The Yokels Are At It Again
Nov 14th, 2009 | 139 responses
Once again, Barack Obama has demonstrated his appalling hatred for America, and his elitism, and his arrogance, and his tearing down and bashing of his country and his predecessor’s foreign policies, by greeting Japan’s prime minister with a deep bow in a culturally appropriate way.
Conservative bloggers, of course, are apoplectic. Scott Johnson gets this out, between convulsive gasps:
Obama’s breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize.
This strikes me as rank insecurity, and it’s everywhere in the right’s response to this story.
Ron Beasley points out the lack of understanding of Japanese culture. This is not about being politically correct; it’s about trying to avoid looking like an ignorant fool:
I don’t know if the Powerline crew has spent anytime in Japan but I have. In the US we shake hands – in Japan they bow. Not just to the emperor but to everyone you meet. Is it really surrender when you demonstrate a little knowledge and respect for the culture of a country you are visiting? In the wingnut world the answer is yes. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world hates a country with so many pompous a-hs? I think not!
John Steele Gordon at Commentary didn’t get the memo:
Could someone in the Chief of Protocol’s Office at the State Department please tell Barack Obama that heads of state do not bow to other heads of state? And for the head of state of the country founded on the idea that “all men are created equal,” that goes double.
Actually, they do. And sometimes they kiss and hold hands.
Gordon continues, moving on to the “sainted America” theme:
President Obama goes abroad apologizing for the supposed sins of a country that defended and extended freedom around the world at a staggering cost in lives and treasure and then grovels before the man whose country has yet to apologize for the Rape of Nanking.
It never ceases to amaze me how much more importance contemporary conservatives place on the form of democracy rather than the substance. Bowing to the leader of a country in which bowing is a respectful greeting when meeting any new person is a betrayal of democracy. Show trials in which convictions are gained using torture, hearsay testimony, and suppression of evidence are defenses of democracy.
As are nuclear weapons used on cities where hundreds of thousands of civilians live — when the United States does it. In another post on the bowing “scandal,” Donald Douglas disapprovingly notes Obama’s failure to give a direct answer to a question asked by a Japanese reporter about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reporter asked if, in the light of Obama’s strong interest in a nuclear-free world, he had any desire to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether he felt that the United States had done the right thing in dropping the bombs.
Obama’s response to that part of the question:
Obviously, Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — and that, I’m sure, helps to motivate the prime minister’s deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don’t have immediate travel plans, but it’s something that would be meaningful to me.
The president then asked the reporter what the rest of his question was, specifically saying it had several parts and he wasn’t sure he remembered the last one. I’m sure he knew that he had not answered the query about his personal feelings, or opinion, regarding the morality of the bombings — but he did leave that opening for the reporter to repeat the question and the reporter did not, for whatever reason.
Donald Douglas bluntly criticizes Obama for evading the question. I would have liked to hear his answer, too, but not for the same reason. Douglas’s post title says it all: ” ‘America’s First Pacific President’ — Won’t Defend U.S. Nuclear Attacks at Hiroshima, Nagasaki.” Emphasis is mine. And Douglas goes on to comment (at the bottom of the post):
Interesting, that, with Hawaii and all being the opening salvo of Japan’s declaration of war on the United States. Tokyo’s surprise attack was met with American power, and ultimately America’s ultimate weapon in August 1945. You’d think that a U.S. president would be able to speak frankly about the cold, hard, difficult realities of international history. Just not this president, our post American president.
Amazing. I don’t expect that Donald Douglas would understand, or that it would even occur to him to consider, that at a press conference in Japan, standing next to the youngest son of the Emperor Hirohito — you know, the guy who surrendered to the United States? — it would be the most appalling cruelty to actually defend the nuclear bombings. Look at the expression on Emperor Akihito’s face as Obama is answering the reporter, on the video at Douglas’s site.
But no — I understand that one cannot expect someone whose highest value in life is “American power” to be able to parse these subtler kinds of human interactions. Having said that, you would think that an associate professor of political science at a university in California would at least “get” the “hard, cold, international” facts of realpolitik that would make it politically and pragmatically inadvisable to defend the rightness and morality of using nuclear weapons while on an official state visit to the country on which they were used.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
139 Responses to “The Yokels Are At It Again”
Kathy, you are getting far to much commenter response on your threads. STOP IT.
Actually I got it from the video. It's pretty clear if you've seen it. Both the President and Emperor raise their hands to shake as the President approaches.
FrequentPoster:
I'm afraid that it would have been impossible for richao to have “withheld” the information about Nixon's bow, given that the Jake Tapper article that he cited didn't appear online until 2:53 PM Eastern, 6 hours AFTER richao began posting in this thread.
Unless, of course, you think that richao is Jake Tapper's “old Japan hand” source. In which case, that would be a sign of full-fledged paranoid fear, not just plain ole mistrust of right-wingers on your part.
Come to think of it, given that richao is clearly not a right-winger, your distrust and fear of imminent betrayal is directed at an imaginary entity. Part of the definition of paranoia.
Then again, perhaps you're just feigning outrage at richao's failure to disclose the Nixon info. That would fit in quite nicely with the nature of the rest of your post: just flinging stuff out there and seeing if anything sticks. Who cares if it's true or not, illuminating or not, civil or not, relevant or not, as long as it's directed at a right-winger, real or imagined.
Ms. Kattenberg would be proud.
That was a calculated power move on Reagan's part, meant to throw Gorbachev off and seize the psychological advantage.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and that was actually my point- that the body language is important enough that it generally is orchestrated.
I don't know much about the personal feelings of Kruschev toward Kennedy, but this was about their first meeting. JFK himself told a confidante immediately afterward that it had gone very badly, and most historians agree that the Soviets took their measure of Kennedy from that meeting and that resulted in the Cuban missile challenge.
JG: Thanks. In all fairness, my politics are right-of-center (though with a strong libertarian streak on both social and economic issues), and I gather that many on this board would label anything to the right of Nancy Pelosi as notoriously right wing.
What I find amusing about FrequentPoster's complaint re the Nixon update is that not only was Tapper's piece posted after I had made my initial comments, but I was the one who actually introduced it into discussion in this thread, despite the fact that the Japan hand he quotes offered evidence (of Nixon's bow) that suggested I had gone too far in staking out my initial position. Rather than praising me for having the integrity to post new information that was not entirely consistent with my own initial reaction to Obama's bow, he berates me for springing the Tapper piece on him and “moving the goalposts.”
In my view, vigorous political discussion – even when spiced with generous amounts of sarcasm, as I believed appropriate in light of the original poster's tone – offers the opportunity to the participants to stake out initial claims and then modify those in the light of new information, whether that information comes from other participants in the discussion or from outside sources. I could understand FrequentPoster's rage if one of his ideological allies in this discussion had introduced the Tapper piece, suggesting that I had concealed it. But it's mystifying to me why my posting of the piece (admittedly, I didn't include a link, figuring that anybody could Google “Political Punch” or “Jake Tapper”) reveals me to be a goalpost-moving right-wing Fox-News-watching ideologue.
Incidentally, I also find it amusing that FrequentPoster saved the Fox-News-watching epithet until after I had called Bush a buffoon. I don't know much about Fox News, but if what my liberal friends say is true, I suspect that view would make me persona non grata on the network.
richao, you wrote: “Incidentally, I also find it amusing that FrequentPoster saved the Fox-News-watching epithet until after I had called Bush a buffoon. I don't know much about Fox News, but if what my liberal friends say is true, I suspect that view would make me persona non grata on the network.”
On most FOX News shows, you would get a few raised eyebrows, and asked to explain why you had flung such an epithet into the mix. And rightly so. But then again, the same would happen if you described Obama that way. On most shows. Hannity and Beck would likely just let it slip by. But O'Reilly wouldn't. Neither would Shepard Smith. Nor would you be likely to have that go unnoticed on Special Report.
On MSNBC, however, you'd get a green room party thrown in your honor and perhaps even an offer to be a “frequent flier” guest host on Olbermann's and Maddow's shows in the case of Bush. In the case of Obama, however, … I can see it now … your getting mau-mau-ed by Keith Olbermann and Bob Herbert on the basis that your epithet exposes you as a latent racist, since “buffoon” sounds ever so similar to “baboon”.
Not a pretty picture.
[...] The others shake hands, which I’m sure the White House will say shows an offensive lack of respect on their part. The One knows what he’s doing, of course. All those other leaders are just yokels. [...]
“the depth of the bow (which, contrary to the yokel that made the original post, is far from common in Japan, being limited to deep apologies”
so……………………………………. Obama was apologizing, on behalf of the US people, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki after all?
Or …………………….. Obama received the wrong instructions from the staff responsible for such things, who perhaps mistranslated the Japanese bowing etiquette instructions booklet, in similar fashion to the way in which, a while ago, the word “reset” was mistranslated as “overcharge” on the button that our SecState presented to her Russian counterpart.
Of such stuff diplomatic faux pas are made.
I am not “raging” about anything, richao. I am lamenting the inability to have a relatively even-handed conversation from opposing points on the political compass.
When I saw the right-wing complaints about Obama's bow, I was receptive to them because I don't think American presidents should bow to anyone for anything at any time. Really, I don't. I especially don't think they ought to be bowing to the Japanese. I've been to Japan twice, and love the place. It is one of my favorite countries of the 25 I've visited, but I don't think an American president should bow to their emperor. We conquered Japan in 1945, and for good reason.
As an aside, I have argued, and I suppose I will argue in the future, that Truman did the right thing by ordering the atomic bombings. I put them in the “necessary evil” category, with equal emphasis on both words. Last year I visited Hiroshima, and was impressed that the museum there did not overlook Japan's guilt in its actions in Southeast Asia. Similarly, I don't think Americans should ever overlook the horror that the atomic bombings unleashed. And I don't think American presidents should bow to foreign royalty, least of all Japan's.
However, the sad fact is that Obama's bow wasn't unprecedented. Nixon had done it too. At issue now is the depth of Obama's bow, which apparently was corrected on a subsequent meeting. All of this renders it a venial sin, not the outrage that's been presented by the overheated right wingers, who regrettably include you. It certainly wasn't a reason to haul out the right-wing toy soldier collection and march it around the coffee table.
Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped. Not on here, not on the air waves. (e.g., Limbaugh vs. Hartmann)
Indeed – that's probably the best explanation. Let's just be glad that he didn't make it to Hiroshima or Nagasaki; his protocol officers might have suggested he perform a ritual disembowelment…
… and most historians agree that the Soviets took their measure of Kennedy from that meeting and that resulted in the Cuban missile challenge.
A challenge Kennedy used to redeem himself — by resisting the pressure from military hawks in the Pentagon and C.I.A. to launch a full-scale invasion of Cuba and using back-channel negotiations to peacefully resolve the stand-off.
I wasn't arguing about Kennedy's legacy, Kathy. It was a discussion about the way that body language affects diplomacy, and the specific example of Kennedy and Kruschev's first meeting.
Any commentary about the atomic bombing of Japan is useless without placing the events in their historic context. First, the concern about mass casualties arising from a land invasion was not some fig leaf. In the late winter and spring of 1945, the U.S. and its allies took horrendous casualties in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The fears of hundreds of thousands of casualties on our side, and millions on theirs, were rational.
Second, the Japanese military had shown itself to be utterly barbaric, not just to P.O.W.s but to themselves in the form of suicidal tactics up to and including massacres of civilian populations. There was every reason to believe that they would not shrink from placing millions of their own civilians directly in harm's way.
Third, the atomic bomb was rationally (and, it turns out, correctly) seen as a game changer. It was a “shock and awe” device before the term was ever invented. This is saying a lot, given the depths to which everyone had sunk by 1945.
In retrospect, the decision looks even better than it did at the time, for two reasons. One is that, unbeknownst to the allies at the time, the Japanese had perfected the use of plague as a weapon. They killed a quarter-million Chinese peasants doing it, and had developed ceramic bombs containing plague-infected fleas, and large submarines that could hold airplanes capable of delivering the bombs. If the U.S. had mounted a conventional invasion, the Japanese probably would have had time to use the weapon against the West Coast.
Also, there is considerable evidence that Japan had a nuclear program of its own, and may well have exploded a nuclear device in what is now North Korea on Aug. 12, 1945. By then the central government had surrendered, but if there had been a conventional invasion the Japanese might have had the time to deliver a nuclear device in San Francisco.
Therefore, while the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil, I think they were necessary. There will likely be debate about that forever, but the reality is that all decisions are surrounded by some degree of uncertainty. We can never know for sure what “would have” happened. Still, when compared to other allied actions of World War II, such as the destruction of Dresden, I think the atomic bombings hold up pretty well.
It is understandable that many Japanese would be tempted to omit “historic context” when examining the bombings. Their horror was extreme. Historians don't get that luxury.
“Any commentary about the atomic bombing of Japan is useless without placing the events in their historic context.”
That would require actual thinking and reasoning among those who routinely bash nukes and the USA.
Great post, FrequentPoster.
Here's another poignant indication of what we were expecting in case the invasion of the Japanese mainland were to become unavoidable:
About half a million Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. Thankfully, they weren't needed. 60 years or so later, thankfully again, we are still nowhere near running out of them.
Everything you say is absolutely correct, FrequentPoster, and I would never attempt to take the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of context. I would also never label Truman a war criminal. I also believe that these two bombings were probably no more morally problematic than the firebombing of Japanese cities (or Dresden, for that matter): The death toll from firebombing was certainly greater and the destruction much more widespread and indiscriminate.
My ambivalent attitude about the atomic bombings springs, I think, from three sources. First is simply affinity: I know too many Japanese and have had too much exposure to Japanese media to consider the historical events from a purely objective standpoint; at this point, my life is bound up with that of family and friends there, and the mythology of the bombs is now part of my own story in a weird sort of way. (I don't consider this a virtue; I'm just trying to describe the lens through which I view this historical event.)
Second, something at the back of my mind nags at me: Would we have done the same to the Germans had we had the opportunity? I honestly have no idea; I consider myself only moderately well informed about WWII history (i.e., I can provide significant dates and identify major campaigns, but don't have a detailed knowledge of any single aspect of the war), and perhaps work has been done on this that I haven't read. But I wonder whether there wasn't a special animus, whether driven by Japanese atrocities in the Pacific and China, by Pearl Harbor, or by racism, that made the bombing palatable to Truman and others in the chain of command. If so, how does this weigh in the moral calculus?
Finally, and perhaps in some tension with the first two points, I think it's unquestionable that one effect of the bombs was to allow Japan to perceive itself as the victim after the war, retarding its ability to come to terms with its own horrific acts during the first half of the 20th century and, in many ways, stultifying the nation psychologically. Many of my friends express envy with Germany's apparent ability to address the atrocities of Nazism and become a responsible, “adult” member of the community of nations with decent relationships with its neighbors. And I tend to agree: It's hard to overstate the way the bombs permeate every discussion about war or national security or foreign policy – there's a veritable cult of the bomb that demands fealty from every commentator in the Japanese media, and the sheer mindlessness of what one might call “utopian victimhood” is stultifying. (This of course must be compared with (a) the potential loss of life if an invasion had been necessary and (b) a likely very different post-war era if the bombs had not been dropped. I don't profess to know how this nets out.)
There is nothing for the United States of American to apoligize for and I don't believe we play a holier than thou attitude. We have had our bad situations and have embarrased ourselves more than once, but every country has had it's moments. We need to shrug off these incidents and move on. I don't think our President, no matter who it is, should be bowing to any world leader. If our President needs to bow, then bow before God. A handshake is fine and almost every world leader extends their hand as a means of respect for each other. It is what it is.
I can't blame the Japanese for a failure to be “objective” about the atomic bombings. They were shocking then, and they haven't grown any less so. The fact that they were, in my view anyway, necessary, does not lessen their shock. The fact that they caused Japan to surrender unconditionally is testament to how shocking they were. Again, consider the context. Literally overnight, Japan went from being in the grip of a suicidal death cult to complete surrender. It's too much to demand “objectivity.”
I do think the Japanese should still go further to acknowledge, fully, their guilt for their actions in Southeast Asia. The Japanese military was arguably the most barbaric fighting force in many centuries, which is saying a lot given what Stalin and Hitler did. The acknowledgement at Hiroshima impressed me, but Japan should follow through by altering their history texts taught in schools. I agree with that criticism of them.
But still, regardless of their guilt, the Japanese were victims of the atomic bombs, which were evil. Necessary, yes. Evil, yes. Those bombings were uniquely horrific, just as the German holocaust of the Jews was uniquely horrific, albeit in a different way. It's not merely a matter of numbers of casualties. After all, in the early 1930s, the Soviets starved 6 million Ukrainians to death. What made the Nazi holocaust uniquely horrific was its industrial nature; what made the atomic bombings uniquely horrific was the sheer power of the instrument.
When I went to the Hiroshima museum, I couldn't help but be shocked by what I saw, in spite of having been well acquainted with the historical reality before my visit. The fact that the displays are now placed in historic context helped greatly, in my view. Yet, I don't think Japan is obligated to tell the world, “We deserved it.”
I think the museum at Hiroshima has struck exactly the right tone, by appealing for peace. Hard boiled realists will smirk at the naivete of it, but not me. If anyone ought to be able to simply plead for peace, I think the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ought to be able to do it.
Would the allies have nuked Germany? It's an impossible question, because it's devoid of historical context. It was a different situation. The allies had landed at Normandy, and Germany was being squeezed from two sides.
I have also visited the concentration camp at Dachau. I am of German descent, and I can tell you without exaggeration that I spent the afternoon walking around the ruins with my fists clenched in anger at Germany. It was a shocking place at so many levels. It was located in a residential community; you round a bend in a quiet suburb, and there you are. I credit the Germans with preserving it.
And Dachau was far from the worst of it. The place was a concentration camp, not a death camp. Those were mostly in Poland, and I have yet to visit Poland. I can say this much: When the tea parties who have captured the bulk of the Republican Party held up signs showing corpses at Dachau in their protest of Obama's health care package, I thought it was offensive. It trivialized what should never be trivialized, and I think it was craven and inexcusable for the Republicans not to loudly and universally condemn that little stunt.
I sound like I am forever shocked. I am not. But the details of the atomic bombings, and of Nazi atrocities, and of Stalin's, and of Mao's, and of Pol Pot's, and of the deliberate and premeditated use of torture by the American military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba on orders from the Bush administration, are shocking. Not simply because of the numbers involved — especially with the torture, which really didn't involve very many people — but because each of these things, in their historical context, represented descents into barbarity.
It shouldn't be a partisan issue to condemn barbarity, but unfortunately is often is. That's very, very unfortunate.
Nukes ought to be “bashed.” Nuclear weapons are evil. No one should ever do anything other than bash nuclear weapons.
The United States should apologize for its use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. It is a horrendous stain on our national honor. The Americans who ordered the use of torture are traitors to everything this country stands for. They are war criminals, and should be dealt with as the other war criminals were dealt with after WWII. This will never happen, but it should.
FrequentPoster, you wrote:”When the tea parties who have captured the bulk of the Republican Party held up signs showing corpses at Dachau in their protest of Obama's health care package, I thought it was offensive.”
The people who held up that execrable sign (singular) were LaRouche PAC miscreants, the same people who held up signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache with the caption “I'VE CHANGED” at various other tea party rallies. These deranged attention whores are mindless and rabid followers of Lyndon LaRouche, who ran for President as a U.S. Labor candidate once, and as a Democratic candidate seven times since the 70s.
From Wikipedia:
“2009: LaRouche on Obama
In 2009, during discussion of U.S. health care reform, LaRouche said he supported a single-payer health care policy, as opposed to the plan proposed by President Barack Obama. LaRouche compared Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the proposed health-insurance reform to Hitler's Action T4 euthanasia program.[147] He said Americans must “quickly and suddenly change the behavior of this president … for no lesser reason than that your sister might not end up in somebody's gas oven.”[148]“
And here's the link to the LaRouche PAC “Health Care” page:
http://www.larouchepac.com/health
I hope that you will now find it much easier to resist the temptation to paint the millions of your fellow Americans who have shown up at tea parties and town hall meetings to register their intense displeasure with and distrust of this administration's and Congress's current policies and future plans with the LaRouche brush. That, after all, would be as grossly unfair and insulting as my painting the millions of my fellow Americans who have been protesting against the Iraq War with the brush with which I (and, hopefully, you) would paint the chap who, at one of those rallies, defecated on the American flag. Or my painting all Democratic Presidential candidates since the 70s with the LaRouche brush would be. Or my painting all supporters of a single-payer health care plan with the LaRouche brush would be.
Fair enough?
If the LaRouche people were the ones with the Dachau banner (please post the link, by the way), that still doesn't account for the Republican Party's cowardly response. The practical reality on that front is that Republican leaders are scared to death of the teaparty yokels. And the yokels themselves are mere pawns. The driving force behind the teaparties is a rich, far-right winger from Oklahoma, David Koch, who has bankrolled “Americans for Prosperity.”
Your yokels are pure idiots. There aren't “millions” of them, and they are easily played for the fools that they are. You think it serves your interests. I wouldn't be so sure. Herds have a way of changing direction without notice.
Usually we are not so aware or even have the capacity to judge how
others perceive us. American narcissism has been on display for several
decades if not longer, but if you want to know don't ask us, ask the
other countries. They will tell you, if they are allowed to speak
freely. So that is a matter of fact. As for the rest it is a matter of
opinion. You choose to put yourself in the group that takes great
umbrage in the President's behavior. I do not. In fact, facts would
tell you that American presidents are pretty famous for making minor
faux pais (es). As you say, it is what is, something small, insignificant.
Oh, how easily the mask of civility comes off.
“Yokels” … “yokels” (so nice it's worth using twice, eh?) … “mere pawns” … “yokels” again (Ms. Kattenburg would be so proud) … “pure idiots” … “fools” … “herds”.
What was it that set you off, FrequentPoster? Could it possibly be your having to face the truth that it wasn't evil gun-totin' bible-clutchin' right-winger “yokels”, but the “true believer” supporters of many times Democratic candidate for President and advocate of single-payer health care Lyndon LaRouche who were behind the Dachau and ObamaHitler placards?
Or is it that there are two of you using the same nic? A civil, well reasoned FrequentPoster, the author of such posts as the one about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And another, the “In your face, you winger yokel!” FrequentPoster.
Can't help but wonder.
The teaparty crowd is indeed a bunch of frothing yokels, and they've pretty much taken over the Republican Party.
So, Kathy, are you planning on posting the CNN survey that shows that 2/3 of Americans are against this plan? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16…
[...] supports, who went down the insult people road when the plan was announced Friday morning, such as The Moderate Voice (snicker) and Alan Colmes, to post the [...]
richao:
About the Nixon bow mentioned in the Jake Tapper article?
I am having serious second thoughts about it. It actually looks like Nixon's “bow” is probably his leaning forward attentively to hear what the shorter Hirohito, whose “bow” looks more like a 70 year old man leaning forward to speak, is saying to to him.
The main reason why I'm beginning to question the Nixon “bow” is the following photo, taken when Nixon first met Hirohito in 50s:
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/U1239085INP….
And here's another photo from the 1971 meeting in Alaska, while I'm at it:
http://narademo.umiacs.umd.edu/cgi-bin/isadg/ge…
Thoughts?
And now, for a bit of jocularity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc
Is it a nod? Or a bow?
bogopogo, “And, again, if protocol – why did Obama not bow to the Queen of England?”
Because the Japanese bow to people in greetings and Westerners shake hands. That's the whole point of the controversy, people not understanding that the Japanese culture is different than American (and Western) culture.
I think it's great the Japanese are civil enough to acknowledge the fact that many Westerners don't bother to learn their culture and will accept a handshake in lieu of a bow. Too bad more Westerners don't show such graciousness.
So, according to you, it is all those OTHER heads of both Western and non-Western states who had met Emperor Akihito who got the protocol wrong? It is THEY who didn't bother to learn Japanese customs and consequently didn't manage to display the appropriate amount of graciousness?
And then, one day, Obama arrived and showed everyone, both Western and non-Western, the proper way to greet the Emperor of Japan, right?
JG,
I'm not sure what Nixon was doing in the photo from the 1971 meeting. It could be a bow; it could be leaning in to better hear the Emperor; it could be something else altogether.
At the risk of being labeled a right-wing-Fox-watching ideologue again by FP, I will say that, after thinking about it some more, I would phrase my initial position a little differently (and would have done so perhaps more temperately, had I not been infuriated by the original poster's slander of half the citizenry). Namely, I think that Obama's bow was either reprehensible (if intentional) or slightly buffoonish (if negligent) primarily because of its depth and because it would not be – and Obama knew or should have known that it would not be – reciprocated. I think that the WH protocol that presidents should not bow to foreign heads of state – particularly if royalty – is an important symbolism that should be preserved. But in cultures where a bow can just be a greeting and will be reciprocated with the same degree of bowing, it may not be inappropriate, any more than greeting a foreign leader from Continental Europe or the Middle East with a kiss on the cheek is inappropriate (even if he is the Saudi king).
In other words, where the bow is a symbol of obeisance or obsequiousness (and this is usually indicated by the failure of the other person to reciprocate; although I've not observed these greetings closely, I don't recall ever seeing, e.g., British royalty bowing/curtsying to our President or to their own subjects; in that context, bowing clearly implies that one occupies a lower social level), the president should not bow. Where the right kind of bow can be a mere greeting and will be reciprocated (and this may require advance arrangements by protocol officers) by a bow of equal depth, my tentative position now is that it should not be seen to signify anything but a greeting.
This does not change my opinion of Obama's bow or of the folks who pontificated, based on their uninformed “cosmopolitanism”, that this bow was culturally appropriate. It was not appropriate by any measure: In the taxonomy of Japanese bowing, it was a sign of deep apology or subservience and was thus inappropriate in the circumstances in Japanese terms; and in terms of WH precedent, it was a dramatic deviation from historic protocol
Thank you for your reply, richao.
I'm in full agreement with your concluding thoughts.
Which leaves the question: “Why Obama would do that?”
I don't think it was a slip up. He's a very self-controlled man, it seems to me. At least in public. I very much doubt we would ever see him giving Merkel a playful shoulder rub, for instance.
Neither do I really think it was a Office of Protocol bungle. I suspect they've been in “belt and suspenders” mode ever since the “reset” button kerfuffle.
So, then, why? Why would Obama go for a move like that?
Apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nope. Underlining to the Chinese that it's Japan with whom the U.S. has a REALLY special relationship? Nope. Neither these, nor any other explanations and theories I've heard or read have struck me as satisfactory.
And then, a couple of days ago, during a conversation with some relatives, one of them proposed the following:
The last time there was a big kerfuffle about a bow was when Obama bowed (just about identically in terms of depth, it bears mentioning) to the Saudi King, a Muslim monarch. Obama bowed to Akihito, a non-Muslim monarch, as a way of saying “See? It's not about any kind of latent Muslim/Islam sympathies.”
Now THAT one I can just about accept as the real reason behind Obama's latest bow.
Thoughts?
I'd like to know the story behind Obama's bow, which after all of the huffing and puffing I think was inappropriate but not a mortal sin. I have no doubt that there is a story, and that we won't hear it in its entirety until after he's out of office.
JG, that thought actually crossed my mind, and it's possible that some on the right might have attacked him for bowing to the odious Saudi monarch and not the rather harmless Japanese monarch. But I'm not sure many folks would even have recalled that had there been no bow at all; I don't recall hearing any such carping after his meeting with – and presumably non-bowing to – the queen of England. So that explanation doesn't entirely satisfy.
I'm more inclined to believe that either Obama believed that a deep bow was consistent with the new, improved “humble” foreign policy that he's trying to project or that he just – as so many non-Japanese do – confused the many instructions he had received on proper etiquette. My Obama-supporting friends and I disagree about the appropriateness of Obama's approach to foreign policy, but in my view, the former interpretation does in fact fit with much of his rhetoric abroad. Unfortunately, if this was his motivation, I don't think he thought through things very carefully: The deviation from historical practice was bound to attract more intention than the gesture warranted; the Emperor was obviously not prepared for the bow; the Japanese media appears to have been embarrassed by it; and the Japan-US relationship presents a number of thorny issues, compromise on which would have been a far better expression of a less “arrogant” foreign policy. It's as if he wanted to replace the Bush swagger with something less in-your-face and decided that it would be appropriate to go barefoot, thinking it an unremarkable sign of humility. Just off-key in so many ways.
I generally consider the Bushes to be America's most elegant white trash family. The grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer. The father was a well-mannered dolt. The son a ne'er-do-well frat boy who will go down as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. And I haven't even started on Barbara. Kitty Kelly got it right about that twisted clan.
But Bush Sr. did one thing right. Probably only one thing, but it was one thing. He took a trip to Japan to attend a funeral of some sort, and the Japanese assigned him a seat in the second row of the room where it was held. Bush Sr. had none of it. He summarily ignored the seating chart and sat in the front row. The incident got no attention whatsoever; I learned about it from an insider who was there.
I am in favor of Obama's efforts to extend olive branches around the world. It is the right thing to do after the many disasters of the prior eight years of insolent frat-boyism. But I think that his deep bow to the emperor was a mistake — one that I will note was corrected on the second go-'round. No one outside of the bubble knows why he did it. The speculation tells much more about the speculators than about the thing being speculated upon.
It'll be a great story whenever it's told.
StockBoySF – so you're telling me people don't bow to the Queen of England? Seriously?
And do Saudi's bow to each other as a greeting?
And – acting like Obama meeting the Japanese Emperor is no different than any American meeting any Japanese is just silly.
Furthering Obama's embarrassment is the fact that the emperor came out with his hand extended for a hand shake – so clearly he was expecting a handshake and not a bow.
Then it was compounded when he didn't return Obama's bow.
And I'd be willing to bet that being emperor for 21 years, the Japanese emperor has a pretty good grasp on protocol.