Tom Hanks’ remarks about racism in the Pacific War anger American nationalists
I didn’t want to make a post about this story, but the fact that I keep seeing news headlines about it makes me feel it is something worth posting for discussion here:

Tom Hanks, executive producer of HBO’s new miniseries about American Marines in the Pacific War, is being attacked for the following remark he made in a recent interview:
“Back in World War II,” he says, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” – Tom Hanks
Those who have read a bit of academic history books about the Pacific War probably won’t see anything particularly terrible or inaccurate about Hank’s view on racism in the war. It is, after all, just a simple version of the argument John Dower (MIT professor and advisor to the miniseries) made in his famous book, War Without Mercy. Historian Niall Ferguson had a similar message in The War of the World (viewable as a documentary here). To say that the brutality of 20th century warfare has been fueled by racism is hardly controversial.
However, conservatives in America have exploded with anger of Hanks’ statements. Blog posts, editorials, and TV appearances on Fox News have taken Hanks’ remarks and twisted them into ridiculous exaggerations like “TOM HANKS SAYS RACISM WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE WAR” , “TOM HANKS THINKS AMERICA IS RACIST” , and of course – “LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD HATES AMERICA.”
Here are a couple examples in video form:
From the perspective of certain nationalistic conservatives, it would seem that pointing out that racism against the Japanese existed in the war is the equivalent of saying that the entire war only occurred because Americans were racist.
To close this post, here’s a photo from a 1943 issue of Life Magazine [featured in Dower's War Without Mercy]:

It shows the skull of a Japanese soldier that an American marine fighting in the Pacific sent back to his girlfriend as a souvenir. In his book, Dower notes the practice of collecting bones or body parts of dead Japanese soldiers – something that did not happen in the war against Germany – as an example of how Americans viewed their Japanese foes as less than human. The practice was so widespread that it became routine for customs checkpoints to ask Americans returning from the Pacific if they were carrying any human bones in their luggage.
Edit: Further reading on the collecting of “Jap skulls” can be found here. [Hat tip to Ponta]
- Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
- Dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)

American Sitcom / Japanese Commercial
Japanese Rifle Girl vs. Carnival Game
Not Paying Rent in Japan
Boar-riding Rodeo Monkey Triggers Cuteness Overload in Japan
Japan’s Oldest People
Aliens Invade Sushi Restaurant
Frenchman Denied Entry to U.S. Base Festival
Japanese Girl + Dangerous Job
Kamikatsu: Japan’s First Zero-waste Town?
George Shima: The Potato King
Greenpeace Activists Found Guilty of Theft
Diaper-headed Man Robs Convenience Store
Oh yeah, and Japan attacked America.
Rate this comment:
0
0
You do realize that is just plain inaccurate, don’t you?
Even US generals admitted they deliberately forced Japan to attack USA, then used the needless losses of naval personnel for their own purposes.
Rate this comment:
0
0
False, and silly besides.
How exactly could the Americans “force” Japan to attack them?
Rate this comment:
0
0
U.S. Generals? What in the world kind of history book have you been reading? It sure as hell wasn’t about the Pacific War.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The picture of the skull on the secretaries desk was the first thing I thought of as soon as I saw the headline. I don’t think it was an actual photograph though, but instead a propaganda postcard where she’s asking the boyfriend to send back another one.
Either way, Hanks comments are a simple statement of historical record. The fact that supposed news networks can succeed in portraying it as in any way irrational is just more evidence that for large swathes of the US population the self-aggrandizing propaganda they’re brought up with is a far stronger part of their world view than actual reality.
I’d be hard pressed to think of a country more enamored with its self-image, though admittedly North Korea might give the US a run for its money
Rate this comment:
0
1
Hanks comments are not accurate. He says, “They were out to kill us because our way of living was different.”
First of all, the Japanese weren’t out to kill us. That comment doesn’t even make sense in the context of a national war. The Japanese sought to hamstring American power in the Pacific while they conquered all they could before America could recover and then Japan could negotiate peace. ‘Out to kill us’ makes them sound like an enraged Godzilla. In all war a soldier is out to conquer territory and that includes killing. I’m sure any nation would like to invade a territory without firing a shot and this has happened.
Next, even if the Japanese were ‘out to kill us’, it sure as hell wasn’t because ‘our way of living was different’. Can you imagine Japanese officers giving a pep talk before a battle or Japanese politicians giving a speech? “The Americans way of living is different from ours. For that, they must all die!” I think there was just a smidgen more nuance in this war for the supremacy of the Pacific.
Hanks comments have nothng to do with irrationality – they were simply ignorant. He was factually wrong and way off base in this regard.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Racism during world war 2 was fueled on both sides of the pacific and throughout the entire world. Americans may have called the Japanese “yellow slant eyed dogs” and the Japanese propaganda machine called the Americans devils and pigs that were coming to rape your daughters and kill your sons.
Tom hanks hits it right on the nail when he says “does that remind you of anything”?
The type of conservatives that are jumping on the bandwagon to bash Tom Hanks for his observant historical remarks are among some of the most racist racists in the world.
Rate this comment:
0
0
If one read certain history books, one might be lead to believe that racism fueled the 2nd WW.
Tom Hanks’ conclusion that WW2 was fueled by racism is too generalized a statement and is historically unverifiable, disrespectful and inaccurate. The fact that the Japanese soldier at the turn of the century was tough, cruel and brutal to both enemy combatants and civilians, regardless of race or nationality, didn’t make it hard for others to hate them.
It should be noted that the Americans were on very friendly terms with the Chinese, who are almost racially indistinguishable from the Japanese. No one questions the existence of racism, but to say that wars are fueled by racism is too simplistic an argument. If some nation forced me to ship out to fight on some malaria filled island, and watch my buddies die, etc, I’d be pretty racist towards them too.
In short, historically, no one goes to war over racial issues. They go to war over resources. Japan admired the US before Pearl Harbor. They declared war after the US decided to cut off trade in fuel and steel, which would in turn adversely affect their war in China. What fueled the 2nd WW was hardly a matter of race alone.
Rate this comment:
0
0
During the war, Life Magazine ran this article on how to tell apart Chinese and Japanese:
http://imgur.com/XJRFS
The U.S. Army also printed this lovely “How to Spot a Jap” booklet to help educate soldiers on the difference between Japanese and Chinese:
http://ep.tc/howtospotajap/
I’m pretty sure that Tom Hanks would agree with you on that.
I’m surprised at how many people are anxious to make comments about a war whose history they apparently know nothing about.
Rate this comment:
0
0
If the war got started because the US hoped to annihilate Japan for being different, then how come Commodore Perry didn’t just start genociding the Japanese people as soon as they arrived? How come no genocidal efforts were made before Japan attacked the US, or even afterwards? Japan and the Western world were politically, culturally and economically involved with each other prior to the war. The US helped modernize the country, and Japan was eager to modernize. Japan’s modernization was, of course, based on Western culture, so Japan quickly started resembling a Western nation. Western culture was also popular before Japan turned into the Evil Empire. But Japan attacked the US because… their way of life was different? Uh?
I’m getting a fucking headache, here.
Meanwhile in the real world, we know perfectly well that the war started because Japan attacked the US, and that while the US did employ racist propaganda during the war, the war had nothing to do with annihilating the Japanese people (why weren’t Japanese people living the US sent to death camps? What were they doing in the US in the first place?). The post-war occupation of Japan must be the most benevolent one in history.
The notion that the War on Terror is based on racism and an effort to genocide the world’s Muslim population (or “brown people” as leftist-liberals always call them) is perfectly orthodox leftist-liberal theory. And perfectly disconnected from reality.
According to people suffering from white liberal guilt, everything the Western world does is based on racism and has the ultimate goal of genociding, subjugating or oppressing this or that designated victim group.
Now, please proceed to vote my comment down without being able or willing to offer any counter-arguments.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Hanks didn’t say anything about the cause of the war nor does he say the war was based on racism. Dower’s book talks about how soldiers thought on the battlefield and the propaganda that gave them those views. There’s no argument that the government of each country had a national policy of genocide against other races.
There’s no need to make a counter-argument to your comment because you’re attacking Hanks for something he didn’t even say.
Hanks:
In other words, the purpose of the war was to annihiliate the Japanese people because of racism.
I am not aware of a race that the US has genocided. Even if they had, what does it have to do with this? They obviously did not genocide the Japanese people.
Rate this comment:
0
0
This board is frequented by quite a few nonnative speakers of English and hopefully you are one, tokyojesusfist.
If not, please keep a dictionary and/or a thesaurus handy when you comment, so that you don’t confuse the nonnative speakers who might read your post.
Genocide, by the way, is a noun, not a verb.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Thanks for your useless post Yojimbo. You simply criticized him for his usage of the word ‘Genocide’. Great job on being a douche.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Uh, native americans?
Rate this comment:
1
0
Yeah, when was the last time you even saw an American Indian??
Rate this comment:
0
0
Try the casinos Yoshi.
Rate this comment:
0
1
It seems to be that you’re conflating the reason the war started, and the rhetoric/atmosphere that was prevalent once all-out war had begun.
As you said, Japan didn’t magically decide one day to go and attack America because they hated the way Americans live. Neither did America decide to obliterate Japan because they are an alien nation.
But once intense warfare was under way, then probably all the dehumanizing, demonizing, and vilification of the enemy started taking place to keep the motivation to fight alive — becoming what Tom Hanks is talking about. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a separate issue.
Perhaps Tom Hanks could have framed his statement better, but I don’t think he has said anything false.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Oops, should have reloaded the page before submitting.
I didn’t see James’ reply.
Rate this comment:
0
0
They weren’t, but they were sent to internment camps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Rate this comment:
0
0
At last, some fresh air on the subject.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Oh, and one other thing…
These are not exaggerations. Hanks clearly said that the reason why the US went to war against Japan was because the Japanese were different. He also said that the War on Terror is based on the same thing, which is hardly far-removed from saying that the US is a racist country. And Liberal Hollywood does hate America.
Rate this comment:
0
0
“Back in World War II,” he says, “we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?” – Tom Hanks
Please point to the exact words in the above quote attributed to Tom Hanks where “Hanks clearly said that the reason why the US went to war against Japan was because the Japanese were different.” Which is what you wrote.
You cannot because there are no such words and you, like the media that are bashing him, exaggerated what he said.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The exact words are right here:
Rate this comment:
0
0
Well, that’s not really in context is it. Hanks is not saying that the United States government’s reason for its counterattack was to “kill as many of those yellow bastards as possible.” But that racism is used to achieve their political aims. The “we” and “they” in his sentence doesn’t refer to “the American government” and “the Japanese government,” but American soldiers and Japanese soldiers. He’s talking about dehumanization in warfare, something that anybody has read even fairly popular history should be able to understand instantly.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The sentences are connected. In the first sentence he says the Japanese went to war because Americans were different, and in the next sentence he says that Americans “in turn” went to war for the same reason.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Unfortunately, racism serves it’s purpose after a war starts.
It makes it easier to kill the enemy if you can find some way of dehumanizing them. Racism make that easier. I think that’s what Hanks is getting at.
It’s a shame that a few loudmouth blowhards get all the attention and act as self-nominated representatives of conservative thought, especially since they use little “thought” themselves. There are plenty of well-reasoned conservatives, but they don’t have many radio and TV shows. Perhaps Dennis Miller is a good, funny exception.
But generally, you actually have to read them. Though if you have DailyKos as your homepage, you’ll probably never be exposed to actual rational conservative thought.
The Glen Becks and O’Reiley’s are embarassments to actual conservatives. But the left will happily put up clips of them acting stupid. Just as conservatives will happily put up clips of Jeneane Garofolo et al.,
Rate this comment:
0
0
Correction: neither Beck nor O’Reilly never claimed ever to be Conservative. Both are Independent and both have opinion shows and both are opinion commentators, therefore they have the right to voice their opinions and viewpoints. Remember, you can always change the channel if you don’t like watching them.
Rate this comment:
0
0
What’s wrong with Jeneane Garofolo? In any European nation, she’d be sitting in the center of politics. She’s actually very intelligent.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Nothing if you are into moon bats or Hollywood “has-beens” of a frustrated 40+ something woman who has nothing to do but whine and go on MSNBC to at least be, if not, for a small miniscule part of the lunatic far, far left segment to be a voice. So maybe she should got and hang out somewhere in Europe, please take her, I’ll even front the ticket!
Rate this comment:
0
0
Garofalo would be considered politically savvy in France.
Here in the US, she is considered a congenital idiot when it comes to politics although she is quite a good actress.
Rate this comment:
0
0
“American Nationalist” is a contradiction of terms. Loyal Americans are called patriots, not nationalists. Since America was a created nation, we can’t be nationalists.
Second, I’m a little surprised no one has mentioned Japan’s racism against other Asians during WWII, or Germany’s anti-Semitism. The skull thing is the first time I’ve ever heard of it, and frankly, I doubt its authenticity.
Tom Hanks made an ignorant, foolish comment, and he deserves to be lambasted for it. There were NUMEROUS reasons for WWII, and if he’s going to blame racism, or even say if it was a major factor, he’s short-sighted at best. The US took a strong stance against Japan when it invaded the entire Pacific rim (from Manchuria to Indonesia) and did all we could to avoid war while with Japan.
The bottom line, again, is that there were a variety of reasons for the war, none of which involves race. Tom Hanks should be ashamed of himself.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Skull trophies of the Pacific
War: transgressive objects
of remembrance
http://www.science.ulster.ac.uk/psyri/profiles/s_harrison/documents/skulltrophies.pdf
Rate this comment:
0
0
Agreed. People seem to forget that both sides and every country during wars since virtually forever have spread Propaganda to push the other side, especially in those days where the Japanese spread Propaganda that the US is an inferior race because they are a “mixed” nation, mongrels etc. The Americans were taught that the Japanese are small, illiterate, can’t shot a gun straight because of the shape of their eyes and are rapists, just to name a few.
Having said that, race has absolutely nothing to do with this! People like Tom Hanks Danny Glover, Sean Penn and many others in Hollywood are so out of touch with reality they keep spousing one-sided biased, unsubstantiated rhetoric and it just keeps getting worse.
They shouldn’t quit their day jobs. They should do what they best: “Act” since it doesn’t involve reality or they need to go back to school and study history and leave the whiny emotion out of the argument.
Rate this comment:
0
0
What an excellent comment. The war started because of Japanese ambition, and ended because of American diversity (that A-bomb was invented by a lot of European expats running away from the Nazis). In the middle, there was a lot of racist nonsense, but it was part of the propaganda and not as central a force in the fight as Hanks makes it out to be.
Rate this comment:
0
0
All nations are created. Patriots=what we call ourselves and our loyalty to the nation. Nationalists=what we call everyone else and their loyalty to the nation. It’s the same basic thing, just a linguistic twist to make us feel different and better.
Rate this comment:
0
0
It’s funny how the ‘conservatives’ huff and puff over anything and everything Hollywood stars say, just to inflate their own sense of self worth and egos.
To say that race had nothing to do with reasons for the war is IMO false. True, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first. But there’s no denying that America at that time period had no love lost for Japan/Japanese. With Japan’s wars and occupation of China during the 30’s, many Americans already had an unfavorable view of Japanese. In that politically incorrect time period, one didn’t have to go far to see media’s portrayal of Japanese as buck toothed savages (this at a time where there were segregated facilities for people of different races).
So when Japan attacked, it opened up a fury and anger, and no one can tell me that some of it wasn’t based on racist hatred. Don’t forget Admiral William Halsey’s infamous statement, ‘Kill Japs, kill japs, kill more japs’ (Halsey had a seemigly pathological hatred towards the entire race).
Yes racism and dehumanization happened on both sides and this culminated in the sheer brutality of the fighting in the Pacific theater.
Tom Hanks statement is correct and again being taken way out of context for those with an agenda.
I will add that IMO there are similarities to what happened during WW2 and some of the conflicts of the modern times. In places like Iwo Jima, the American fighting man at first fought by the ‘rules,’ trying to take prisoners, etc. But then they were confronted by an enemy that behaved in brutal ways, committing suicide when surrendering, torturing/mutilating Americans, etc. Eventually, they started to act in somewhat similar ways in that environment.
Likewise, in conflicts like Somalia, the Army Rangers were doing all they could to abide by the rules and codes of conduct. But when you have militants shooting you from human shields and all directions, eventually in that chaos you do what you have to survive.
Rate this comment:
0
0
So what you are saying is that if Germany had instead bombed Pearl Harbor, the US would not have gone to war against them?
Rate this comment:
0
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI
Rate this comment:
0
0
Wow, that comment is so ignorant, I think I may have to break Godwin’s Law. Nazi Germany was a “created nation,” in the sense of one founded on ideals (as if there is any such thing as a “natural nation”, Benedict Anderson showed that all modern nations are pretty much social constructions). Are all Nazis patriots? The Soviet Union was certainly a created nation in that sense too. All communists were nationalists?
Rate this comment:
0
0
We fought Germany the same as Japan. Racism had nothing to do with either theatre of operations and no one can say to what extent the average American or Japanese were radicalized when it came to racism either before, during or after the war cuz no one knows. It could have been 6% or 68%. Who cares anyway? I can’t believe any body is talking about racism during the Pacific War as if it was actually on a list of priorities on the many ways to horribly die. The Major Leagues were sending All-Stars to Japan to play in exhibition games before the war fer chrissakes.
Rate this comment:
0
0
it is very funny. it is natural for the Japanese that american racism made THE WAR…
WW2 was inevitable for both nation.
at first, when was the black liberated from the slave?
it is easy to imagin that The Japanese might have been also similar to them.
the unequaltreay was also racist one for Japanese
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXT0xHJP1W4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyXXmZYXVY&feature=related
Rate this comment:
0
0
Conservatives Exploding … LOL … gua”rant”eed to be good entertainment.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Not exploding, that would be your typical Liberal rant on a daily basis. Especially now that, in the US all 3 branches of Government are controlled by Dems and Liberals, TV and politics doesn’t get more laughable and ludicrous than this.
Rate this comment:
0
0
“Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
I’m not actually sure who he is talking about. Maybe I didn’t get the memo, who am I supposed to be wanting to annihilate today?
Rate this comment:
0
0
Hanks is generalizing and forgetting a ton of other details, but what he said is surely not wrong. Whenever we’re at war, we’re pretty racist about our opponents. And our governments fuel that feeling in subtle ways (Or not so subtle ways during the world wars) so that we think it’s a righteous war.
Humans are way too human, I’m afraid.
Rate this comment:
0
0
How is the US government currently being racist towards Muslims (who do not constitute a race, but nevermind)?
Rate this comment:
0
0
That o’reilly person needs to die.
Whenever I see one of his shows, it makes me hate him a lot.
But yeah, Hanks of course is absolutely right.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Well, If you think he’s bad, then really are living in La, La land you need to watch MSNBC, and watch Keith Olbermann, here is a sportscaster trying to act like a serious political commentator! There is nothing on this planet that wants to make me jump off the highest cliff onto jagged rocks and broken glass.
Like I said, Hollywood needs to stay out of politics as much as the politicians need to stay away from “Dancing with the Stars!”
Rate this comment:
0
0
Japan’s only wish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONWx67xBWMg
http://www.asianamericanmedia.org/jainternment/ww2/prewar.html
I think many Japanese feel ” Tom Hanks’ remarks about racism in the Pacific War anger American nationalists” is common sense
it is not new.. The American who doesn’t know it is foolish.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Not that this is news to anyone, but it needs to be said:
FoxNews will exaggerate any perceived liberal slant to hysterical proportions. They do this all the time, it’s their basic modus operandi. They and their viewers essentially serve as a closed echo chamber–people who want to hear a mainstream media source reinforce their right-wing beliefs, and a channel that provides a constant and almost totally undeviating recitation of those beliefs. Both sides continue to shut out other viewpoints and further radicalize themselves and the other side. Then, the channel and its viewers basically see any deviation from those beliefs as a direct threat to America, and an affront to their moral cores.
If you already know this, of course, just skip this note. But I felt the need to post this in case anyone here is actually taking FoxNews seriously. Don’t waste your time–you’ll get nothing in return.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Obviously you get your left wing views from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post and etc. The only reason why you attack Fox News because you don’t like the view and the questioning of your lord and savior, the messiah…
Rate this comment:
0
0
1. I get my news from the internet. I don’t even have a TV. I see plenty of FoxNews at my parents’ house and online, however.
2. I don’t have left wing views. I consider myself an independent, and I criticize Obama where he deserves it (e.g., the deficit plans). It’s far more telling that you feel the need to defend FoxNews than that I feel the need to attack it. It’s clearly a biased and right-wing-reinforcing news source.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Again not true, does it take a more slight conservative/traditional tilt, sure. I agree with you there, but if all the other major news outlets are slanting left/far left and especially the papers, then what is wrong to hear another point of view? What is wrong with a network that allows Conservatives a voice, whereas before most networks never did(that is why they were mostly heard on talk radio) so what is wrong with dissent ???
Liberals crack me up. We have to accept everything our current admin. shoves down our throat like this healthcare that the Dems want to force us to take, no matter if 53% of the population aren’t happy with it! That’s OK, but when Bush was in power, we have to challenge his authority, undermine him in any way. I’m not defending the previous admin. NOT AT ALL! They deserved what they got, but on the flip-side, come November, I have a feeling the chickens will definitely come home to roost! Because this President is 100X worse! Yea, how is that change working out for you??
Rate this comment:
0
0
Maybe you didn’t hear me. I consider myself an independent. So who exactly are you ranting against? Because it sure isn’t me. I couldn’t care less if you trash “the left”–Dissent is great, when it’s actual measured thought and not mindless right-wing talking points.
You should note two salient facts, however:
1. When you’re calling 90% of media “left-wing,” and you only believe 10% is “fair,” that’s a pretty good indication that your perspective is not unbiased.
2. You admit that it’s a network “that allows Conservatives a voice.” Sounds like maybe we agree that it’s biased then. Then the difference between other media and FoxNews then is simply that you agree with FoxNews, not that they’re fair or unbiased. In other words, you’re a perfect example of what I talked about in my initial post–the network is just an echo chamber, and you’re willfully radicalizing yourself by refusing to even accept that other media is unbiased.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Well, that makes both of us. I too, am a registered Independent. There was no ranting, whatsoever, just point out some fact points. And “No”, it wasn’t directed at you.
I will only disagree with you in that, for me in all honesty, I don’t have high regards for both parties, truth be told. But working in this business for so many years, it is not that I ONLY agree with FOX, but if you read some of my previous statements, I used to work for a major news network in Los Angeles, number#2 market.
and I have a lot of people, good and bad, know all the innings of how they work and who really is telling the truth.
1) So it is not 10%. it is hard work and research and long hours that I put in when I write a story to make sure I get my facts correct.
It is a culmination of balancing the majority 90% left over the 10% right.
2) I am not radicalizing anything, remember: it’s about gathering various points of view and talking to reliable sources-be it Liberal or Conservative (which you have on both sides) as long as they don’t go totally partisan and you and have a sensible, logical debate, of course, I am willing to listen, learn, analyze, write and report.
The key is, I try to stay away from loons on both sides. I don’t go near the “911 truther far-left liberals” and I stay away from the “far-right conservative birthers.”
These people damage both parties and delegitimizes them from any discourse of discussions or debates.
Rate this comment:
0
0
That is not true, Obviously you never really watch FOX to formulate that kind of well…opinion. They give equal amount of time to both sides, yea, they do give traditionalist and Conservatives a voice, which before, there were no real venues for them to speak out, since 99% of the American media leans totally left. So what’s wrong with that. Does that mean, FOX has to bow down to Liberal thinking and to the President, never to judge him and just tow the line, follow and believe every word that comes out of his mouth? You should appreciate opposing viewpoints and they should be challenged, that is called: democracy! Besides, this discussion was NOT about FOX, but about Tom Hanks and how he butchered his idiotic statement. By the way, if you really want to talk about a network that over-exaggerates try the Barack channel MSNBC
Rate this comment:
0
0
That is not true, Obviously you never really watch FOX to formulate that kind of well…opinion. They give equal amount of time to both sides, yea, they do give traditionalist and Conservatives a voice, which before, there were no real venues for them to speak out, since 99% of the American media leans totally left. So what’s wrong with that. Does that mean, FOX has to bow down to Liberal thinking and to the President, never to judge him and just tow the line, follow and believe every word that comes out of his mouth? You should appreciate opposing viewpoints and they should be challenged, that is called: democracy! It amazes me as to Why is it that Liberals get their panties in a bunch whenever a Traditionalist or Conservative give an opinion? Besides, this discussion was NOT about FOX, but about Tom Hanks and how he butchered his idiotic statement. By the way, if you really want to talk about a network that over-exaggerates try the Barack channel MSNBC.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Yeah, that’s right: Fox News is fair and balanced, and nothing that happens in professional wrestling is staged, it’s all real!
Rate this comment:
0
0
Wrestling and news are two distinctly different subjects. That’s like saying, the tooth fairy is real and Moutain Dew is the best tasting beverage in the world! Apples and Oranges my friend.
Rate this comment:
0
0
I agree (to a degree) with one comment above. The O’Reileys and Becks are AT TIMES embarassing to true conservatives.
The comment (O’Reiley) that racism played no part in WWII and now plays no part in the “War on Terror” is silly. I do note that it is a lot more downplayed nowadays vs the 1940s…
I’ve seen the propaganda posters and films–many of which were governmentally sanctioned to stir up nationalistic fervor back in the day. But how much in the way of racism existed between Japan and America before their “disagreements” came to a head? I think a great deal less actually… Maybe that’s what they are trying to say, but if it is they are most assuredly saying it wrong.
A disagreement is just a disagreement as long as the other guy still looks like you. As soon as he doesn’t suddenly words get tossed around about how the other guy looks…
Rate this comment:
0
0
If you look at the editorial comments and cartoons from before Pearl Harbor, you’ll still find pretty blatant racism about Japan and Japanese. Or look at immigration policy. It was blatantly racist (Alien Exclusion Act, for example). Look at post WWI when the League of Nations rejected a racial equality clause proposed by Japan. The war made it worse, certainly, but it was already there in spades.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Your comments are well taken but I think there is a difference between British and American racial attitudes before the war which are largely passive, arrogant and disenfranchising as opposed to a ‘let’s get them’ type of racism. Neither populations had any real contact one with the other so there were just stereotypes out there floating around. America went to war with Germany the same as Japan and Germany, a racist state, was allied with Japan. From these facts it is easy to see that political war aims trumps racism; after all, America was allied with China.
Rate this comment:
0
0
“Look at post WWI when the League of Nations rejected a racial equality clause proposed by Japan.”. If you look at that document it was only for the benefit of Japanese people, the document required that the World Powers Recognize Japans dominance and gains as a world power. This was unneccary since after Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese war this basically showed Japans military might. The document would not have been a benefit to the ethnic minorities that Japan would later imperialize.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The PotUS is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama, and there simply is no racism involved in the War on Terror. Most terrorists are Muslims (all of them when talking about Afghanistan and Iraq), and most Muslims are non-white. Should the US government only focus on the rare few Islamic terrorists who are white? Or just target random white people? Or what?
Rate this comment:
0
0
America did not have a problem using horrific weapons like the Atomic Bomb and Agent Orange on non-white population. If this isnt racism, what is?
Rate this comment:
0
0
The US and England also had no problem using horrific weapons like napalm on large civilian population centers on white Europeans in Germany. The atom bomb would have been used on Germany if Germany had still been standing when the bomb was ready to be used. Lots of evidence to support that. However, as we all know, Germany was crushed under a far more devastating weapon of mass destruction – the Soviet Army – before the bomb was completed.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Don’t confuse war and racism. I’m pretty sure if the US had access to the A bomb during the revolutionary war they would have used it on white people.
The whole racism thing is not a reason for war, it’s part of the propaganda to make people hate their enemy. It’s much easier to kill someone when you can point out the differences rather than the similarities. Not all wars are between people of different races though and in those cases other differences are focused on like religion or what kind of food they eat.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Nice point, “Bomber” LOL
But seriously, we normally employ ANY kind of argument to make one hate the enemy in such circumstances. That is why people hate Toyota LOL
No seriously – it all makes sense.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The atom bomb saved more japanese lives than American. The fanatics who started the war had even armed Japanese women with sharpened staves to attack the American landing forces. Everyone on this site needs to do some serious history reading. Otherwise, the distortions foisted on an uneducated public by socialist revisionist historians will doom us all to repeat the horrors of WWII with even worse weapons.
Agent Orange was a defoliant used to clear areas along roads so American troops would not be ambushed by Communists. It probably made more Americans sick that Vietnamese. It was not a weapon of war.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Thorton, what you don’t know would fill volumes. If you ever feel bothered to educate yourself, I can recommend an excellent book on the A-bomb and the end of the war, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s ‘Racing The Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan’.
Rate this comment:
0
0
You’re hopeless as a contextual historian.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Sigh. During wartime, racism is encouraged in order to demonise the enemy. It’s been the same in pretty much every war. What Hanks has got wrong is the order in which it occurs. The war precedes the racism, not the other way around.
The difference with the current wars is that we’re doing our utmost to discourage racism because of the Muslim issue. And that’s proving rather tricky.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Go up a few and read my earlier comment. There was clear racism (not just against Japanese) prior to WWII. The war made it worse, but it didn’t create it.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Hanks talks like war has been all about racism, which trivializes all the big reasons of having gone to war. That’s what is pissing people off.
Thanks for the info on the skulls and bones. There’s a lot I don’t know about WWII, and that is a good history lesson. In my opinion, a lot of this skull and bones issue may have been heavily influenced by the Evolution teachings of the day, and is greatly unfortunate.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The practice of collecting skulls is somewhat well known to the Japanese by the comic “Barefoot Gen(はだしのゲン)”, in which a Japanese man sells skulls of nameless dead citizens of Hiroshima to American soldiers. He carves a letter of “怨” into each skull, and the soldiers buy them thinking of it as mere cool design without knowing its real meaning, “grudge.”
Anyway, any and every war is the mass of propaganda.
It’s hardly possible to find anything worth truth in it.
The only lesson we learn from it is, we ought to do our best to avoid a war in any case.
Rate this comment:
0
0
What Hanks said is right in a certain aspect, but not entirely. As you know, politics is very complicated.
It seems to me (I’m Japanese) that America tends not to accept something different from majority of people. Also, it seems that America tends to force what they believe it’s good to other nations or people. If it’s within the country, that’s fine. But if it beyond borders, it may not be appreciate it.
Now it has become more well known at least in Japan that there was an aspect that WW-II was against colonialism. And colonialism started with attitude from Western countries that Asian people had not been civilized. To me, Asian people just had different type of wisdom and culture from Western ones. Just being different. This could be said that “racism” because one nation look down upon the other.
Lastly, it is easier to believe that there is still racism in the US from this article.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Black-people-must-leave-NJ-apf-1749619349.html?x=0
Rate this comment:
0
0
Racism is rampant around the world.
It is in poor taste to point the finger and say there is still racism in the US. Of course there is! There is racism in every country. Do I need to remind you of the centuries of discrimination (still ongoing) that Japan has perpetrated against the Okinawan and Ainu people?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to start a flame war or Japan bash, my own country, Canada, has a horrible history when it comes to relations with their indigenous groups as well. What I am trying to say is that saying a country has racism is pointless.
Rate this comment:
0
0
What Americans believe is that it is a bad thing to attack their country without provocation and kill thousands of their citizens. There is no nation worth the name that would not retaliat for that.
Rate this comment:
0
0
I tend to agree with the other reply that racism is inherent in every nation as well as the tendency to marginalize anyone or anything that doesn’t fall within the majority. The famous Japanese saying “The nail that sticks up will be knocked back down” points to this very tendency.
It was actually only during WWII and afterward that America grew into a role where she exercises her influence on the rest of the world. This developed from the fact that the US was still a strong country after WWII having not had any battles waged on its soil (the exception being Pearl Harbor and outlying islands). Just like after WWI there was a tremendous consensus that this kind of war never be waged again, therefore the UN was formed to try to resolve conflicts peacefully and the US and eventually Russia began to take the lead in global politics while Europe and Japan recovered from the ravages of the war.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The racism of WWII is nothing new, like lots of other people have already been saying. This demonetization of the enemy troops is actually a crucial part of the process to turn regular people into hate-filled killing machines. An American soldier, or any soldier for that matter, will have less trouble killing an enemy that he thinks is “evil” and “bad” than he would killing an enemy he could relate to.
This process is called “Othering” (see Edward Said’s books starting with Orientalism) and the governments use Hegemonic Discourses (see Gramci and Foucault among others) to communicate their will.
Trying to deny that racist fueled hate was not a major part of the war would be stupid. Saying that it was the ONLY part of the war would also be stupid. There were many political and economic factors that led to the war, the least of which was that “we” were different from “them”.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar
Hanks speaks the truth. What can we do? CHANGE the world. That’s what we can do. But do we? No.
Hollywood Liberals hate America? Don’t be funny. They love the fact that they get to hang out in a lap of luxury while idiot soldiers go abroad doing their dirty-work: i.e, developing stories. Hurt Locker, indeed.
Rate this comment:
0
0
WW2 was an example of all out war. Both sides committed acts that could be construed as war crimes. The lengths to which the US goes to limit collateral damage in today’s wars is a far cry from what went on in WW2. Given the brutality of WW2 it should be no surprise that elements of racism permeated society.
I have been to the D-Day museum in New Orleans and they have a racist propaganda of the era from Japan and the USA on display. So whatever Hanks had to say shouldn’t be controversial, it is only the truth.
Rate this comment:
0
0
I have read many books that are personal accounts of marines in battle in the Pacific. These books were published in the years immediately following the war when it would have been much easier to get away with expressing racial views about the Japanese. In these books there is none of that. The average American seems to not have cared about such things one way or the other which indicates a disconnect from their own country’s feelings about blacks which was more about policy, I think, than about disliking blacks by rank and file whites.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Is WW3 imminent? I think so.
Just watch, as Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan blows up to include all its neighbors. And soon, so will the rest of the world.
Rate this comment:
0
0
People, please notice what’s happening in the news – they haven’t interviewed any Japanese or Japanese Americans, and the “Japanese” anything is still left in the background – where are the people who experienced this hate inside America itself? Why aren’t they bringing in Japanese-American professors and intellectuals?
They’re still doing it. They’re just using this hype to drum up the same type of war-effort, basically. Nice promotion of the TV show.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Oshiri, what “war-effort” are you refering to?
Rate this comment:
0
0
I’ve only seen the first episode of the Pacific series but it seems like the main character is not a racist and feels sympathy towards the people he is forced to kill. By the way, in the first episode it seemed like the motivation to kill Japanese soldiers was based on them shooting at you and soldiers following orders.
Rate this comment:
0
0
I think the first episode was pretty good at showing the intense hatred both sides felt towards each other:
-Marines encountering mutilated bodies of their comrades
-Wounded Japanese soldier choosing to take out an American with a grenade instead of being taken alive
-Americans laughing as they tormented an unarmed Japanese soldier who was begging to be killed
-”yellow monkeys”
Both memoirs used as source material for the miniseries are known for their very open descriptions of the utter brutality of the fighting. Dower’s book, about the dehumanization of the enemy in the eyes of fighting men on both sides, is a good compliment to the miniseries.
Good point, well thought out and rational thinking. I couldn’t agree with you more!
Rate this comment:
0
0
Can you see this in Japan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OYDV6OyyE
Rate this comment:
0
0
Love those Call of Duty games.
Japan’s warrior culture did not accept the concept of surrender so they had little respect for niceties such as the Geneva Convention. So it was no surprise that they would hold captured enemy combatants in contempt. Their innate sense of racial superiority facilitated their horrid treatment of civilians and soldiers alike.
As far as I am concerned Japan reaped what it sowed. I find the attempt to portray itself as a victim of war somewhat pathetic without an honest self examination of the country’s own culpability in creating the conditions for its own suffering and demise. Yeah, war is hell and civilians suffer so don’t start one if you can’t handle the consequences.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Give me all the thumbs downs you want, it doesn’t obscure the truth of consequences. Show me one iota of justification in Japan’s agression and treatment of others. Prove to me that it would not have firebombed or nuked American cities if it had the chance.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Yup, keep those thumbs coming. Just goes to show your hypocrisy.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Well said.
Rate this comment:
0
0
It’s appropriate to note that America waged a race war against the Japanese during World War II.
Just as it’s appropriate to note Japan did likewise – against Americans, Chinese, Filipinos, Indonesians and Malaysians.
Oh, and against Australians, British and Dutch.
And Melanesians. And Polynesians
etc.
Rate this comment:
0
0
shows how inane most news channels are when they make such a big deal out of something a movie star says. not really news, guys…move on. the major news stations have turned into video blog sites.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Just goes to show you, you don’t have a clue. As a Journalist, you research and bring to light topics of discussion that the general public ought to know and are also interested in it.
This topic being one of them and to have such a recognizable figure such as Tom Hanks to throw out senseless comments like that, does make for a good topic and debate (as in this thread) there is nothing wrong with rational dialogue. That’s the key here!
So to “you” it may not be a big deal, but to other people it is. Again, if you don’t like it, either don’t watch TV, change the channel or make any comments. You are in control of the news flow that comes into your direction.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Didn’t you know? News is entertainment and celebrities opinions are important.
Rate this comment:
0
0
That’s right! How could I forget! Like Looney Hollywood, many people here on this thread are smart enough to know that all news is Entertainment (with the exception of John Stewart) and celebs are always correct in their viewpoints. Silly me.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Meh, who cares. It happened almost 70 years ago.
Arguing over the motives back then is the same worthless time waster as arguing which dinosaur could run faster.
IT DOESN’T MATTER.
Rate this comment:
0
0
And people still think America was ‘neutral’ before Pearl Harbor. Hah!
Rate this comment:
0
0
I’d be surprised if anyone really believed that unless they had never studied history. I think they had a pretty clear position even before entering the war. I don’t think anyone even ever denied that fact.
Rate this comment:
0
0
You want a better America?
Eradicate Fox News and Fox itself.
Rate this comment:
0
0
You are free to not watch it just like I do, but censorship won’t make America better.
Rate this comment:
0
0
What’s the point. Now that Hanks has thoroughly disgraced himself there isn’t much else to say.
Just another in a long line of complete freaking idiots that copupopulate the entertainment world.
Rate this comment:
0
0
How is Fox News’s reactions any different that left-wing MSNBC or CNN’s reactions to anything which comes from conservatives? Both Right and Left are full of hotheads who would much rather exaggerate and obfuscate than sit back and calmly discuss the facts and differences in opinion in order to garner the most viewers. There are Republicans and there are Democrats. And then there are Fascists and Socialists. Each party has its share of each extreme.
Rate this comment:
0
0
The difference is huge! Let me explain as a Journalist who worked in LA for a news network. I can tell you right now. CNN tries and here is the word “tries” to be neutral, but they do lean a bit to the left, Nothing wrong with that, but some of their anchors are throwing in their opinions-Not good. If you are an “Opinion commentator” Anderson Cooper who usually is quite honest also Jack Cafferty, Cambell Brown by all means, go ahead say what you want, but field anchors like “Michael Weir” (for example) shouldn’t comment on anything, they should just do their job and present the news. Otherwise, you are crossing that line of objectivity.
Fox Opinion shows start during prime time EST 8pm Shepard Smith/Fox report followed by the opinion shows. O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Van Sustern, Geraldo are all OPINION commentators, that is their job, that is what they get paid to do, they comment. They give equal time to both sides. They almost as much Liberals on air voicing their opinions, liberals, such as Geraldo, Greta, Allan Colms, Bob Beckel
MSNBC, off the chart! All their news is opinion-period! From morning Joe all the way to Prime time, their basic newscasters not only bring the news, but are heavily opinionated. Don’t have a problem with Olbermann or Maddow, Schultz mouthing off, that’s what a commentator does, but all day long? You can’t tell the difference who is who!
So by far FOX is the fairest, whether some of you want to twist if or believe it. I know there are many Kool-aid drinkers that hate that, but that’s too bad, life sucks and the overall numbers don’t lie. Ratings not only reflect popularity of a show or program, but it also tells you and shows you how many people are watching.
FOX by far, beats the competition hands down. If not, why would Obama try to take on a News network if it weren’t powerful. The one good thing in all of this is you have a CHOICE! If you don’t want to watch something and complain about it, turn the channel, simple as that. But having worked for more than 20 years in this business, I can really see who is full of crap and who is not for sure. Many of these anchors and commentators I know personally, some are nice and fair and some are jerks and extremely partisan! But at the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe. Some people do think that the Holocaust and Slavery never existed either.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news
Rate this comment:
0
0
“So by far FOX is the fairest, whether some of you want to twist if or believe it. ”
I think anyone with a basic level of consciousness would choose to disagree, since this statement is utter nonsense. But I hope you enjoyed your Glenn beck-flavored Kool-Aid!
Rate this comment:
0
0
And you are entitled to your point of opinion, but I guess, Beck does get under your skin, as they say, the truth hurts
Rate this comment:
0
0
jesus.autism overload. im sure ur wife would love some “choice” assuming u have one. you wouldnt oppose it if she wanted sleep with another person? FREEDOM OF CHOICE!
Rate this comment:
0
0
Immature, off topic and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Wise up, please.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Carlos, I wasn’t asking what the difference was between Fox and CNN, I was asking (rhetorically) what the difference was in reactionary comments from both sides. Answer: none.
And, for the record, I would by far rather listen to someone on Fox news point out the lies and retractions and misinformation spewed forth from BOTH political parties, than I would care to listen CNN’s blatantly one-sided partisanship.
Kool-Aid? I think the Kool-Aid being consumed is by the far-left liberals who are content to merely parrot what they are told, without ever once analyzing the consequences of their actions. All I have ever heard from them are lofty goals and pie-eyed dreams, with no diagrams based on any sort of logic, and no solutions to existing problems or the ones their “plans” will result in. And lots, and lots of hair-raising, vicious verbal attacks on anyone who questions what they say, and proposals for laws to keep us from doing what we like to do, and have earned the right to do, instead of laws to prevent them from doing the things we don’t NEED them to do.
Like a cult.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Your one of the few people who sees these shows for what they are. The view that Fox is a one-sided network is a myth for the exact reason that they constantly having opposing voices as guests while Maddow and Olbermann have virtually none.
Rate this comment:
0
0
http://cgi.2chan.net/f/src/1269228538419.jpg
It’s true?
maybe..fantasy.
Don’t distort historical facts.
Ah..God will assuage American’s conscience..
BTW,Our record indicates that U.S. Marine did same thing in Makin.
Japanese don’t get a fair shake in U.S.War movies.
thankyou
Rate this comment:
0
0
Yes. Corpse mutilations of that kind were real. There are so many accounts of such things happening that it would be a joke to deny its existence.
The later part of the TV miniseries will be based on Eugene Sledge’s memoirs. His book includes scenes in which marines mutilate Japanese bodies to collect gold teeth, so we can probably expect that future episodes of The Pacific will include that.
Ya know it’s funny I didn’t even bother to watch the youtube clips that were posted since I thought they were just Bill OReilly segments. But if people actually watch the third video you posted Tom Hanks explains more clearly that he believes people on both sides used racism towards their enemies. He does not believe the war was started because of racism. It seems like he is saying exactly what most of the people here seem to be saying. Our ancestors were racists because they didn’t know any better. He even says both sides were racists towards each other. I’m not sure what all the fuss is at this point.
As far as his parallels to what is going on today I think he is mistaken. I assume he is talking about people of the Muslim religion (which could be any race). I think people have gone out of their way to differentiate between Muslim and Muslim extremist. Maybe it’s just the people I know but I just don’t see it. Maybe Mr Hanks should find a new crowd to hang out with.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Peace? No peace.
There is no money to be made in peace. The machine is the war, the war is the machine. And so on and so forth and such nonsense.
We’ve come a long way, baby. LOL
Really, haven’t we come such a long way? Look at all of us here making the silliest arguments when all we have to do is reach and hug each other and give peace a chance. John Lennon – smart man. LOL
Rate this comment:
0
0
“Said WWI, War on Terror Were Driven By Racism”
World War I? Nice chyron, Fox News. Helps with the credibility, donchaknow.
Rate this comment:
0
0
LOL Fox News.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Tom Hanks got that part right – during the war, if you have any association whatsoever with Japan, you are automatically vilified and nobody will believe otherwise. History offers countless examples of people making the same mistakes of yesteryear after declaring long ago they won’t do it ever again.
Once again, America got trolled. hard. by the people that run right-wing radio and TV shows.
Rate this comment:
0
0
All we are saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaying……… is give peace a chance……..
everybody!
All we are saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaying…….. is give peace a chance………
now lets all hug and kiss the next person you see, and pass it on!
(and no, I don’t want to be assassinated, thank you LOL)
Rate this comment:
0
0
America is very racist but not ALL people
Rate this comment:
0
0
The fact that one of the biggest reasons for the war was to “kill all jews” should say enough. Wars are really only caused by 3 thing, from what I can figure based on history. Different religions, race, and greed (resources/money/land)
Rate this comment:
0
0
“Even US generals admitted they deliberately forced Japan to attack USA, then used the needless losses of naval personnel for their own purposes.”
That is just an outright lie. Japan felt forced to attack the US along with the UK, Dutch, Thai, Australian allies because we would not sell them out to continue their decade long, racist war against the Chinese.
The U.S. lost battles for a straight year before our industry greatly suprassed the Japanese.
I do not hate or look down upon the Japanese people. But at that time terrible things happened when you have to fight an enemy that uses the tactics of murder, genocide and racism against their enemies. Certainly it was helpful to dehumanize the enemy, after all it makes it easier to kill them, which is the exact purpose of war.
Rate this comment:
0
0
First of all, I am disappointed that John Dower is an advisor to the miniseries The Pacific. His book, “War Without Mercy” definitely downplayed Japanese atrocities to focus on U.S. “racism” during World War Two. Perhaps, this might account for Tom Hanks’ misinformed comments.
The Japanese military based their ideology on racial superiority over the Chinese, Europeans, Americans and the indigenous people of the Pacific. As a consequence, the Japanese set the tone for the Pacific war with atrocious behavior in places such as Hong Kong and the Philippines where Japanese soldiers killed Allied wounded, tortured POWs and mistreated civilians. The Allied and U.S. soldiers who surrendered during these first encounters expected decent treatment. They did not expect things such as the Bataan Death March during which thousands of U.S. and Philippine POWs were killed. THIS is why the Japanese became “yellow-slant-eyed dogs” in the minds of Allied and U.S. troops.
On Guadalcanal U.S. Marines once again encountered Japanese soldiers who did not “fight by the rules”. The Japanese mutilated dead Marines, conducted suicide attacks and would feign death to lure U.S. medics in close and then detonate a hidden grenade. As a rule, the Japanese did not surrender. U.S. Marine Major General Alexander A. Vandegrift remarked, “I have never heard or read of this kind of fighting”. The Pacific war soon became a fight to the death. Did it degenerate into race hatred? At times yes it did, how could it not? The longer the war dragged on the more brutal and dehumanizing the fighting became until you have a skull being sent home as a “souvenir”. But, contrary to the comments of Mr. Hanks, the war did not start out this way.
The U.S. did not enter the war with a race based ideology to “annihilate” the Japanese for being “different” or for having “different gods”. One just has to look at U.S. conduct upon entering a defeated Japan in 1945. There was no revenge taken for Japanese atrocities. There was no enslavement of the Japanese people by a “racist” U.S. military. Japan’s Emperor was not summarily executed. Instead the U.S. rebuilt Japan and moved it away from militarism. U.S. General Douglas MacArthur proved himself a mostly benign conqueror.
Contrast this with the way Japan ruled the places it subjugated during the period of 1937 to 1942 and the side that was fighting a race based war becomes clear. There is no lingering hatred for Americans in the Pacific region the way the Japanese are still mistrusted and disliked by the older generation in places such as Manila, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. The reason for this is obvious and well documented starting with the “Rape of Nanking” in 1937. So, Tom Hanks’ comments are simplistic as well as inaccurate.
However, Mr. Hanks’ linking of a war against an enemy who has “different gods” with “what’s going on today” tips his comments towards the offensive. When the Taliban behead Afghans for not submitting to a barbaric brand of sharia law or when an Iraqi Sunni suicide bomber blows up Shiite religious pilgrims how does Mr. Hanks reconcile these actions with his apparent belief that the U.S. is at war because of racism against people who have different gods? Is it not more accurate to say the U.S. has found itself in the middle of the age old struggle within Islam between extremists and moderates and between Sunnis and Shiites? Isn’t this why the U.S. is still in Afghanistan and Iraq? Both societies are fractured along ethnic and religious lines. Thus, the difficulty of an “exit strategy”. One can debate U.S. foriegn policy moves after 9/11 but you would be hard pressed to pin thoses moves on the wish to annihilate an enemy who prays to a different god. Just look at the rights and freedoms given to Muslims, or any other religious minority, living in the U.S.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Tom Hanks stated that racism ‘fueled’ the second world war. He didn’t say racism caused it. For anyone to say that racism was not a factor of WWII is completely ignorant. I think that the conservative right (whom I tend to agree with most of the time) took Tom’s statements out of context, perhaps simply because Tom Hanks tends to lean toward the liberal side. Mr. Hanks was quite accurate regarding his statement. The fact remains – even today – that racism becomes a factor of war, from the perspective of both sides. It makes it easier to kill the enemy if they’re dehumanized in some way, and racism works well for that. Anyone who doesn’t believe that need only talk with a holocaust survivor.
Rate this comment:
0
0
Of course America was deeply racist during WWII. Blacks were legally segregated and legally denied equal opportunity. Why does the Hanks series feature blacks only in roles of happy servants to white Southerners. I bet some of those servants had their children serving in segregated troops where they were harassed by white soldiers. There is plenty of documentation of this.
Rate this comment:
0
0
politicians…… Who can even trust them!! Thay made a LAW so people don´t have a right to critizise or publish photos from the almighty foodcompanies. And Tom Hanks comment was spot on.
Rate this comment:
0
0