was life in the service of the Emporer.

And if we portrayed the true image of the US Marines in the Pacific what kind of savagery would we see?

I´ve seen video of US Marines cutting off Japanese fingers and making a necklaces of them. Cutting off Japanese hands, feet and other body parts as soverneirs.

There is also a famous picture from America with a smiling pretty girl sitting at a table with a Japanese skull on it. Apparently her boyfriend or someone had sent it to her from the Pacific theatre. Meaning, somewhere out there a group of Americans had cut off a Japanese head. Boiled and cleaned all the skin off of it then mailed it.

So one can imagine what the hell was going on out there.

Yeah, if they showed the whole picture from both sides and not just the anti Japanese propaganda from WW2 we would see a much more
balanced and less glossy view of the US Marines in WW2.

But all this was the nature of the Pacific War.

Nor should we forget that it was Japan & Germany plumbing those depths. That's not to say that it should be held against modern Japan or Germany. But it should always be held against them historically.

I wouldn´t say Japan was rushing forward into war against the United States. They were not stupid and knew the odds. When the USA cut Japans oil imports it really left Japan no option but War. The USA very intentionally forced a war upon Japan and not the other way around.

If you don´t think so, what would happen if the exporters of oil decided to cut all oil imports into the USA tomorrow.

What would the USA do?

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I wouldn´t say Japan was rushing forward into war against the United States. They were not stupid and knew the odds. When the USA cut Japans oil imports it really left Japan no option but War. The USA very intentionally forced a war upon Japan and not the other way around.

If you don´t think so, what would happen if the exporters of oil decided to cut all oil imports into the USA tomorrow.

What would the USA do?

If they didn't want a war with the US the best way to avoid it for them would have been to not attack the US. They could have avoided the sanctions by not invading China and allying with the Nazis. Everything that happened to Japan was a consequence of their own bad choices.

The USA might start siezing oilfields. We might simply buy through third parties. I strongly doubt we'd enslave everyone in our path, rape thousands to death, and have beheading competitions.

edit -

No denying that the US Marines hated their enemy and their treatment of their foes was savage. That came about as a result of how their enemy treated them at the outset of the war. The Japs apparently didn't appreciate this when they were slaughtering everything in their path. Payback is a b***.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

... that guilt is always individual, never collective.

How many times do we need to go over this?

Have or have you not admitted that guilt has been collective and isn't 'always individual'?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Guilt cannot be collective, at least not in the western legal tradition, or according to Christian morals. Now maybe collective guilt works fine in some Sharia-system or in some redneck trailer-park, but I hold myself to higher standards than that.

Guilt can most definitely be collective as has been demonstrated already to which you had no choice but to agree with.

Additionally, what is original sin in the christian moral if not a collective guilt that all humans share and suffer from due to the actions of 2 individuals?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


You couldnt possibly be more wrong regarding Christian morals, since the one thing that determines our fate is our subjective actions, thoughts or inactions. At the very heart of the Christian message is that you get to choose your own fate.

So then women can choose to have lesser pain through childbirth?

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

[Ike99]

If they didn't want a war with the US the best way to avoid it for them would have been to not attack the US. They could have avoided the sanctions by not invading China and allying with the Nazis. Everything that happened to Japan was a consequence of their own bad choices.

The USA might start siezing oilfields. We might simply buy through third parties. I strongly doubt we'd enslave everyone in our path, rape thousands to death, and have beheading competitions.

edit -

No denying that the US Marines hated their enemy and their treatment of their foes was savage. That came about as a result of how their enemy treated them at the outset of the war. The Japs apparently didn't appreciate this when they were slaughtering everything in their path. Payback is a b***.

China was under attack from all sides not just Japan.

If left up to the west China would have been a colonial possesion divided up between the major western powers with them taking what resources they wanted and half the popuation heroin addicts and the other half starving to death so get off the moral high horse.

And the US Marines treatment of the Japanese did not come from what the Japanese did. It came about by the propaganda of the time and the general racist feelings that the Japanese were little monkey people.

These types of feeling existed on both sides of the war, both Japanese and Anglo. That´s why the war was so brutal in the Pacific.