And how much most Americans do not know about one of their most important allies.
Item 1. The bow that has the citizens of greater wingnuttia so upset. Here’s a dose of reality from our British cousins:
They were nothing of the sort: the handshake, though not strictly necessary, has crept into bowing etiquette, particularly in international business and politics. What better way to illustrate the meeting of two cultures?
Far from embarrassment, there is consternation here that some Americans should be so incensed by their president’s impeccable manners. If anyone was belittled it was Akihito, who stands eight inches shorter than the 6ft 1in Obama.
Etiquette experts in Japan have praised the president’s efforts, while an Imperial Household Agency spokesman said the greeting looked “natural and appropriate”.
At the very least it was an improvement on the cringeworthy efforts of celebrities, Madonna included, who greet their Japanese fans with a nod of the head, palms pressed together in prayer. Sorry, Madge … wrong country.
But the vitriol continues.
The folks at the Guardian do offer a remedy for conservative hacks like Hannity and William “The Bloody” Kristol:
The angle and length of a bow in Japan depends on who is bowing to whom. Etiquette demands that a 90-degree bow should be reserved for such occasions as meeting the emperor or another VIP, or as a sincere expression of apology or regret.
Context is everything. I have seen teachers perform an “Obama” in front of graduating pupils, and departing senior editors practically kiss their kneecaps before a newsroom of lowly hacks. Deference, or simple gratitude and civility?
The Obama administration has stepped in to defend the president. “I think that those who try to politicise those things are just way, way, way off base,” an unnamed official said.
The state department, meanwhile, attempted to clear up any confusion over how Americans should behave abroad.
Thanks to their ignorance, Cheney, Kristol et al now owe Obama an apology. A perfectly executed dogeza, foreheads pressed to the ground, would be a good start.
Then there is item number two-and its one that I really am shocked that there is so much ignorance about how the Japanese view this particular set of events. Seems several members of the same blathering class are upset that Obama would not chime in on the subject of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. James Fallows has to explain it to them:
Last week some of Barack Obama’s critics were upset that he ducked a question in Japan about whether he approved of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot begin to say how short-sighted that criticism is.
When I lived in Japan for several years in the 1980s, I learned about the various realms of the things you could say in public ( tatemae) and things you actually believed ( honne). Although not strictly a matter of tatemae/honne, the atomic bomb decision is a particularly thorny and awkward one for Americans to discuss with Japanese. The normal way to consider the topic in Japan involves the country's status as the only object of an atomic attack in history, the suffering its people underwent, and the status it therefore possesses to talk about the importance of avoiding any such event again -- all of which is understandable. There is a lot of history the prevailing Japanese account leaves out, but that is a point better raised in internal Japanese debate than by American officials. Americans may believe that Harry Truman saved both Japanese and Allied lives by this decision. But there really is no mileage in a U.S. official saying that to people in Japan. Probably the worst thing I did in my time there was to propose that argument to a man who had been a doctor in Hiroshima in 1945. The conversation came to an abrupt and hostile end. And I was just a reporter, not the American president who has the power to order nuclear weapons used again.
Here’s the best analogy I can think of: suppose you were a sheriff who had gunned down a group of terrorists who were threatening to blow up a town. In the crossfire, some innocent children were killed. If you run into their parents long afterward, do you say: “Tough luck, it was in a good cause! And I’d do just the same thing again!” Or do you recognize their great sorrow and loss and do everything possible to avoid rubbing it in?
In avoiding a direct answer to the question from a Japanese reporter about whether the bombing was justified, Obama did what any American president or diplomat should do when this topic is raised in Japan. There is no answer that would have worked out better for him than his not answering at all.
Now anyone who as spent a good bit of time in Japan and gotten out and about in the country should be able to relate to the same type of situation. Hiroshima is not a subject that one can “instruct” the Japanese. I’d go a step further and say it probably applies to World War II in general. The damage inflicted on Japan is something that happened to them-the damage they inflicted on everyone else is something different to the Japanese. You don’t have to agree with the point of view but it just is what it is.
What is more important is that the Japanese have no desire to go back to it and that comes through in their words and actions-which at this point almost 70 years later is what is really important.
But then again-this conversation is not really about the Japanese is it? It’s about the current occupant of the White House. Fine. There is plenty of time to do that when he gets home.
Baka Americajin!