Ho Chin Minh and Wilsonian ideals

I was just revising my notes on pre-war nationalism and reading about Vietnam in particular. It was just a small passing point, but the notes mentioned Ho Chin Minh actually being inspired by US President Wilson's ideals, particularly after his speech about countries having the right to self-determination. Apparently Ho Chin Minh attended some Versailles Peace Conference and had even made a request to see the president, who rejected him on the grounds that Ho Chin Minh had communist leanings. What a pompous ass too blinded by his own ideals. I wouldn't really know, since I haven't really read any other sources yet (and I don't think I would since ploughing through school notes is tedious enough), but the notes said that this was supposed to have further turned Ho Chin Minh towards Communism.

This really speaks volumes about how US seems to have been carrying out her foreign policy for so many decades, even up until now - refusing to acknowledge whatever they don't agree with, refusing to engage the party in concern, only for to initiate even more dire consequences. At least partly. What might have transpired instead had this president Wilson dude been willing to hear out HCM's ideas? I'm not saying he has to agree with HCM. Even if two parties don't come to agree in the end, if they're willing to discuss and debate I'm pretty sure there would've been many other things to be gained - more awareness of the other point of view, at least, as to what makes them think the way they do, and if you see it as a problem (although this is subjective), how to handle it. I don't think this Wilson guy might have had such an overwhelming influence on HCM to the point that HCM would've done a 180 degrees turn and switched to advocating for democracy instead, but it might have at least made HCM question his beliefs a little. Or maybe the reverse lol (i.e. HCM making the Wilson dude question his own beliefs). (I know I'm writing this from the point of view that I was communism is a horribly flawed ideology - not that I don't think democracy doesn't have its flaws as well - so I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone who has communist leanings :x although that seems a little unlikely in this day and age...). 

Other historical examples indicate the US tendency to ignore and engage with whatever they don't like. What I can think of at the top of my head now is: Burma/ Myanmar, which became some sort of military state a few decades ago, and all the US wanted to do was dump a bunch of economic sanctions on her in order to condemn and "punish" her. Which obviously did not make the Burmese government change its mind about anything, and probably only served to the disadvantage of the common people. And also the US being upset with ASEAN for accepting Myanmar into its membership. I mean, obviously ASEAN didn't agree with the Myanmar government's domestic policy too, but at least maintaining okay relations with them meant that we could at least possibly work some things out, since they would be more open to whatever ideas he other ASEAN states wanted to bring up. More so than the US, anyway. 

Okay, originally I thought of another example, but my memory of what country it is is kinda hazy. So I might get the facts wrong... I was thinking of Pakistan, and of US refusing to engage with the Taliban government around more than 10 years ago because of their human rights record or something, only do being forced to do so now because of circumstances, but after thinking again, it might've been Afghanistan instead... which are 2 completely different countries :x And I'm not too clear about the "circumstances" I mentioned about. Haha my stupid memory. 

I was reading this article: http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/07/25/obama-americas-founders-inspired-communist-ho-chi-minh/ and one of the comments was talking about how the US/ President Wilson told HCM to "fudge himself" because of his communist leanings and not agree to his request for a talk. And the comment in reply to that was "And why wouldn’t we tell a Communist to go fudge himself?

As to a “pro-West” dictator: Ha! As if Ho wasn’t a dictator in his own right." 

:/ I don't agree with Communism either, but ignoring what you don't like - or what you see as a problem - is only going to make things WORSE. Pride is the least important thing to be concerned about here, what the hell. 

comparing religion and guns (which sounds completely unrelated, but not really!!)

I remember coming across some meme on 9gag quite a long while ago that meant to mock the paranoia over the whole gun restriction laws debate after the Newtown shootings in the US. it said something along the lines off "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" and suggested there wasn't much point in restricting arms trade because that wasn't the root of the problem. my first reaction was: obviously guns aren't the root of the problem! but by taking away the means in which the killers carry out the massacres, they can't go around on their killing sprees as smoothly as they'd want to. With less access to all these guns that can be so easily bought at the supermarket or whatever, at most the killers could use were like knives and shit, which would at least give victims a fighting chance of survival. this is not a new argument, I know, but I still think it's a pretty valid and solid one. The root of the problem, I think, is probably something to do about the mental health of American kids in general (I'm not saying they're crazy, I'm talking about things like mental stress from social problems, or whatever. something to do with their environment, maybe?) that compel them to do such stuff. another significant cause is also their police force, which doesn't seem as good as many other countries. I've seen jokes on the internet mocking US policemen because they only went into this profession 'cause their grades in school were lousy, and they hadn't much of a choice. And there's also the perpetuating image of fat American policemen eating donuts in their police cars. I don't know how true this all is, but it's giving me a fairly bad impression :x anyway, again, the whole point is that by cutting off the access these people have to the means or medium of violence, there's pretty much little they can do about all those supposedly violent thoughts in their head.

on to religion, and how both issues seemed similar at first to me. My stand on religion has always been that: religion isn't the root of evil and violence. Religion has just been a tool, used as a front by religious fundamentalists as a means to their own ends, and used to justify the violence they inflict. I've always thought this was fairly obvious, and I would say many of the people I'm surrounded with have similar opinions, whether they had a religion. Even most atheists in school who like to bash on religion for being illogical would agree on this point.  It probably has a little to do with GP lessons in class, also, but anyway, I still find many comments on the internet (Youtube, 9gag, Facebook, etc) denouncing religion because it's "the root of all evil".

Somehow, when I thought of my stance on the guns issue and my stance on religion, it suddenly struck me that they were kind of contradictory viewpoints. here's the thing: I put down the idea that guns are the cause of violence, but think they should be done away with for the most part because they're the means in which people achieve this violence. but when I look at religion, I don't put down religion in the same way - even though, I just realized, religion is also kind of the means in which people go around inflicting violence! Without religion as a front, I'm fairly certain there would be at least somewhat fewer supporters of religious fundamentalism in places like the middle-east, because religion is one of the factors that everyday people can more or less relate to. I'm sure without religion these fundamentalists would still find other ways of achieving their goals, but it would receive much less support (which was already on decline since the beginning of the twenty-first century I guess). For a while I was wondering if I was such a hypocrite.

I did find a way to reconcile those two different viewpoints in the end, though. Although removing access to the means does solve (or at least improve) most problems, the thing is these means are, in other situations, the cause of other benefits to society as well. There's a fundamental difference between guns as a means to violence and religion as a means to violence. guns are tangible, direct means of inflicting violence on others. It's difficult to solve violence with even more violence, which the NRA in the US seems to think is a good idea: more guns to protect citizens from others with guns. it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. Religion, on the other hand, is not just a medium for violence. it's also a means of spreading goodwill just as much as violence. Religion is more complex in this sense. When people denounce religion for spreading violence, I doubt those people concerned actually consider all the good things religion has brought to many victims around the world. Muslim religion might have been used to justify terrorism by some, but Muslim religion has also been used in goodwill: organizations like Red Crescent, the equivalent of Red Cross for Christianity, are always helping out victims of natural disasters or whatever. There're plenty of other similar Muslim organizations as well but I don't remember them. Whatever the issue at hand, people only ever really notice the negative impacts but neglect the good ones.

Actually this post seems quite dumb and redundant. I just creating a dilemma in my head that no one else would think of (comparing religion and guns) and then just solved the dilemma in my head on my own, where there was no real issue at all in the first place. hahaha!! I just went round in one big circle. I have too many discussions with myself in my head ):

modernization and religion

first off, in case I'm misunderstood as some blindly religious fanatic, I want to clarify that I identify myself as agnostic, and not with any religion in particular.

anyway, moving on. earlier on today (or yesterday, since it's a little past midnight) I happened to be talking with two of my friends about religion. one is christian, while the other is catholic. the focus of our discussion aside, I was struck by how differently many religious followers my age talk about their own religion versus those from the older generation (mainly those middle-aged and upwards). some middle-aged Christians I've happened to meet tend to sound more preachy, and talk about the topic presumptuously - for instance, when they try to promote Christianity to non-believers, they talk as if all alternative viewpoints of how the world possibly works is invalid and not worth considering. Not all, but many do. they don't usually say it explicitly, but it's implied in their tone and language; phrases like "how did the universe come into being? obviously there MUST be some higher being up there!" or whatever often pops into the conversation (which ends up one-sided most of the time while the dude rambles on and on). On the other hand, I find that more believers from the younger generation talk about their religion with a more objective tone. I think that sometimes it's a concerted effort, but most of the time it seems more unconscious when they say things like "for Christians, we think that..." that shows more awareness of other viewpoints. 

I don't really know why I've only noticed this so late, when people have been talking to me about religion frequently enough. in any case, the most significant takeaway I've gotten from this is this: that modernization (i.e. advent of science and better education) actually creates more sincere and faithful religious followers, even though there's lots of shit going on about how people haven grown so materialistic and less in touch with their spiritual side. (And there's also the other point about how modernization has led to a growth in religion in other areas instead, because people want to be more spiritually rooted precisely because of all this focus on material wants and needs.)

It was actually a significantly long process before I reached this concluding idea. I wasn't even thinking about it while I was chatting with my friends. but how I progressed here in my head was this:

stage 1: observing what I just said in the second paragraph about objective tone and awareness of other viewpoints.

stage 2: being aware that since they've probably considered other viewpoints, they've questioned at least certain aspects of their own religion as well. this wasn't just the result of stage 1, but something I've noticed at other times as well; some of my religious friends have mentioned that at certain points in their life their faith was weak because they began to doubt the validity of their own religion. some people end up giving up on their own religions and turn to atheism, but others end up with stronger faiths after they've overcome their doubts. what I observed in stage 1 was somewhat just a reminder of this.

stage 3: is the older generation more deeply entrenched in their own religious beliefs partly because they question it less, being less inclined to consider other viewpoints and influences? the difference in the ways both groups talk about their own religion is striking. the younger generation has mostly received fairly better education, and most of us are more likely to believe in more concrete facts and evidence rather than blindly believe superstition. I know many middle-aged adults don't do the latter, but I'm fairly certain more of this type exist in their generation as opposed to ours. also, I find that more younger kids are more religiously tolerant than the older generation, especially with Singapore being a multi-religious society where most of us and taught to respect other religions not our own, even if we don't agree with them. I HAVE seen many people where this type of thinking has not got to them, and find it cool to jump on the bandwagon in bashing on religion because everyone else seems to be doing so , but that's another issue. anyway, since we're all more oriented to believe in hard facts and science, isn't it worth wondering how people can still strongly cling on to faith, which is immaterial and isn't based on logic? 

I really respect people who are so committed and faithful to their own religion (minus religious fundamentalists), but are still able to respect non-believers (mostly by not trying to unreasonably impose their own views on others); and have also gone through this whole process of questioning and doubting, but managing to overcome all that. This kind of thing is evident of how people can mature emotionally and spiritually through religion. and when I say 'overcoming doubts', I'm not referring to questioning your own religion, but then successfully shaking off this 'bad feeling' just because you feel guilty for having such thoughts. I'm referring to people who face up to their own doubts, and find their own answers for these questions. whether their answers are right is another issue altogether (plus this kind of thing is subjective anyway). the main point is that they've gone through the whole thinking and maturing process, and they've come out as even stronger believers. 

because science and education come as a result of modernization, and science and education teaches us to question, that's how I came to the idea that modernization creates more faithful and sincere religious followers. I think it also kind of sieves out people who are religious just because they're raised that way. 

*also: whatever observations I made about the older generation and the younger generation doesn't always apply to everyone, or even just the majority, which I get. I'm just comparing the proportions of those types of people in both generations. like: I've also seen plenty of subtly aggressive Christians my age, when I went to church sometimes, or was in Girls' Brigade (which I hated and ended up skipping most of the time) - when they're trying to convert you. it's bloody annoying, leave me alone to decide for myself if I want to become a believer!! I'm less likely to be convinced if you keep insisting how great your Lord is or whatever, which kind of implies it's my loss if I don't become a Christian, and other shit. what the hell. I effing hate preachy people.

on Japan and war atrocities - NOT a hate post

I saw Cheesie's recent blog posts on Japan and how they've been unfairly and overly-blamed for the war atrocities committed even though such a long time has passed. As a student who's been studying Japanese for the past 5-6 years or so, I've actually given this issue a lot of thought. There are certain points which I acknowledge and agree with, but others that seem a bit dubious to me.

basically, the main points of her posts (there were two) centered around a few points: a) debunking the myth that Japan has yet to apologize even a single time for the war atrocities; b) China's and Korea's irrational hating on Japan; and c) how the Japanese, in comparison, have not been taught so much hatred. There is other stuff as well, like about her frustration that Japanese youths are getting more obsessed with Korean pop culture instead of their own, but I see that as a separate issue. I'm more concerned with the others first. also, disclaimer: this is not a hate post on any race or nationality. I actually like Japanese culture a lot, or I wouldn't have stuck to studying Japanese for so long, all the way until JC level when most of the people I know have dropped the subject a long time ago.

firstly, I want to talk about a) the myth that Japan has yet to apologize for their war atrocities. Cheesie mentioned that Japan has been apologizing almost every single year since the war ended. apparently there were lots of comments implying that Japan didn't. while what cheesie said is true, I think one of the reasons why Japan's apology has never sunk in is because while official statements of apology are being made by the government every year every time the anniversary of the war comes around, no one has yet to see any sort of actions accompanied by these "official apologies". in fact, there are visits being made by officials to the Yasukuni shrine in memory of the supposed war heroes almost every year, and when questioned, they just say something along the lines of how they're doing so only in their personal capacity, and it's not representative of the Japanese government. I think the message conveyed by these statements are the opposite of the intended meaning; they seem to imply that the Japanese government is only apologizing because it's the politically correct thing to do, and that they wouldn't really do it otherwise. Also, there's the issue of education with regards to world war 2, which is pretty much non-existent. In contrast, there seems to be much focus (not in textbooks, but in general) placed on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb victims and stuff. All these seem to make out for a very imbalanced and skewed image of what happened in the world war for the Japanese themselves. I remember a History teacher telling me once (I think it was during sec 2?) that some Japanese ended up crying really badly after visiting some museum at Fort Minor on some war atrocities committed during the Japanese occupation in Singapore. however, at the museum in Japan (either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, can't remember which) there is little acknowledgement of what damage the Japanese  did in other countries, which only a small section displaying some random textbooks from southeast asia, and only a short caption saying something like Japan did some harm in other countries as well. and then there's also the issue of war compensation to the individual victims, although I think Japan's economy is too bad to even be considering doing that. and cheesie did raise a significant point on that - that they're being conveniently used by the chinese and korean media every time they want to hate on Japan. but again - I still think the claims for war compensation are pretty valid. just the fact that they're being used as a tool to hate on Japan doesn't make it any less so.

My point is that the apologies made by the Japanese government don't seem sincere, like they're just doing it for the sake of it, and they'd much rather just forget about the whole thing. Well, pretty much the whole world doesn't care anymore other than China and South Korea since that's where the most damage has been done, but it'll be very hard for Japan to fully move on from the whole incident if they don't make any convincing show of effort that they're truly apologetic. I don't even think they ever will, really, because from what I hear the general Japanese population seem to be quite apathetic towards all these politics, other then some minor groups advocating for education about world war 2. not surprising, considering they don't even know much about the issue if their education syllabus is any indication. it's harder for people to accept when Germany has monuments and stuff made to remind their own people of their war atrocities, particularly towards the Jewish population, but Japan has done nothing of the sort. That's also why I'm like "well duh" when cheesie complained that no one really cares about what Germany did during the war anymore.

secondly, there's b) China's and Korea's irrational hating on Japan. This is where I agree more with cheesie. while Japan hasn't really appeared very sincere in her apologies, I think China and Korea have gone too far to make an enemy out of Japan, just because of very extremist nationalism. Cheesie raised some points that I hadn't really considered before - that their textbooks are probably full of propaganda shit as well. I don't know to what extent, but the tone is probably quite condemning of the Japanese. In Singapore the tone is quite neutral, I think, although it is a bit hard to ignore statistics and stuff like 'rape', which is a word that can't really be played down by any substitution. I actually think China and S. Korea is being a little childish on the whole issue - particularly China, who keeps getting hung up on Japan's better relations with Taiwan. this is obvious, I should think, but China has been too irrationally aggressive when it comes to territorial disputes, not just with the Senkaku Islands and Taiwan, but with regards to other southeast asian countries as well. like dude, get a grip, stop thinking everything should belong to you! anyway, with regards to this point, I'm in full agreement with Cheesie.

third, c) how the Japanese have been brought up not to hate, in comparison to their korean and chinese counterparts. Um, I think this one is a bit of a "duh" point which has somehow been overly beautified by Cheesie. the koreans and chinese have more reason on their side to hate Japan than the other way round if you consider what each party did to the other, although they did take it too far. This is one aspect that is similar to the israeli-palestinian conflict: no matter how objective you try to sound in terms of tone when describing the origins and the events in the conflict, it's quite hard to deny that Palestinians have obviously suffered more than Israeli's have, given how they've been so badly oppressed. No matter what tone is used, just looking at the facts is enough to easily give anyone the conclusion that Israel has kind of been a bully, although terrorist groups in Palestine don't help matters too.

I follow cheesie's blog regularly because her life is the kind I would like to have - I think I've been dreaming of going to Japan and staying there to work and shopping and all that shit in like FOREVER. but there are some things about Japan that I don't really appreciate as well (e.g. violent manga porn - some of which I used to read quite often. lol, ironic, I know. and embarrassing to admit...), although they've been pretty much outweighed by the things that I DO love about Japan. I used to be quite biased towards Japan in the past, but I think after so many years I've been able to detach myself slightly and view things in a more objective manner. not completely objective, but more at least. yup, that's about all that I wanted to say in response to cheesie's post.

Also, this is kind of indirectly related, so I'll say this too. I actually think educating the Japanese on world war 2 will HELP encourage Japanese nationalism, because I'm assuming the reason why they don't educate the Japanese on such is because they don't want any Japanese feeling ashamed of themselves. if so, that's a pretty short-sighted way of looking at it. if education on world war 2 is actually implemented in the syllabus, it will be a big step in convincing China and Korea that they're truly sincere about the whole apology thing, AND it will help Japan's overall international image. if someday Japan were to ask to be allowed to actually have a civilian army instead of a private one like they do now, and have national service for Japanese youths like S. Korea and Singapore, (which will help strengthen Japanese nationalism ultimately), they have more convincing power on their side when they say it's for defense and not for like world domination or whatever (which is quite unlikely), since Japanese youths have been educated on the ill effects of war, and would never think of initiating it. I'm pretty sure the international community would be more inclined to back Japan up on that, too, if China and Korea still has anything to say about it. and besides strengthening national unity, think of all the other practical benefits to be gained! like in economic terms. if relations between the east asian nations thaw, it will help trade and shit (I can't say much because I'm not studying economics in school like most of my classmates are, but i'm still pretty sure it WILL help), and economic integration even, like what China is pursuing with Taiwan now (both of them are on more amicable terms as of recent years, although the president (or some official with the surname Ma? not too familiar with Taiwan politicians) is receiving a lot of flak from Taiwan citizens because of it). like seriously. they have more to gain than to lose if the Japanese does so!