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.

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.

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'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'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

And then, one day, Obama arrived and showed everyone, both Western and non-Western, the proper way to greet the Emperor of Japan, right?

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc

Is it a nod? Or a bow?

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?

“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.

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.

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?

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.