this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
98 points (95.4% liked)
World News
31446 readers
709 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just so it's not lost on everyone, A) Okinawa was a sovereign country that Japan occupied and annexed, B) the Supreme Court of Japan is using structural power over Okinawa to forcibly maintain and advance the interests of the USA, who nuked it twice, on the island of Okinawa, C) the USA is continuing to impose itself on the Pacific region through imperialism and it so dominates Japan that Japan's highest court is oppressing its own colonial holdings in favor of the global hegemon.
A few points you missed.
Yes, the Rykuyu islands were a sovereign country... In the 16th century. It's been run by Japan - save for a brief period between 1945 and 1978 - ever since. There's a small and insignificant independence movement that pretty much everyone ignores. I remember them throwing bread rolls at our gate guards.
The US didn't nuke Okinawa. I don't think it was intentional, but your wording implied that it did.
Okinawans are split over the military issue. Some people want the US out. Others make tons of money off the Americans being there. It's not a clear cut situation as you seem to imply.
The US is responsible for Japan's defense ever since the end of WWII, just like it was for west Germany. Given that Japan didn't make many friends during their little adventure across east Asia, having the world's largest military protect them is a favorable arrangement for them.
It's been several generations since WWII. Japan is one of the US' closest allies. If they wanted to transform their self-defense force into a full-blown military and take over responsibility for their own defense, I'm sure they could do so. So far, no one has generated the political will to do that. Your buddy Kim isn't helping things by sending missiles over Japan.
And lastly, WWII wasn't a war of conquest for the US. Blame the US for interfering in Korea and Vietnam and the middle east all you like, but Japan was a different story. Calling the US' actions in Japan "Imperialism" destroys any credibility you may have otherwise had.
The U.S. declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was not imperialism. But after the war, when the U.S. turned Japan into a vassal state and kept a ton of military bases throughout the Pacific (to supplement those from its initial phase of empire building), that is imperialism.
Disagree, they shouldn't have even been in Hawaii
Japan certainly wasn't trying to liberate Hawaii. This is not a good take.
I never said they were trying to liberate Hawaii mate?
It was obviously two imperial powers having an imperial conflict - but it's interesting how unexamined the attack on pearl harbour justifying US entry to WW2 among Americans is, given Hawaii is a relatively small island 4,000km from the US mainland and had only been annexed a handful of decades prior (and wouldn't become a state for another ~20 years).
I understand you didn't say that. What I meant was, had Japan been trying to liberate Hawaii and the U.S. reacted by trying to maintain control, I would see that as U.S. imperialism. But that wasn't the case -- it was more like Napoleonic France launching an attack on British India and Britain invading France as a response. Both are imperial powers, sure, but one metropole attacking another in response to its colony being attacked is really stretching the definition of imperialism. And it helps to have somewhat restricted uses of terms like imperialism so they don't just become meaningless (see libs calling everything done by any Bad Country "genocide").