Sadako Sasaki was 2 years old on August 6, 1945 when an atomic bomb destroyed her city, Hiroshima. Three days later, 64 years ago today, a second atomic bomb destroyed Nagasaki. The radiation exposure from the Hiroshima bomb initiated a malignant transformation of Sadako's blood cells and ten years later she developed leukemia:
During her long hospital stays, Sadako began to fold paper cranes. According to Japanese legend, if an individual folds 1000 paper cranes, a wish will be granted. With each crane she folded, the wish was the same-to get well. October of 1955, Sasako folded her last crane-number 644, and she quietly became another of the many casualties of a war that had ended ten years earlier. Her classmates finished the remaining 366 cranes to honor Sadako's memory and to share in her wish that such bombs of destruction would never be used again. The children told Sadako's story to the world by sharing the letters they had exchanged during her hospital stay. In 1958, a monument was erected in Hiroshima's Peace Park to honor Sadako and all of the children who died because of the bombs. This monument has become an international symbol of peace. Every year thousands of children visit the memorial bringing chains of folded cranes to lay at the base. Each crane is a prayer for peace-prayers and wishes that number in the millions. (lindakreft.com)
It's crane number 645 for the rest of us. There's still some distance to go. Let's make the journey together:
- Log in to post comments
Revere,
Anyone watching your video, the vast majority of human beings I'm sure, could not help, but be moved by it. The tragedy of children's deaths, especially when focused on one little girl, is heart-rending.
That being said, I must counter that you've presented your point in the context of (mostly the Left's) post-WWII implicitly anti-American guilt trip of having used the two bombs to bring the Pacific phase to an end.
That particular war was the responsibility of Hitler, and a racist Japanese empire, that brought war to millions across the globe (speaking of collateral damage). Despite conspiracy theories about Roosevelt's (a Democrat) involvement in "provoking" Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan was already heavily involved in the conquest of China and other Pacific countries, using torture, deprivation and murder unique to the Japanese in all the warfare of modern history. The American people were isolationists at that time and only Pearl Harbor got the "sleeping giant's" attention.
They were a barbaric army with an attitude. Pearl Harbor did not only involve the gruesome death of 3,000 of our peaceful warriors on a peaceful Sunday, there were many collateral deaths of innocents as well. I needn't go on with this litany; you're very well read, and you and most of this forum are aware that innocent deaths were bilateral (in Europe) and unimaginably horrendous in numbers and pre-mortal suffering.
You may not be aware that the second bomb was dropped only because the Japanese military was still determined to fight on after the first. They refused to surrender. In that time, Japan was not only barbaric in their treatment of all non-Japanese, they were maniacal.
I always bristle at those who allude to individual collateral Japanese deaths after use of two bombs that saved one million GI lives, and probably more Japanese lives that would have been sacrificed (including women and children) in defending Japan from conventional invasion.
Protesting the horrors of nuclear war, employing focus on individual tragic deaths of Japanese innocents post Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is disingenuous, because it is packaged with the additional implicit and insidious (in my opinion) contention that the U.S. was wrong or immoral to utilize those bombs to end the war (that would have cost many more lives, had they not been used).
Wars are always brutal. In a truly defensive war, the defenders should not be impugned for whatever measures they must employ to attain victory. Such a war does not end in peace without either total victory or total defeat. When fighting for your country and loved ones, there is must be no self-imposed limits on the ferocity with which it must be waged.
Paul: I'm afraid you are the one with the reflex response here. I purposely did not mention the country that dropped the bombs on the grounds it wasn't relevant (although you clearly are consciously aware that the US is the only country ever to have done so, not once but twice). But the point was I thought quite clear. It was not about the past but the future and the job of ridding the world of these monstrous weapons and others like them. And of course the date was relevant to the point (so was mentioned) but the country who did it was not. Putting an individual human face on history and those who suffer is not either Left or Right.
As regards your final point, it makes me sigh. It could as well be spoken by a Good German as anyone. They, too, had God on their side and imposed no limits. "Countries" are not eternal categories. They are only 400 years old, as a concept (Peace of Westphalia, 1648). For that matter, "family" is a cultural one. Ask the Mafia about fighting for family with no limits.
During the years my daughter lived in Japan, she visited the Hiroshima memorial -- and left a paper crane -- with hope the horrors of war will end.
And shame on her parents gereration for being complicit in the aggression that led to this outcome.
Iranian moderates stand up now and prevent yourselves becoming repeats at the hands of your theocratic extremists
Revere,
You're already aware of how much I respect your competence in your field, and your dedication to all who stop here, to prepare them. I've expressed this before as eloquently as I was able, and with heartfelt sincerity.
However, you and I are very far apart in our political and historical concepts. I must make some points about your reply:
> Your credentials give you no more authority in your opinions on the latter subjects than any other citizen who chooses to be informed about these matters. You did not claim any such superior knowledge, but I wish to make the distinction anyway.
>I don't think your historical assertion about how far back the existence of countries evolved in man's history is very accurate. In fact, it doesn't come close to being accurate. Japan, China, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Rome, ancient Israel, prior to the Diaspora?? And I think there's enough archeological evidence that tribes and populations with similar roots go further back in their existence, migrations, conquests, and even societal structures.
> Because you are so well read, I must again cite the disingenuousness of your choice of video as an expression of your (and mostly universal) aversion to even the contemplation of future nuclear warfare. Surely you cannot be unaware of the Left's public denunciations of America's use of the Bomb, dating at least back to the "marvelous" 60's. In that well known context, the disclaimer in your reply only emphasizes your implicit criticism of Americaâs use of nuclear weapons. Your not explicitly *mentioning* America, does not absolve you of the packaged (mixed) message impugning America for resorting to their measure for ending the war (which Iâve already thoroughly and accurately explained in my repudiation to your implied condemnation). Perhaps youâre so inured in this Leftist canard, you didnât realize your implicit condemnation.
> I mentioned nothing about G-d being on anyoneâs side. Where did that come from?
> Itâs disappointing that you resort to such a hackneyed technique used by the Left to invoke extremes of evil (âGood German,â i.e. Nazis, Mafia) to demonstrate moral equivalence. Using reductio ad incommodum does not become you, Revere.
One further point. You may sigh Revere, while others fight and die to protect your freedom to sigh, or say anything you wish about this county.
Paul: You may not think the idea of the "nation state" is recent, but you are wrong. Empires are not nations. It's not even worth arguing about.
I condemn war makers. I don't claim any expertise in that. But with respect to the Good German and the Mafia, I am somewhat surprised you do not see that anyone who says, "When fighting for your country and loved ones, there must be no self-imposed limits on the ferocity with which it must be waged" doesn't see that others think the same thing and the ones who also think that are not necessarily on "your side." The God on their side comment was not aimed at you or religion. It is a common English expression for people who think that being in the right justifies anything.
The bottom line is that you are so convinced of your righteousness and correctness that anything is justified. No lines that cannot be crossed. We know where that leads. Hackneyed or not. As for hackneyed, those who fight and die do it at the hands of old men like you and me but not necessarily for you and me. Vietnam, Grenada, the Mexican War, WWI, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan were not fought for my freedom. What about the Civil War? Both sides were American. WWII I will grant you.
Moreover, it is apparently not even your position that it is your country right or wrong. It is the even more untenable position that your country is never wrong. I'll give you this: it's not hackneyed.
Graeme: yes, it's a shame her parents generation was born in Showa Emperial Japan where you either followed Emperor, or committed suicide. They should have been born in the free USA instead! Really? You seriously think so?
I realize this is not going to change your, nor my mind on this subject; and the risk of offending you causes me to be reluctant to carry this further (see, there are some lines I'll not cross).
Of course it's obvious that the citizens of each country will fight for their right to survive (what you call "righteousness"). That's why opposing soldiers have a certain respect and sorrow for the men they must kill (realizing they too, have families and loved ones).
In fact, I urge you to watch this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9coPzDx6tA&feature=related .
It is ambivalent on so many relevant levels to the discussion we're having. It will offend you because its theme is Christmas Eve; it will confirm (with emotion and beauty) the points you make about the universality of men and their relative dedication to eachâs opposing sides; my point about opposing soldiersâ mutual respect; your point about the ones who direct the outbreak and strategies of war are not (necessarily) the ones who do the dying; it occurs in WWI (not WWII).
My point? War is not a pretty thing. Those who most abhor it are often the soldiers who may have to fight it. However, you sir, are a Utopian and (in my opinion) deny human nature and its genetic (evolved, if you will) beauties and ugliness. In doing so, you will not acknowledge the need nor possibility of a âjustâ war.
World War II was just such a war; a war for the survival of our nation. And damn it, Revere, when a nation is truly in *direct* need of its defense, there will not be, nor can there be any limit to the ferocity, nor the means to which its citizens and soldiers must resort â TO SURVIVE!
Iâm going to pose the same genre of question as was posed to Democratic presidential Michael Dukakis, in one of the pre-election debates of 1988: would he advocate the death penalty for someone who had raped and killed his wife. His answer in the negative was not only incredible, but detestable (as I and most of the nation believed, based on election results). So, Revere, would you do *anything* to another man who was threatening your family; I canât even pose this as rhetorical question, because I actually donât know how you would respond. Most people would answer in the affirmative; and a country of people would as well.
My calling you on your Sunday Sermon still stands.
Seems I ended up doing what I started out saying I wouldn't do. What can I say? I'm passionate about some things, and just not capable of objective detachment. Human nature, what can one do?
Paul: One thing we can agree on. Christmas in the trenches is one of my favorite songs -- both ends of the rifle we are the same -- and I have put it up here on EM at least once, maybe twice or even three times. My wife has been known to play it continuously at Christmas time. Incidentally, Christmas is my favorite holiday, something I discuss every year here -- on Christmas. My attitude to religion is more complicated than you give it credit for.
It's four months from Christmas, but what the heck - Peace and Good Will to you, Sir. I deem our battle today was well fought - by both sides. ;-)
For those of you who like guitars .......
Doc Watson - Ready for the Times to get Better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL0xWGJ8hNQ&feature=PlayList&p=290420A89…
Shit boys, I never got any guitar music at Xmas time. I got grenades, rifle fire, an occasional howitzer barrage from those misguided chumps on the other side of the line. You know, the ones that arent socialists, terrorists, or bombs strapped to baby types.
Revere likes to make this into a match between two guys in a territorial pissing match...tossing in of course a bit of religion, a dash of politics and of course the all and ever present "Cant we all just get along." In fact the latter is probably impossible and imposition of will and direction onto a population is a stated goal of war. As in dont bomb the fuck out of my naval base, dont listen to LBJ when he lies about Vietnam, dont take my people hostage in Iran.
Frankly...People like me are a necessary evil. We are the guys that will up to the highest point of it without question or use of ones own mind say indeed that it is my country, right or wrong. Pacifists are generally run down by the lawnmower of loss of freedom, tyranny and close on its heels follows mass destruction. Its okay to speak out about wanting peace, no guy in the trenches wants anything but. No guy in a barracks wants to do anything but chase girls.
But in the last 50 years we have been in conflict after conflict with the little war scenario and the "Big Bang " theory (strategic nukes) was replaced by small conventional arguments. Very soon, one of the middle eastern idiots or a stoopid North Korean will do something unthinkable. Act of defiance on the part of the middle eastern country, act of pure belligerence on the part of nut case Norko.
So, we can make a lot of paper cranes or hey how about that new pig paper mache/ How about releasing symbolic white doves and waive the UN flag all around.
And we have done all of that and for the last 50 years we have gotten WHAT?
How about the absence of a second major total planetary war for the last 60 years?
That puts us at least 30 years ahead of the game.
Of course, if that'd happened, we wouldn't be having these nice conversations on electronic forums. Best outcome would have us discussing the merits of the most recent and innovative recipe for rat. Or Long Pig.
Worst outcome and some highly evolved descendant of today's bacteria would be learning of our affairs by paleoarcheology a few billion years hence.
As a young student my class read about the thousand paper cranes. We learned to fold cranes (which are pretty advanced) and attempted to fold a full thousand for a teacher who was having a baby (we were a little fuzzy on the deeper significance of folding cranes). Even now it is the only thing I can fold by heart, and often do at moments to stress.
There is not enough paper in the whole universe to end the horror that is war.