Kamikaze: Yes or No

13 views
Skip to first unread message

DPR

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 1:12:23 AM7/25/05
to
Hi group.
I'm looking for a good answer about the right to use the word "Kamikaze" in
western countries related to Man-Bomb of Islam Extremist.
I mean, I know well the difference between the two ways to use "Kamikaze"
during WWII from Japan empire and nowadays.
I know also the difference between Japanese culture and Islam Extremism
culture and the reasons or the ways to act Suicide killing more enemies than
You can.

My question is more or less regarding the reasons why Japan through Mass
Media, Institute of Culture or Embassy sites in all over the world,
complaints to the government of other countries about the use of the world
Kamikaze related to japan's called "Jibaku".

In the past "Kamikaze" was the term showing the two storm that destroyed the
ships and the army of Qubilay Khan in
1271 and 1274. Then (in the 2nd World War" it was used naming the pilots of
"Tokkotai" [Special Assault Team].
Recently it was used also to describe very bad or disattentive Driver
(expecially with Taxi Driver)

Japan must be used to "Words Changing" (I mean, take a look at WaSei-Eigo).
There are words written in Katakana, taked from other languages, (English,
Portuguese, Dutch, German, Italian and so on) used in Japan, having
different meanings if comparated to own countries.
So why be upset and be shocked when other countries used Japanese Words
changing the original meanings or used towards concepts very far from the
original one?

Roberto

Cindy

unread,
Jul 25, 2005, 6:09:31 PM7/25/05
to

Kamikaze = Jibaku? That's pretty bad. Even I don't like it.

DPR

unread,
Jul 26, 2005, 3:13:59 AM7/26/05
to
"Cindy" wrote

> Kamikaze = Jibaku? That's pretty bad. Even I don't like it.

Kamikaze = Bad Driver could be better for You?

"Kamikaze" represent a way to kill enemies, a weapon.
Less importance is the fact that in WWII they was used to kill (more or
less) only soldiers.

So why "Kamikaze" instead of "Jibaku" could be offensive for Japanese
culture?
Because they consider WWII's Kamikaze as Heroes?
But also for Islam, Suicide Bombers are consider as Heroes too....

Roberto

Cindy

unread,
Jul 26, 2005, 5:51:23 PM7/26/05
to
DPR wrote:
> "Cindy" wrote
>
>
>>Kamikaze = Jibaku? That's pretty bad. Even I don't like it.
>
>
> Kamikaze = Bad Driver could be better for You?
>
> "Kamikaze" represent a way to kill enemies, a weapon.

Oh, yeah?

> Less importance is the fact that in WWII they was used to kill (more or
> less) only soldiers.
>
> So why "Kamikaze" instead of "Jibaku" could be offensive for Japanese
> culture?
> Because they consider WWII's Kamikaze as Heroes?
> But also for Islam, Suicide Bombers are consider as Heroes too....


Kamikaze -- 神風 means divine wind, but I am convinced that people give
any meaning they want to it.


Well, if you call them crazy, nobody would've volunteered to carry a
bomb and blown himself up, you see. They needed to give some motivation
or incentive to do some difficult job.

James Eckman

unread,
Jul 26, 2005, 10:04:09 PM7/26/05
to
Cindy wrote:
> Kamikaze -- 神風 means divine wind, but I am convinced that people give
> any meaning they want to it.

Since the Japanese military named their suicide bombers during the war
kamikaze, it's become popular in English as well. You can blame it on
them ;) If they called them jibaku then that would probably be the
English word now.

> Well, if you call them crazy, nobody would've volunteered to carry a
> bomb and blown himself up, you see. They needed to give some motivation
> or incentive to do some difficult job.

I'm a bit confused on this one. I'm not sure what you mean. People have
volunteered for suicide missions, including Japanese, Iranians and other
folk. The first person in the Pacific theater to deliberately crash
their plane into an enemy ship was American, so it's not limited to any
single culture.

Jim Eckman

mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 1:14:10 AM7/27/05
to
James Eckman <sp...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> Cindy wrote:

> I'm a bit confused on this one. I'm not sure what you mean. People have
> volunteered for suicide missions, including Japanese, Iranians and other
> folk. The first person in the Pacific theater to deliberately crash
> their plane into an enemy ship was American, so it's not limited to any
> single culture.

Uh, if you're thinking of Collin Kelly, that's not what happened.

His plane was hit by Japanese fighters, and he stayed at the controls
to allow his crew time to bail out. Because of his efforts, several
crew members survived (and indeed survived the war.) The Japanese
post-mortem of the crash confirmed that Kelly died trying to
exit the plane after his crew bailed, and this impressed them to the
point they buried him, honorably, at sea, which was not common treatment
for enemy pilots by the IJN.

Mike

DPR

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 1:18:38 AM7/27/05
to
"Cindy" <cindy1...@att.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:TomdnaYqC6_...@comcast.com...

>> So why "Kamikaze" instead of "Jibaku" could be offensive for Japanese
>> culture?
>> Because they consider WWII's Kamikaze as Heroes?
>> But also for Islam, Suicide Bombers are consider as Heroes too....
>
>
> Kamikaze -- 神風 means divine wind, but I am convinced that people give
> any meaning they want to it.
> Well, if you call them crazy, nobody would've volunteered to carry a
> bomb and blown himself up, you see. They needed to give some motivation
> or incentive to do some difficult job.

Yes of course, during the War in Pacific it was the final choice of a
government. They knew well they was loosing the war.
I don't think that Islam's Suicide Bombers call themselves "Kamikaze". I
heard the word "Martiry of Allah".
So when Western Media start to use the word Kamikaze to call them, they
gaved them motivation or incentive to continue own "job".
This was a "Big Mistake".

But I repeat my question. Why Japanese upset? Why the new use of the word is
offensive for own culture?

Roberto

Cindy

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 6:57:53 AM7/27/05
to
James Eckman wrote:

>>Well, if you call them crazy, nobody would've volunteered to carry a
>>bomb and blown himself up, you see. They needed to give some motivation
>>or incentive to do some difficult job.
>
>
> I'm a bit confused on this one. I'm not sure what you mean.

It's like telling you that if you kill such and such people and how many
of them, the government will pay off all your debts and loan and
guarantee that your family members will be in good hand forever. Maybe
they will give you a medal (like the Academy award). But you are dead,
so your family gets it. For the family, they lose their son; however,
they will get a good deal and their son will be remembered as a hero.


> People have
> volunteered for suicide missions, including Japanese, Iranians and other
> folk. The first person in the Pacific theater to deliberately crash
> their plane into an enemy ship was American, so it's not limited to any
> single culture.

I thought the first suicidal mission had occurred in WW1 -- a Japanese
battle ship in the Mediterranean.

James Eckman

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:50:52 AM7/27/05
to
mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> James Eckman <sp...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
> Uh, if you're thinking of Collin Kelly, that's not what happened.

No, I don't remember the name, it was a torpedo pilot I think. My friend
who knew all that bizarre trivia is sadly dead.

But in this case it was an individual choice, America did not form up
groups of suicide bomber pilots.

P.S. From what I remember, Colin Kelly's widow had a devil of a time
finding housing, if I remember right, a politician had to step in and
help out.

Jim Eckman

James Eckman

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:55:50 AM7/27/05
to
Cindy wrote:
> I thought the first suicidal mission had occurred in WW1 -- a Japanese
> battle ship in the Mediterranean.

Err why would that be suicidal? The Japanese were on the Allied side for
whatever short period of time they participated. Also they only
participated in the Far East from what I remember. Being there would not
be that dangerous since Italy was also an ally!

Jim Eckman

Cindy

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:28:26 PM7/27/05
to
James Eckman wrote:

> Cindy wrote:
>
>>I thought the first suicidal mission had occurred in WW1 -- a Japanese
>>battle ship in the Mediterranean.
>
>
> Err why would that be suicidal?

I believe that was coincidental or accidental.

Chris Morton

unread,
Aug 24, 2005, 9:51:03 AM8/24/05
to
In article <Uw_Ee.35784$b93....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, DPR says...

>
>Hi group.
>I'm looking for a good answer about the right to use the word "Kamikaze" in
>western countries related to Man-Bomb of Islam Extremist.

I think it's inappropriate.

As much as I might disagree with the Japanese "special attack" campaign, and
even consider it foolish, the overwhelming majority of such operations were
directed at MILITARY targets, most completely devoid of civilians.

Contrast this with the majority of Muslim suicide bombings which were directed
EXCLUSIVELY at civilian targets, in Iraq, Israel, Egypt and Morocco.

The Tokko pilots were misled. The suicide bombers are profoundly evil.


--

--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.

Don Kirkman

unread,
Aug 25, 2005, 5:13:26 PM8/25/05
to
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Chris Morton wrote in article
<dehu0...@drn.newsguy.com>:

>In article <Uw_Ee.35784$b93....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, DPR says...

>>I'm looking for a good answer about the right to use the word "Kamikaze" in


>>western countries related to Man-Bomb of Islam Extremist.

>I think it's inappropriate.

>As much as I might disagree with the Japanese "special attack" campaign, and
>even consider it foolish, the overwhelming majority of such operations were
>directed at MILITARY targets, most completely devoid of civilians.

>Contrast this with the majority of Muslim suicide bombings which were directed
>EXCLUSIVELY at civilian targets, in Iraq, Israel, Egypt and Morocco.

>The Tokko pilots were misled. The suicide bombers are profoundly evil.

"Kamikaze" is also inappropriate for historical reasons. The original
use of "kamikaze" was when the Mongols were threatening Japan (Kyushu)
in 1274 (perhaps 15,000 Mongol troops and 15,000 Korean sailors and
auxiliaries an several hundred ships coming from Korea). After the
first contact the Mongols returned to their ships, which were destroyed
or driven out to sea by a great storm that arose in the night; that
storm was the "kamikaze" or divine wind, and it saved the Japanese
defenders and turned away the attackers.

Imperial Japan is to blame for reversing the meaning to connote the
"divine wind" suicide pilots conquering the defenders.

Also, there was no such thought in Japan as there is in Islamic Jihadism
that "god wills it." Religion has rarely been interpreted that way in
Japan, and even the religious wars were more about property and
legitimacy than about theological differences or doctrines.
--
Don Kirkman

Cindy

unread,
Aug 26, 2005, 1:24:33 PM8/26/05
to
Don Kirkman wrote:


> "Kamikaze" is also inappropriate for historical reasons. The original
> use of "kamikaze" was when the Mongols were threatening Japan (Kyushu)
> in 1274 (perhaps 15,000 Mongol troops and 15,000 Korean sailors and
> auxiliaries an several hundred ships coming from Korea). After the
> first contact the Mongols returned to their ships, which were destroyed
> or driven out to sea by a great storm that arose in the night; that
> storm was the "kamikaze" or divine wind, and it saved the Japanese
> defenders and turned away the attackers.

It was just another seasonal typhoon. Plus, those Korean vessel
craftsmen and sailors were almost slaves to the Mongols. The crafsmen
had to build so many ships for a very short amount of time. The sailors
-- I'll bet they had held a grudge to the Mongols.

> Imperial Japan is to blame for reversing the meaning to connote the
> "divine wind" suicide pilots conquering the defenders.
>
> Also, there was no such thought in Japan as there is in Islamic Jihadism
> that "god wills it." Religion has rarely been interpreted that way in
> Japan, and even the religious wars were more about property and
> legitimacy than about theological differences or doctrines.

Religion is the best excuse to do anything. It overwrites one's own
judgment, decision and free will no matter good or bad. In another
word, religion may brainwash you if you get into it too much.
Otherwise, religion is a good philosophy that may inspire you.

Don Kirkman

unread,
Aug 27, 2005, 7:18:08 PM8/27/05
to
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Cindy wrote in article
<eaadnZ2dnZ2bHWPJnZ2dn...@comcast.com>:

>Don Kirkman wrote:
>
>
>> "Kamikaze" is also inappropriate for historical reasons. The original
>> use of "kamikaze" was when the Mongols were threatening Japan (Kyushu)
>> in 1274 (perhaps 15,000 Mongol troops and 15,000 Korean sailors and
>> auxiliaries an several hundred ships coming from Korea). After the
>> first contact the Mongols returned to their ships, which were destroyed
>> or driven out to sea by a great storm that arose in the night; that
>> storm was the "kamikaze" or divine wind, and it saved the Japanese
>> defenders and turned away the attackers.

>It was just another seasonal typhoon. Plus, those Korean vessel
>craftsmen and sailors were almost slaves to the Mongols. The crafsmen
>had to build so many ships for a very short amount of time. The sailors
>-- I'll bet they had held a grudge to the Mongols.

But the point is they didn't have weather satellites and didn't expect
the storm, so they were taken by surprise. The status of the Koreans is
irrelevant to the facts, as is their attitude toward the Mongols.

>> Imperial Japan is to blame for reversing the meaning to connote the
>> "divine wind" suicide pilots conquering the defenders.

>> Also, there was no such thought in Japan as there is in Islamic Jihadism
>> that "god wills it." Religion has rarely been interpreted that way in
>> Japan, and even the religious wars were more about property and
>> legitimacy than about theological differences or doctrines.

>Religion is the best excuse to do anything. It overwrites one's own
>judgment, decision and free will no matter good or bad. In another
>word, religion may brainwash you if you get into it too much.
>Otherwise, religion is a good philosophy that may inspire you.

The point is that religion has NOT usually been the basis for action in
Japan except for the sectarian medieval Buddhist wars. That's the major
difference from historical Japanese behavior and the jihadists of today,
who base everything including ethics and morality on their particular
religious interpretation.
--
Don Kirkman

Peter Leyssens

unread,
Oct 27, 2009, 5:16:13 AM10/27/09
to

Hi Jim,

j...@csse.monash.edu.au wrote:
> Peter Leyssens <leys...@yahoo.com> dixit:


>
>>Don Kirkman wrote:
>>
>>>The point is that religion has NOT usually been the basis for action in
>>>Japan except for the sectarian medieval Buddhist wars. That's the major
>>>difference from historical Japanese behavior and the jihadists of today,
>>>who base everything including ethics and morality on their particular
>>>religious interpretation.
>
>

>>I'm wondering about this. In general, it's the current tendency to take
>>this for a fact. But weren't buddhist statues destroyed in the 7th
>>century because they were threatening the indigenous religions ?
>
>
> There have been other incidents too, but compared to many, many, many
> other countries the rate of religious-inspired violence in Japan is
> so low that it can be virtually ruled out as a major or regular cause
> for anything.

Thanks for setting this straight. I had the same feeling, but I had to
be reminded that I should see things in their context. I've had a
number of interesting discussions with Balu after reading his book
intercultural religious studies (specifically about India, but
applicable to Japan) titled "The Heathen in His Blindness". He claims
that in non-Christeo-Judean-Islamic countries, religious violence plays
no role in history. It's a bold statement, and I'd been struggling with
these incidents in Japan since.

Coming back to the topic, I think this is why WWII kamikaze pilots
heading off to crash their planes cannot be regarded as inspired by
religious purposes. Without any investigation, my opinion would be that
they can't, because many weren't all that happy to go, and they were
only given enough fuel to get to the destination (if they didn't run out
before). Compared to the WTC plane hijackers, the difference is clear.

Which of course is too much of an explanation to give to news readers...
One fancy word like "kamikaze" sounds great and has a certain
connotation (be it right or wrong), so it's far simpler to use a
slightly incorrect term than to use a correct explanation each time.


>>I'm not claiming that the Japanese behaviour is anything close to
>>contemporary jihadist tendencies. I'm just wondering if applying a
>>non-religious explanation to a number of historic actions isn't too far
>>fetched.
>
>
> Er, "non-religious explanation"?

I meant: an explanation that only points out non-religious causes. I
wasn't referring to theological argumentation ;-)


Peter.


--
--
Peter Leyssens
KU Leuven

Peter Leyssens

unread,
Oct 26, 2009, 9:30:41 AM10/26/09
to
Don Kirkman wrote:
> The point is that religion has NOT usually been the basis for action in
> Japan except for the sectarian medieval Buddhist wars. That's the major
> difference from historical Japanese behavior and the jihadists of today,
> who base everything including ethics and morality on their particular
> religious interpretation.

I'm wondering about this. In general, it's the current tendency to take

this for a fact. But weren't buddhist statues destroyed in the 7th
century because they were threatening the indigenous religions ?

I'm not claiming that the Japanese behaviour is anything close to

contemporary jihadist tendencies. I'm just wondering if applying a
non-religious explanation to a number of historic actions isn't too far
fetched.


Peter.

--
Peter Leyssens
KU Leuven.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages