More on the Yasukuni

I'm working on the short essay for my postwar Japanese class on the Yasukuni Shrine and Akihabara. This is a little tricky when the professor is obviously quite firm in the belief that there is no reason the Yasukuni Shrine should be controversial - the only article for extra reading that he gave us about it is an article explaining why it is not a glorification of Japan's military past, and that Koizumi's visits to it do not constitute a denial of Japan's past war crimes. It says that there are no bodies (the WWII war criminals are not buried there), that the criminals paid for their crimes in life and it should not go on after death, and that the countries bringing up complaints are silly - it is no one else's business, and no one cares if a President goes to the Arlington Cemetery. Yes, but the Arlington Cemetery doesn't have a museum dedicated to the military history of the country, which includes glossing over Japan's war atrocities, and excusing Japan's involvement with wars as being purely in order to prevent Western expansion into Asia and for self-defense. There's a bronze statue glorifying kamikaze pilots - I think they should certainly be remembered, but glorified rather than mourned as a tragic loss of life of so many young men? I found a photo of a label from the museum - I didn't see it, but I stopped paying much attention to the labels since they were frequently just in Japanese - on Nanjing, with this text: "General Matsui Iwane distributed maps to his men with foreign settlements and safety zones marked in red ink. Matsui told them to observe military rules and anyone that committed unlawful acts would be severely punished.

"He also warned the Chinese troops to surrender but commander-in-chief Tang Shengzhi ignored the warning. Instead, he ordered his men to defend Nanking to the death and then abandoned them. The Chinese were soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties. Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace." Uhm.... http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm

If the shrine was simply a place to honor the war dead, even with the war criminals there, I don't think it would have as much reason to be controversial. It would be for Japan to decide. But the Yushukan, which we went to - we didn't see the shrine itself, just the entrance - is all about the military history. And it portrays it in a very grand way. The essay we have to write - he does a sample essay, and he talks about how the Yasukuni is an example of "great" Japan (he has catchwords for different times in Japan's history and "great" is one) - yet the articles he gives us claims the shrine is there to pray for forgiveness and rest for those who died. Yet the image of Japan at its height, the fighter planes, huge canons, magnificent samurai armor, and the museum itself, seem to stand a little in contrast to that.

I'm certainly not going to bring this up though, to a Japanese professor for a class I'm worried about my grades in to begin with...

Edit - another interesting article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8714706/page/3/