I read this article a week ago or so and it’s been coming to mind pretty much every day. It covers basically a U.S. delegation to Hiroshima on the 65th anniversary of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It’s a fascinating dynamic, but it illustrates on a very large and deep scale a fairly frequent dynamic. From a war standpoint – both parties claim victim status. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. did the unthinkable in many ways by wiping out two whole cities in a blink of an eye. I’m not here to start a debate about who attacked who first or what’s just in war or not. That’s for another day.
What I find fascinating is that the U.S. can express general sympathy 65 years later for victims of the war, but avoid really engaging the specific and contextual impact on that specific community and city that their morally ambiguous decision resulted in. Is it too much for the U.S. to say that it was horrible and that nuking cities was in fact morally ambiguous, but it was what they felt had to be done at the time and didn’t have a better option to bring an end to the war? I can see how you can’t really say now with absolute certainty that it was the right or wrong thing to do. But you don’t have to say it shouldn’t have been done no matter what to at least acknowledge the specific horrors of that kind of a decision on those communities – who have been living with the consequences for 65 years now.
It’s a leadership thing and a relationship thing. Frequently leaders who are leading in crisis or leading out in crisis make sweeping decisions or take extreme action that leaves quite a wake. The crisis stops – because there are no dissenting voices left. I think most leaders I’ve seen in many settings act like the U.S. in this example. They only see that whatever they did stopped the drama or solved the problem, but they don’t see the cost. Even in retrospect if they do see that mistakes may have been made, any acknowledgment that what was done was in fact sketchy, morally ambiguous, or questionable is viewed as having to confess total responsibility and failure.
Such a mindset closes the door to compassion, empathy, and understanding. it closes the door to building trust and relationships and experiencing the power and depth of reconciliation. I’m glad the U.S. is going to Hiroshima to acknowledge that horrors were done. It’s something. But I would hope to live in a world that when we have more information that provides different perspectives that we can admit uncertainty when it exists.
This topic could lead to a lot of different subtopics for me, but I’ll ask the question what you think? What would you think would be appropriate and respectful and contrite in this situation?
Can you enter into the sufferings of another party even if the action(s) in question can be justified in good measure? Or do you have to preserve the image of all-knowing all-wise leadership in fear of losing credibility and trust?
Also – if anyone comes here and feels compelled to justify the decision to drop the bombs, I’ll say now that I’ll delete your comment. It’s not to be rude, but it’s to keep the focus on the question of how to relate to people who have been victimized even if the offending action in question can be defended on some level.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/05/delegation-no-apology-at-hiroshima-ceremony/
dude, that is a phenomenal comment…I may turn it around and post it as a guest post later today as a follow up. Thanks for the thoughts.One other thing that resonated in looking at this is the way that when there's high crisis, some leaders are more inclined to take a scorched approach to problem solving and as you point out, they typically don't seem to be able to face the massive scope of their decisions – whether they ended up scorching a city with a nuclear bomb, or a typical ministry team, or whatever it may be.
Brian, like you I am impressed beyond words at the first comment. The only thing I would add is that it seems to me, if I can't enter into the sufferings of another party, if I can't truly empathize, then what is at stake is my own humanity. On another level, I'm not sure how I call myself a Christian if I look at a situation like Hiroshima and say: "they deserved it."Given the importance of an apology in Japanese culture, I think an apology should have been forthcoming from the highest levels of the U.S. government.
that's where I land too Jim, you captured it well.
I think both the US and Japan could stand to apologize to each other, especially given that there has been 65 years worth of water under the bridge and the relationship of the two countries is strong. Apologizing now would not involve too much contrition. However, apologizing inherently means one admits wrongdoing. And because of the ambiguous nature of right and wrong during war, there will always be arguments for both sides, e.g. US was justified given Japan's attack or US had an inappropriate response given 2,402 US personnel died and we killed 220,000 in response. Personally, I think both countries had errant judgment at that time in history, which is why I think it appropriate for both countries to apologize to each other.I don't think it will happen though given the current political climate in the US. Back in April of 2009, Obama, while traveling in Europe, apologized to Europe for being arrogant, dismissive and even derisive of European allies during the Bush years. There were a lot of angry Americans because of Obama's apology, and Obama faced a lot of political fallout because of it. I admired Obama for it, but I'm not expecting him to do that again, especially with November elections just around the corner.
great thoughts. I totally agree in terms of what the political problems would be in doing something like that. On the whole, there's no doubt that both sides have apologies to make.I'm not sure I believe an apology offered automatically means an acknowledgment that it should have been done. This is the dynamic that has captured my imagination. Can you apologize or acknowledge that an action taken was morally questionable and horrible without making an absolute judgment that it 100% should not have been done? I know in the political landscape – it's maybe not possible because people with a wounded or prideful disposition always want to protect their position as being the victim rather than the oppressor. That's what you're describing in my mind – no way Obama does that right now because it would serve as a catalyst for many "great patriots" to mobilize against him.I don't think it's possible or needed 65 years later to say definitively, "we shouldn't have done this," but I do wonder along with Jim if a statement to the effect of "you didn't deserve this and we will do whatever we can to ensure it never happens ever again" would go. That brings a more human and global community feeling to the discussion as opposed to the politics of trying to divide up blame.The other thing that captured me in this whole thing (and I'm not a WWII buff) is the parallels to what I see in normal relationships when reconciliation is needed. There's some amazing parallels of how to you work through things and build trust and redeem the past when there's significant wounds on both sides. I especially see the relevance in congregational dynamics with is a point of interest for me given how toxic and vitriolic those situations can get.I was a history major in college so I feel like I should be more informed – but for the most part the latest history I studied was the 4th century 🙂 I was also a political science major and did take as much as I could related to diplomacy and conflict and war – but interestingly the conclusion of WWII was never addressed or brought up.