Forum - View topicINTEREST: Critic Calls Out The Wind Rises For Perpetuating Historical Revisionism
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||
Ramesses II (or any of the other likely Exodus pharaoh candidates) and the pharaohs of the Great Pyramids of the Old Kingdom are separated by a thousand years. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||
|
^
I don't really see why it matters as to which pyramids we're talking about. There's little if any evidence to suggest that Jewish slaves built - or were involved with building - any pyramids, and plenty of evidence to say that they did not. |
||||||
|
||||||
jl07045
 Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||
I don't remember Bible mentioning anywhere that Jews built the Pyramids, only that they were making mud bricks which was a common building material. Anyway, there were no Pyramids built during the time Jews were allegedly in Egypt. |
||||||
|
||||||
SquadmemberRitsu
 Posts: 1391 |
|
|||||
Last edited by SquadmemberRitsu on Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lady Multi
Posts: 673 |
|
|||||
|
So.... a critic is critical on the fact that a movie BASED UPON historical stuff isn't historically accurate....
There are LOADS of fiction based upon or plays off of history. I guess the Nazis were trying to made themselves into vampires for world domination; all Southerners must be vampires so the President can be the hunter... |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Fronzel
Posts: 1906 |
|
|||||
Can you really not differentiate between deliberate nonsense like you describe and a serious movie grounded in historical events? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
cuddlepie
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||
Japan never apologised for its war crimes? Did you do any research at all? Perhaps you should read this excerpt from the official statement of apology made in 1995 by then Prime Minister of Japan, Tomiichi Murayama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_occasion_of_the_50th_anniversary_of_the_war%27s_end |
||||||
|
||||||
|
GATSU
Posts: 15309 |
|
|||||
|
cuddle pie: The issue is that Japan never apologized for specific war crimes.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
lizardking461
|
|
|||||
"Debatable" denotes that something can be debated. He wrote that the purges can be debated. To assume WWII was an isolated event that doesn't directly tie into Stalin's regime is naive and ignorant, just like his comment. Why are you trying to defend a twit? |
||||||
|
Cptn_Taylor
Posts: 925 |
|
|||||
@ lizardking461 : You're being thick headed. To debate means something that can be discussed. It has no "revisionist" connotation. But I forget, maybe I'm talking with a 10 year old who doesn't even understand the basics of the English language. First lesson : words generally don't have single meaning and the relevant meaning can be identified from context. If you're not capable of doing it then use a good English dictionnary to help you. As for your understanding of History it isn't better than your blatant ignorance of the English language. Have a good day. 
|
||||||
|
||||||
VORTIA
 SubscriberPosts: 941 |
|
|||||
It's not like it was the first or only one. The bottom of that article provides a whole list of apologies from Japan for the war. This myth that they've somehow never apologized is part of why a segment of the Japanese population feel put upon and have become flip about the whole thing. How many times do they need to apologize before they stop being treated like collective war criminals? To characterize Yasukuni as a shrine only to war criminals is likewise inaccurate and rather insulting. It's a shrine to all of Japan's war dead, akin to numerous war memorials found all over the world. That several war criminals are enshrined their along other men who only died out of a sense of duty to their country puts Japanese politicans in the precarious position of being unable to honor those who gave their lives for Japan in numerous conflicts since the Meiji Restoration without also paying honor to those criminals, but because of the religious nature of the shrine, which is independent of the Japanese government, it would be sacriligious to remove said individuals and impossible for the Japanese government to force their removal. The Japanese government formally requested the Yasukuni disenshrine war criminals in 2005, but the shrine directly rebuffed them, stating that once a soul is enshrined they cannot be removed. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
jl07045
Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
|||||
|
What's ironic considering the current debate is that Russia is the one that has most problems admitting its war crimes not Japan. We're not talking about purges here, although they were likely done to consolidate Stalin's power before an inevitable confrontation with Germany. The actual war crimes weren't mentioned here, like Katyn massacre, mass deportations of certain ethnic and social groups, Order No. 227 and penal batallions, war rapes across the Eastern Europe (especially Poland and Germany), treatment of POWs, continued executions of political prisoners and general disregard for life of a single soldier which likely contributed to the huge casualty number for the Soviet military personnel. If you count it all together the number would probably be in the millions in WWII alone.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
=Shinanai=
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||
|
Hard to comment on this considering I haven't seen the movie yet. From what I gather it's similar to Grave of the Fireflies or Beyond the Clouds in that an ongoing war serves as a setting in which the tale of the protagonists are portrayed.
Yes, Japan's denial of their war crimes is certainly something to be ashamed of. However, there's a time and place for everything. If this was a historical movie depicting Japan's role in the war instead of a drama based on historical events, the criticism would be more than warranted. But it's not. Should every western flick end with the colonists slaughtering whole Indian tribes? Should every medieval movie include scenes of the crusaders killing millions based solely on differences in religion? Should Saving Private Ryan's ending scene show the US killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Most movies are meant to entertain. To tell a story. To depict human fates. Not to atone for the sins of the past. Wars are ugly things and war crimes always happen. Civilians are murdered, raped and plundered. Of course, there's a huge difference in magnitude, but lives are lost either way. Wasn't all that long ago when such incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan came to light, was it? Nothing can be done to undo the suffering or to bring back the lives lost. All we can do is to accept the mistakes, punish those responsible (something no longer possible for WW2) and learn from them to make sure they no longer happen. What happens after then, depends on who won. Winners write the history books. Colonists (in Africa, America, Asia... wherever) are pioneers. Founders of nations everywhere are heralded as heroes even if they wiped out entire civilizations. Christianity is the biggest religion despite (or thanks to?) the crusades. Hitler is a genocidal maniac. The swastika is a banned symbol of abomination, while the cross is a holy sign of piece and belief, despite the fact at some point in history both had been used as a sign of superiority and to rally people to kill those different from them. And before I set a sh*tstorm loose, I'm not saying that Hitler was a good guy, all churches should be burnt to the ground and every country should go back to where their people originally came from. The world has moved on and the examples I mentioned no longer result in genocide (due to a change in philosophy or the targets having already been wiped out). In some cases the mistakes have even be admitted as a footnote in history. I was merely stating how, in my view, the world works. There's no denying that Japan should confess to their war crimes in WW2. The ones directly responsible should have, a looong time ago. And since they haven't, those who followed should do so now. I'm looking at the politicians, as they should be the ones to take the first step. Maybe if they did, the people would follow. Not the ones who have been raised since then; Japan is too conservative for that. Those who are in school now. The future generations. It's not the only apology that's long overdue in history, but that's no excuse for not saying it. Until that is done, until the country as a whole comes to terms with the most recent dark spot in its past, it's foolish to wait for a mainstream anime based on an existing manga based on an existing short story to take the first step. Just think for a bit; what would have happened if Miyazaki directed an anime, which, say, followed the story of a Chinese couple as they try to escape the Japanese oppressors? Would it have suddenly enlightened the political elite and had them all come out saying "We're sowwwyyyyyy" with teary eyes, or would it have been banned as an anti-Japan work of abomination? yeah, I think so too. As for the A5M and the Zero... they were fighter planes, so had little to do with the actual war crimes. Weapons are made to gain an advantage in wars. Some, like fighters, can't really be used to kill civilians. Guns and the like depend on how the soldiers use them. And then there are nukes, biological weapons, depleted uranium shells, mines and the like which result in tremendous collateral damage. There's the saying "Guns don't kill people; people do." It's true. If we were to criminalize the Zero's designer, then what about the guys who invented the drones? They were responsible for quite a few civilian kills in the recent wars. Or how about the people who designed guns? Or every single soldier for that matter. What about computers? They have been used in ballistic calculations for missiles for ages now. Sure, we can argue that "If it hadn't been invented, this and that wouldn't have happened". War doesn't work that way. If you don't play along, you'll just be executed for treason and someone else will do the job for you. And if noone steps up, then the enemy will most certainly do. Once you're in a war, people will die; inventions only decide which side the dead will be from. Whether it's a race to building the best plane or the first nuke, from this aspect it doesn't matter. And it's not only the weapons. With wars of the magnitude of WW2, pretty much everyone was involved. You can be sure that your favorite canned food company was manufacturing shells, the factories of the company who built your car were rolling out tanks, the workers of your beloved clothes brands were sewing military uniforms and your favorite superheroes were supporting the military propaganda. Are all those people criminals as well? If we take away the war coating, it's normal people underneath. Scientists, inventors... they worked all their life for some goal they set for themselves. If the war gave them the opportunity and funding to realize those, I can't really blame them for taking it. It happens anyway. Space travel, flight, cars, computers, telecommunication, physics, medicine... all of these have been, are and will be exploited for military purposes. That's something that cannot be changed. If you want technology to advance you just have to live with it. Many from the Manhattan Project have said that they looked at nuclear fission as an energy source which mankind would benefit from. They were right. Hard to tell what would have happened had they refused or failed. It's safe to bet that the technology would have eventually been discovered. It's also safe to say that the military would have been the first one to get their hands on it and the first nuke would have been fired anyway. In a way, we were damn lucky that it happened the way it did. Yes, it was a horrible, uncalled for action that should never have happened... but if we consider the alternatives...well... we all saw the whole-Earth-is-destroyed-by-nukes scenario in post apocalyptic movies or games :/ It's a horrible thing to say, but people had to see the devastation to realize that military technology has reached a point where it endangers the existence of mankind and for perhaps the first time in history show some self-restraint in military matters. And where I'm going with all this talk? Simple. Wars are ugly, complex and divisive topics, the accurate description and analysis of which belong in history books and the History Channel. At the same time, they are also a popular topic for the cinema; for action movies because of, well, all the shooting and explosions involved and for dramas because of their emotional nature. No matter where people are from they can relate to the horrors of war. Let's face it; aside from the leaders and a few nutjobs who actually enjoy massacres, everyone's a victim. Wars change lives drastically and force people to make heavy decisions they normally wouldn't need to make. Due to the delicate topic, however, these movies can't stray too far from their nation's perception of said war. American movies will always be overly patriotic; Germany... well, the whole era is pretty much a taboo topic there; in India, half the film will be about people dancing; ones in North Korea will be based on the imagination of their leader; and in Japan, it'll be denial. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the movie doesn't try to rewrite history in an in-your-face way and sell it as the truth, I just sit back, grab some popcorn and enjoy the show. </wall-of-text></my2cents> Note: I wrote all of the above on the assumption that Japan never apologized. That assumption is not true. See this link for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan I am, however, not nearly versed enough in far eastern politics to take a stance on this matter. Despite the numerous apologies, the international perception, especially in the region, seems to be that Japan's apologies have not been sufficient, or, more extremely, they don't even accept any of them. I am not in any position to tell if they were sincere or the other countries wouldn't accept any apology anyway. Either way, there's clearly tension on both sides because of this on all social levels, so it's safe to say that - as far as the context itself and the general public opinion is concerned - it doesn't really matter who is right; it's a delicate topic that should be handled with caution. It's kinda like how many people are disgusted by some holocaust compensation trials launched even as recently as the last couple of years (No, DON'T go there. I don't wish to derail this thread into the sh*tstorm that topic always end up being. I just brought it up as an example so people who can better relate to the tensions with the whole apology thing). |
||||||
|
||||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||
|
This is a bit late to the party, but still quite amusing to read. Miyazaki has not only managed to piss off the old guard imperialists of his own country, but the winning imperialists of the other as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this film is simply about the man what designed a plane for the Japanese Imperial Airforce and Navy. He himself didn't actually fly one over Pearl Harbour, or later into the side of a US Navy destroyer, or aircraft carrier. He only supplied the blue prints, that some other designer could have submitted and probably did, but didn't win the commission. Had there not been a war declared the design could have easily been for a racing plane, like the original design of the Spitfire was.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
lizardking461
|
|
|||||
Ignoring your historical ignorance and glossing over of events such as the bombing of Dresden, the atomic bomb droppings, and the horrific atrocities of Stalin's regime leading up till, during, and after the war, it might be a good idea - when attempting to deride someone's aptitude for linguistic comprehension in the future - to use decent grammar and spelling yourself. The phrase "to debate" doesn't mean "something that can be discussed" - it's clearly the verbal form, not the noun - and there's only one 'n' in 'dictionary'. There's also no need to capitalise the 'h' in 'history'. What's more, your syntax leaves a lot to be desired. Do everyone a favour and stop spouting rubbish? Thanks. Last edited by lizardking461 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group