Letters from Iwo Jima

[ctangus]

Boy, interesting thread. I can add a little trivia:

Ironically, one of scenes from "Letters from Iwo Jima" that was disbelieved and started the detour on this thread (Nishi sparing the life of a US Marine) has some documentation behind it. The Eastwood movie seems to have embellished the incident, but he's not the first to speak about it.

From Richard Newcomb's Iwo Jima:

Late that night, in a cave with a single bulb hanging from the roof, Baron Nishi poured a drink for himself and his aide, Okubo. During the afternoon, at Airfield No. 2, the Colonel had watched a Marine run forward with a flamethrower. The Baron had ordered firing stopped, but Okubo winged the Marine, and they brought him in and turned him over to the surgeons. In his pocket was a letter from his mother, in which she said she was praying for his return.

The Baron thought of his own children, and Okubo thought of the stories he had heard that the Baron was pro-American. Nishi said he had wanted to question the Marine for intelligence.

"If I tried to save that American, that has nothing to do with my background," the Colonel said. They talked some more, about the chances Nishi had had to stay in America and of his opportunity to avoid the Iwo Jima assignment. After Okubo went to bed, Nishi finished the bottle. The next Morning he was advised that the American had died.

Per the Wikipedia entry on Nishi, a biography of his mentions the event as well. I have yet to stumble across any primary documentation, so I still hold some doubts, but you can't blame Clint! [:'(]

[06 Maestro]

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.

I agree with you that Sharia laws enforce a collective guilt-so covers what, about a billion people right there?

The standards that you are setting for yourself, even if commendable, are academic. Regardless of your wishes, or claims, collective guilt is a normal fact of life-past, present, and future (foreseeable, anyway).

When “push comes to shove” between Muslims and Europeans (Sweden isn’t an island anymore-try to resist the urge here), attitudes/beliefs such as yours will carry about as much importance in your country as the .01% of Americans that might qualify as trailer park rednecks currently have in my country, which is about nil.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
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.

Yeah, the Japs were liberating China and saving them from themselves. The Chinese just don't appreciate how lucky they were to be killed by the millions by their betters. And I'll get off my moral high horse when you stop being an Axis lover.

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.

It's inconvenient for you that those poor little victims of unjust racism, who just happened to be about the biggest racists on the planet, committed so many atrocities before ever coming into contact with US Marines. It just wasn't fair to the Japs to use their own actions against them and put them in newsreels for the world to see for propaganda purposes. The Japs also committed many atrocities against US Marines before they reciprocated. The US was pro-China and pro-Philipino, so what made the Japs the little monkey people as you call them? It was their actions not their appearance. Finally, the Japanese didn't look any different after the war than during and yet we became fast friends once they stopped their evil ways. All good reasons why your above statement is BS.

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.

It took two to tango, that's true. But the Japs started the dance.

Lots of folks were grateful to be liberated by the Allies, how many were glad the Japanese enslaved them?

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Boy, interesting thread. I can add a little trivia:

Ironically, one of scenes from "Letters from Iwo Jima" that was disbelieved and started the detour on this thread (Nishi sparing the life of a US Marine) has some documentation behind it. The Eastwood movie seems to have embellished the incident, but he's not the first to speak about it.

From Richard Newcomb's Iwo Jima:

Late that night, in a cave with a single bulb hanging from the roof, Baron Nishi poured a drink for himself and his aide, Okubo. During the afternoon, at Airfield No. 2, the Colonel had watched a Marine run forward with a flamethrower. The Baron had ordered firing stopped, but Okubo winged the Marine, and they brought him in and turned him over to the surgeons. In his pocket was a letter from his mother, in which she said she was praying for his return.

The Baron thought of his own children, and Okubo thought of the stories he had heard that the Baron was pro-American. Nishi said he had wanted to question the Marine for intelligence.

"If I tried to save that American, that has nothing to do with my background," the Colonel said. They talked some more, about the chances Nishi had had to stay in America and of his opportunity to avoid the Iwo Jima assignment. After Okubo went to bed, Nishi finished the bottle. The next Morning he was advised that the American had died.

Per the Wikipedia entry on Nishi, a biography of his mentions the event as well. I have yet to stumble across any primary documentation, so I still hold some doubts, but you can't blame Clint! [:'(]

OK, so Clint is not an agent of Imperial Japan-I am glad to hear that.[;)] I will still be able to enjoy his movies-even the silly European ones.

[Ike99]

Yeah, the Japs were liberating China and saving them from themselves. The Chinese just don't appreciate how lucky they were to be killed by the millions by their betters.

No the Japanese were not liberating China. China at the time was divided into many, almost feudal territories and very weak. There was no real unified government. As always outsiders will wish to exploit the situation and take what they can.

You think Britian and the USA gave a rats arse about a China mans freedom and well being?!

[:D]

Please!

No, the Western Powers were angry at Japan because Japan was in a position to take and exploit first what they wanted to take and exploit. So there is no ¨good guy¨ here.

It's inconvenient for you that those poor little victims of unjust racism, who just happened to be about the biggest racists on the planet, committed so many atrocities before ever coming into contact with US Marines.

It´s not inconvenient for me at all. As I said before racist feelings ran from top to bottom on both sides of the Pacific. The Japanese were little monkey people to the West and the Anglos were big, hairy, uncivilized barbarians to the East. And speaking of the Japanese committing atrocities before coming into contact with the Allies....Hmmm.

Perhaps you need to look up the history of how the USA came into possesions of Hawaii and the Phillipines in the first place. Wasn´t exactly through the ¨Liberating¨ Process. It was by the sword. Something like 250,000 Phillipines were killed resisting American rule.

Yeah, history gets very grey indeed when you look a little closer. [;)]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

No the Japanese were not liberating China. China at the time was divided into many, almost feudal territories and very weak. There was no real unified government. As always outsiders will wish to exploit the situation and take what they can.

You think Britian and the USA gave a rats arse about a China mans freedom and well being?!

[:D]

Please!

I do think that yeah. The average American cared about the well-being of the Chinese once they saw what the Japanese did in Nanking. I think this based on conversations with folks that saw the newsreels at the local theater at the time. That's not to say they would have happily all moved to Chinatown, but even with such prejudices, they were outraged by what the Japs did. You gotta admit, actually you probably don't have to, but the Japanese sure played into the hands of the US propaganda machine by behaving like animals. Made it more than easy to depict them as such.

And you ignored the rest of the equation: Joining the Axis. It was both that helped bring about the sanctions. You do realize that Britain was at war with Nazi Germany when the sanctions were placed.

No, the Western Powers were angry at Japan because Japan was in a position to take and exploit first what they wanted to take and exploit. So there is no ¨good guy¨ here.

Yes, we were the good guys even with our imperfections and the Japs and Nazis were the bad guys. No surprise that the fruit of "Tojo's Loins" doesn't see it that way.

It´s not inconvenient for me at all. As I said before racist feelings ran from top to bottom on both sides of the Pacific. The Japanese were little monkey people to the West and the Anglos were big, hairy, uncivilized barbarians to the East. And speaking of the Japanese committing atrocities before coming into contact with the Allies....Hmmm.

Perhaps you need to look up the history of how the USA came into possesions of Hawaii and the Phillipines in the first place. Wasn´t exactly through the ¨Liberating¨ Process. It was by the sword. Something like 250,000 Phillipines were killed resisting American rule.

Yeah, history gets very grey indeed when you look a little closer. [;)]

So the Japanese mutilated and ate US service men because of how the US had behaved in Hawaii and and the Phillipines a century before? If that were true, you'd think they would have treated those same Phillipinos much better. And how does that explain away the abominable way the Japs behaved in every place they conquered, whether the US had been there previously or not.

I get the impression that it's fine by you that Imperial Japan took whatever they wanted by force and mistreated anyone they chose to. This seems to be OK with you because others, particularly the USA, had done bad things too. Which is weak even on its own but then when you consider that in the history of the world nobody comes close to the scale of savagery of the Japanese except maybe the Nazis...

History is history. WW2 was as black and white as war gets. No amount of distortions and deflections by the likes of you will salvage the image of the Axis. At least not until those of us who know better are long gone.

[Doggie]

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.

From "Panzerjaeager's" perspective, the issue is how Americans suck. The original premise, that the conduct of the Japanese Armed Forces during world war II was disgracefull, which it was, is simply an excuse to engage in his favorite subject - yank bashing and personal mud slinging.

It sahould be obvious to everyone by now that he has no facts to back up his thesis that the Japanese were no worse than the Americans, so he simply slings mud in every direction and hopes something will stick. All the while maintaining a mythical Swedish "moral supremecy" based on their superior breeding and intellect which precluded them from engaging in atrocities like all the other untermensch.

The frequent references to his own advanced education, intellect, and superior sense of morality only serves to advance this elitist agenda. What it's all about is Swedes are superior to everyone else, and the rest of us are some sort of sub species. Even a guy without the benefit of superior genetics and an advanced education should be able to get it by now.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Ike99



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

We would see young Americans who reacted just as we would expect them to after the fate of the Goettge Patrol and the barbaric conditions under which captured Americans were subjected to. I imagine it did not take the discovery of many butchered bodies before your average marine decided the Japanese didn't rate strict adherence to the Geneva conventions.

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.

Pretty much the same thing anyone would do after they found a few of their friends skinned alive. At least Marines did not do this to live prisoners, which is something the Japanese were notorious for. And there are no documented accounts of Marines eating their prisoners, using who ever happened to be around for bayonet practice, competitive head lopping, and vivesections just for grins and giggles. All these things were pretty much standard operating procedure anywhere "samurai" could be found.

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

Nope. It came from the fact that the Japanese reality was a thousand times worse than any propagandist could even imagine. It takes a real sick bastard to dream up some of the atrocities the Japanese engaged in on a routine basis, and there was aparently no shortage of them in Japan.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Perhaps you need to look up the history of how the USA came into possesions of Hawaii and the Phillipines in the first place. Wasn´t exactly through the ¨Liberating¨ Process. It was by the sword. Something like 250,000 Phillipines were killed resisting American rule.

Yeah, history gets very grey indeed when you look a little closer. [;)]

250,000!?
I think you may have been fed an exageration here.
The Phillipines were liberated by the guns of Adm Deweys ships in Manila Bay. Maybe you remember the quote, "you may fire when ready Gridley"?
After the Spanish fleet was destroyed, troops were landed and they linked up with Philipinos who were already in revolt against the Spanish. All of this happened in 1898 (hardly 100 years prior to ww2).
After the Spanish - American war ended there was some scirmishing between US and Philipino forces, but no where near what you envision. The worst of the fighting was on Mindinao against the Moro, but that is a topic for another thread.

Now, one of the mistakes many have made is assuming that the US is an imperial power. That has never been the case. The PI is a prime example. The Philipino's wanted independence, but recognized that they would be too weak military and infrastructure wise to stand on their own. We (the US) did not want some other power to take over after we left. So, we made a promise to grant independence in 1946. At that time they would be strong enough to stand on their own. And despite occupation by Japan in WW2 independence was granted on schedule in 1946.

Other Spanish possessions we took such as Cuba and Puerto Rico. Cuba wanted independence, that was granted. Puerto Rico to this day wants to stay a US protectorate (Puerto Rico citizens vote on this every few years).

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Sarge
What’s it they say about people that are constantly accusing ?

Looks like you guys have all but run out of arguments. Whats next, heading over to the steakhouse to regroup? Perhaps try another way to deflect the subject to something irrelevant?

Perhaps you missed one of my previous entries on collective guilt. I think the emotional/religious angle has already been covered so please give me your reaction to this.

I think that maybe the sweatshop example may not be the best for demonstrating guilt by association (collective?).

Perhaps we could look at the example of Sir Thomas Moore. During the reign of King Henry VIII of England, the King dumped whoever his current queen was and married Ann Bolin. Sir Thomas Moore did not back the marriage but said nothing about it. Parliment was forced by law to interpret his silence as acceptance of the marriage.

Comming from the other side, in a hypothetical situation, lets say that Dino gives me a ride to a convience store. I go in, shoot the clerk, steal the money and flee. If dino does not report the crime, he could be charged with man slaughter and accessory to armed robery.

Now, granted I am not a trained attourney, but how would this fit in with the idea of collective guilt/individual guilt?
Does it make it all individual guilt so collective does not exist?
Or, do I have something wrong?

[Doggie]

Looks like you guys have all but run out of arguments. Whats next, heading over to the steakhouse to regroup? Perhaps try another way to deflect the subject to something irrelevant?

[8|]

When have you actually made an argument?  And what is referencing everything from the Indian Wars, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and stories about test scores of American school children anything but deflecting the subject to something irrelevent?  Name one chunk of mud you've slung here that is relevant?

[Ike99]

morvwilson- I think you may have been fed an exageration here. The Phillipines were liberated by the guns of Adm Deweys ships in Manila Bay. Maybe you remember the quote, "you may fire when ready Gridley"? After the Spanish fleet was destroyed, troops were landed and they linked up with Philipinos who were already in revolt against the Spanish. All of this happened in 1898 (hardly 100 years prior to ww2).

Thats not the whole history. That´s the American white washed, where the good guys liberating and saving people all the time because we are so good historical crap history version. After this there was a decade long resistance against American rule in which an estimated 250,000 Phillipinos were killed.

mjk428- I do think that yeah. The average American cared about the well-being of the Chinese once they saw what the Japanese did in Nanking.

Don´t be silly mjk428. If the Yanks were so outraged and concerned about the Chinese then why does every single poll from the time say Americans didn´t want to be in the war and should flatly stay out of the wars of Europe and Asia right up until Pearl Harbor? But the leaders of the time saw the abundant resources of China and their own colonial possesions coming under threat and that´s what was the motivating factor, not the Chinese people.

And you ignored the rest of the equation: Joining the Axis. It was both that helped bring about the sanctions. You do realize that Britain was at war with Nazi Germany when the sanctions were placed.

Japan kind of half joined Germany didn´t it? After Pearl Harbor the Japanese didn´t declare war on the Soviet Union or vice versa. They didn´t even inform the Germans of what they were going to do. The theatres were very much seperated and each did their own thing in what they felt were their own best interest. Extremely limited cooperation between German and Japan at all levels. Very much the opposite of the Allies.

History is history. WW2 was as black and white as war gets. No amount of distortions and deflections by the likes of you will salvage the image of the Axis. At least not until those of us who know better are long gone.

Black and white to you maybe. Maybe not to some of the civilians who were very intentionally targeted for fire bombings, area bombings and nuclear attacks.

Doggie-At least Marines did not do this to live prisoners, which is something the Japanese were notorious for.

No they just burned them alive with the trusty flame thrower or shot them saying they were trying to escape.

And there are no documented accounts of Marines eating their prisoners, using who ever happened to be around for bayonet practice, competitive head lopping, and vivesections just for grins and giggles. All these things were pretty much standard operating procedure anywhere "samurai" could be found.

Nor would there be records of American atrocities against Japanese considering the USA won the war but one can just imagine some of the things that went on when we look at the propaganda and general feelings from the time don´t you think?

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

morvwilson- I think you may have been fed an exageration here. The Phillipines were liberated by the guns of Adm Deweys ships in Manila Bay. Maybe you remember the quote, "you may fire when ready Gridley"? After the Spanish fleet was destroyed, troops were landed and they linked up with Philipinos who were already in revolt against the Spanish. All of this happened in 1898 (hardly 100 years prior to ww2).

Thats not the whole history. That´s the American white washed, where the good guys liberating and saving people all the time because we are so good historical crap history version. After this there was a decade long resistance against American rule in which an estimated 250,000 Phillipinos were killed.

First off, I want to make it clear that I am not claiming saint hood for the US. Further I am not denying that there was some fighting between American and Philipino troops. After all that is where the design for the M1911a1 .45acp came from. A weapon I used to carry on my right hip. I just think your casualty numbers may be a little high.
As I have said, the worst of the fighting was on the southern island, Mindinao, against the Moro, not in the north (most people in the PI are Roman Catholic except in Mindinao where they are mostly muslim). But if you look at it, the Moro have fough every one. They fought the Spanish, the US, the Japanese and even cause problems for the current governmnet.

So, saint hood for the US? Not likely in my opinion, but our record is a damn sight better than a few others. It is because we were once a colony ourselves and know what that end of the deal can be like.

Now, as to the causes of the war between the US and Japan, I think there is some agreement there.
In the beginning of 1941 there was a strong isolationist movement in the US. I am not sure if they had majority status, but a lot of the attitude was "let the rest of the world stew in their own juices!"
Also at that time, Great Brittian was standing alone against Germany and FDR wanted to help Brittian but did not want to repeat the mistake made by Woodrow Wilson and bring a divided US into the war.
Also at this time, the attitude of the US state department was to treat China like a little brother that needs our help against the nasty colonialists. FDR took advantage of this to provoke Japan by cutting off oil and steel exports. I think FDR was trying to get Japan to start a war but underestimated how hard the Japanese would strike.

Now, on the other side of the Pacific, the Japanese government was far from the highly organized entity it is today. Japan did not declare war, the document delivered in Washington DC (district of criminals) was a notice of breaking diplomatic relations. The attack on Pearl Harbor was never approved by the cabinet and happened before the diplomatic severence document was delivered. There are many other examples of how disorganized the Japanese government in 1941 was, but for the sake of breivity, I will stop here.

[morvwilson]

Ike,
As far as what happened on the battle feild, things were done. The animosity between US and Japanese forced was only surpassed by the fighting on the Russian front. There is a book I read recently called "Up Front" by Bill Maulden. He was a vet of the Itallian campaign and wrote the Willy & Joe cartoon strip. I read it in an afternoon and thoroughly enjoyed it. It gave me an understanding what it must have been like to be an 18 - 25 year old on the front lines at that time.
In my opinion, with the benifit of 20/20 hind sight, intering US citizens of Japanese decent was wrong. But, do you realy want to compare how prisoners of the US government were treated to how prisoners of Imperial Japan were treated?

[Dixie]

This debate is still going on?  What happened to the discussion about the film? [:'(]

I know that the Japanese military, and the vast majority of it's troops were guilty of warcrimes and atrocities on a massive level.  I also know that there were a few Japanese troops who were decent individuals, but nowhere near enough to offset the justified reputation that the Japanese have in WW2.  I can't find the sources right now, but I have read of Japanese PoW guards sneaking food, and on occasion medicine to Allied prisoners.  The guards all seem to have been fairly low ranking, and I don't recall reading of any officers who did this but there were a few.  IIRC the accounts I read were from British POWs in Burma.

In a similar vein, whilst most US soliders were decent individuals, there were those who could be accussed of warcrimes but again, they were uncommon enough that they do not drag the reputation of the US forces into the realms of barbarians.  The same applies to all of the Allied nations, possibly because 'we' won the war and got to write the histories.  Whilst I can understand why US Marines collected ears/fingers/hands as trophies, two wrongs don't make a right.

No-one can say every Japanese solider was a murdering git, nor can they say every US solider was a fine upstanding defender of democracy.  Name-calling, mud slinging and dragging up dodgy actions from the past will not make the Japanese/American actions any more/less evil than they were.

[SLAAKMAN]

n/t

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
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?

For the emotion to be collective, everyone would need to feel it. Actually your examples have only reinforced my point, you need to look at the individual to know what he/she is feeling.

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

Well, I disagree. Lets try this example. If I do something stupid that causes me to get fired from my job, it would mean that me and my family gets to live in poverty. That means my action has had consequences for my kids, but it doesnt mean that my kids did something stupid.

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.

Actually the reason I chose to ignore the personal attacks from you is because Im trying to hold myself to a higher standard of debate here. This seems to dissapoint you for some reason I cannot comprehend.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: 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.[:)]

I think you (and Hans) are confusing two things, a collective emotion, and an emotion that is shared by many at the same time.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mjk428
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.

Lets try this; "guilt" is not a mythical metaphysical entity that lives somewhere out there in the aether, and then chooses to swoop down on some individual or group of individuals. Guilt is something that we assign to people, or people assign to themselves, based on the current set of norms, morals, laws and traditions that controls that society.

In our western society, in our legal tradition, in our morals and in our religious faith, we do not accept collective guilt. We have decided that we are all individuals, and we are individuals with a free will. That means that each and everyone of us must be judged based upon our own actions, not the actions or inactions of someone else who happen to share our ethnicity, nationality, workplace or whatever. We do not accept collective guilt, because it goes directly against our basic idea that all men are individuals, created equal and with a free will.

HOWEVER. This state of affairs will only continue as long as we; in our western society, in our legal tradition, in our morals and in our religious faith continue to believe that all men are free, equal and individuals. If we were to adopt some other set of morals, like the sharia-sytem for example, then we would change, our morals, norms, laws and beliefs would change, and in some nightmarish future, we might come to the conclusion that individuals are not free, have no free will and therefore guilt could be collective.

That means that guilt is always individual and never collective, as long as we decide it is so. and I for one will never accept the notion that guilt can be collective, it goes against everything that I hold true, and it goes against all the values that make us free.

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.

Not really. I call doggie a racist because he thinks all japanese were stinking savages who deserved to be butchered.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


Guilt is something that we assign to people

Only if one puts on blinders and considers everything in terms of "legalities". This appears to be a common affliction among practicioners of the law. Lawyers seem to feel compelled to "assign" blame so "liabilty" can be assigned so that punitive damages in the form of monetary compensation can be awarded with the lawyer taking their exhorbitant cut.

Try removing your legalistic blinders and looking at the world as a whole and NOT as a courtroom, You might actually find it refreshing.