Yesterday, once again, I got an email from a person who ran from Tokyo during the early days of the nuclear accident. Those were the days of sketchy information yet all the experts were saying that Tokyo was not in danger as opposed to the sensationalist newspapers who spoke of nuclear explosions and other physically impossible nonsense. Those were also the days that the Japanese government, in accordance with IAEA guidelines, set a 30 kilometer exclusion zone. Meanwhile, the USA government panicked and set the evacuation for 80 kilometers to much criticism from Japan and US citizens alike. (The US later apologized and admitted that the 80 kilometer exclusion zone was way over done.)
THE CLASH - ENGLISH CIVIL WAR
Still, even with that 80 kilometer zone, Tokyo is another 150 kilometers outside of that... Yet people panicked and ran. The US embassy even evacuated people from Nagoya which is 680 kilometers (about 400 miles from Fukushima). I wrote about how that contributed to the panic in US Embassy Japan + Nuclear Accident = Scandal whereby I also quoted a US Embassy insider who wrote:
"How some of the panic started despite the evidence. The US Ambassador to Japan chaired a Town Hall meeting on the 15th of March. It was poorly executed with little real information and uncomfortable disclosures such as weak contingency plans for evacuation (eg travel vouchers were indicated in the initial plan) and poor planning (eg they admitted a shortage of Potassium Iodate pills). People on The Compound (US embassy grounds) were nervous for good reason.
"The second Town Hall meeting on the 16th of March was much more successful. The Ambassador was able to confidently indicate there was no real danger for Tokyo residents even in a worst case scenario and this was backed with the qualified opinion of over 30 US nuclear disaster experts who had flown to Japan. Also, they announced installation of the Compound's own radiation monitor which indicated levels were within very acceptable limits.
"However it did not help that during this time, the Political Minister Counselor Robert S. Luke made quiet arrangements for his family to be evacuated. Of course this leaked. His wife even posted it on her blog. Duh! Therefore many families felt that if the Lukes were evacuating, something must be up. And pressure on the Ambassador's office increased accordingly. Hence, I believe, they caved with a voluntary evacuation plan for Embassy staff and dependents. And, since the Ambassador indicated a consistent policy for American citizens, this new offer.. needed to be extended to US civilians and military dependents...at cost (Embassy dependents fly free). What's even more ridiculous was that the offer of voluntary evacuation was extended to employees at the US Consulate in Nagoya. Next on the list: Seoul, HK, Taipei, Canberra?
But I digress. The reader who wrote to me yesterday claims that:
"I didn't panic. I didn't run. I made a logical decision. Now that the Fukushima reactor disaster has ben (sic) raised to a level seven, this only proves that I was right in fleeing Tokyo when I did. I didn't come back until things calmed down and now, to be attacked for making a calm, logical decision by people like you is outrageous."
Can you see the ridiculous fallacy in his logic? I ask; "If Fukushima being raised to a level seven proves that you were right in guessing that you should leave, then, when you now have factual information in your hands, why are you still here in Tokyo? Using your very own reasoning you should be on the first plane out.
Now that would be consistent, logical action.
Now that would be consistent, logical action.
But no. I should expect consistent logical action from people who panic. A state of panic is not conducive to consistent, logical thinking or actions. Now excuses and apologists are everywhere.
My biggest issue, once again, is a moral one for those who ran away. That is: What kind of person panics and runs away and leaves their homes, friends, co-workers and those people's families and children holding the bag? That is the big issue here. It is a question f morality.
Another reader, Scott M, contributes to the conversation:
You have an interest in the whole flyjin phenom and the deeper motivations that cause people to stay or run etc. In that general vein, I thought you might be interested in the quote below, from an article about Swedish novelist and adventurer Henning Mankell, who spent years living in the middle of a long, bloody civil war in Mozambique. Here's a paragraph from the article (Entertainment Weekly magazine, April 2011):
"Eventually, Mankell's thirst for experience brought him to Africa. He was so taken by the trip that he kept going back, and for the past 25 years he's spent half his time in Maputo, Mozambique, helping run the Teatro Avenida, a theater that puts on plays like Ibsen's 'The Doll House' for locals who often can't read or write. Mankell was in Maputo during the country's horrific civil war, which raged from 1977 to 1992. "It was terrifying," he says. "I can't talk about it, it was so bad. There was a lack of food, a lack of everything. Every day there were new attacks. People were dying, cut to pieces. Everyone in Maputo had at least one relative who had been killed. But my friends, the people at the theater; they couldn't run away. I really felt, what kind of a person am I if I leave?"
I do understand that you would hardly want to compare JAPAN to AFRICAN civil war situation, especially since the focus of your blog is to reassure people that things are pretty much fine. But still, I thought it was an interesting commentary on your parallel side topic, the flyjin. Use or not as you wish.
Thanks Scott. That's it in a nutshell in my opinion. You don't run out on people in their time of need.
It doesn't matter if it is the BP oil disaster, Hurricane Katrina, an earthquake, a tsunami or Fukushima... It takes a special kind of person with a special kind of shame who can run out before it is seen to it that women and children are safe....
Call me old fashioned. I don't care. I think it really takes a special kind of person to run away when they are hundreds of miles from the disaster area. The word for that is nothing less than "shameless coward".
NOTE: Scott C. Also mentions that his son is a musician and asks that I put up his son's latest video. Of course I will. I am always happy to see a young person - especially in this day and age - who has a song in their heart and something they want to say... Compare that with 99% of the others who are happy with just a part time McJob. Nice video. Check it out:
Colin Meredith - Understand
25 comments:
"What kind of person panics and runs away and leaves their homes, friends, co-workers and those people's families and children holding the bag?"
The typical brainwashed indoctrinated American, that's who. Not all, just the typical ones.
"It takes a special kind of person with a special kind of shame who can run out before it is seen to it that women and children are safe...."
Yes, the same ones who see nothing wrong with using a tazer on a child, or beating an 80 yr old, or pepper spraying a baby squirrel.
http://karendecoster.com/to-protect-from-dangerous-baby-squirrels-and-serve.html
It seems to me it's the new American way. Has half of the world has gone insane?
"When you're part of a team, you stand up for your teammates. Your loyalty is to them. You protect them through good and bad, because they'd do the same for you."
-Yogi Berra
In 2002 A magazine ran a “Dilbert quotes” contest. They were looking for people to submit quotes from their real life ‘Dilbert-Type’ managers.
Here is one that very appropriately describes virtually ALL of what passes for management in American corporations today:
“Quote from the Boss: ‘Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say.’” (Marketing executive, Citrix Corporation)
Managers (aka: MBA’s – Moronic Banal Arrogates) every one.
Not a leader among them…
Poots
"It takes a special kind of person with a special kind of shame who can run out before it is seen to it that women and children are safe...."
Long gone are the days of "Women and children first."
I'm not sure, but the way I'm beginning to understand the issue with the People who left, the problem was how they left, and not that they left.
I came across the following,... another example of failure of leaders. Some similarities, I can't put it into words at the moment, but you might find it interesting?
Lessons from fury
"...“official” maps of the danger zones around Mt. St. Helens were so misleading that they probably got people killed..."
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2011/03/29/lessons-from-fury/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LivingFreedom+%28Living+Freedom%29
Even now, if it were convenient and easy, I'd leave.
I live in Nagoya, which is 500 km from the plant not 680 km.
My loyalty is to my four year old and my nine year old.
Period.
You simply don't know what the effect of low level radiation will be in Tokyo or elsewhere in Japan. You don't know what the effect on the food chain will be.
TEPCO would never ever have been able to operate a nuclear plant on the free market. The research here is lacking on both safety and the effect of low level radiation. It's like a bunch of bureaucrats carrying out a large scale experiment on society via their corporate crony friends at TEPCO.
All of us living here are guinea pigs, rats in a maze. People should be disgusted with the situation.
I understand 30,000++ people have died. I understand hundreds of thousands of people are in trouble without homes. Basically refugees. If I can do something to help them, I want to.
But my first responsibility is to my children. I really wish I could leave Japan **right now**. I don't like my children being guinea pigs. But unfortunately, it's just not practical. Moving would be too hard on them as they are really at home here. Plus moving isn't easy. Everybody's got to deal with different issues, and each individual has to weigh costs and benefits.
I **guess** things are relatively safe.
But moving is something I'll keep in mind for the future. I don't have any special allegiance to one *state* over another. If somebody doesn't like the situation with the nuclear plant and has left or will leave in the future or left and came back, that's fine. They are not *traitors*.
If they abandoned obligations here, then that's a separate issue that has to be dealt with separately. If a person merely removed their spouse and children from possible danger, how could they be faulted. I wish I could have done that, and I live all the way in Nagoya.
My guess, which isn't much better than anyone else's, is that if we take out our slide rulers, for the most part things are okay. The vast majority will not be effected. But say 1 in 10,000 get cancer later in life, especially those in prefectures nearest to the plant? That's a number a bureaucrat could probably live with -- but on an individual level it's a catastrophe for each individual who is hit.
Have you seen reliable studies on the effects of low level radiation that you trust? Please share them with me, so I can take a look at them.
Finally, to answer your question, what kind of person are you if you leave? Probably just a normal one, an individual making an individual decision that should be judged individually and not collectively.
Thanks Matt,
Please read this: http://modernmarketingjapan.blogspot.com/2011/04/for-every-one-death-due-to-nuclear.html
I don't understand why you think that you cannot leave. Is work more important than your children?
Matt, change your panties for dry ones, and then just leave. Please.
What's that? Oh, you'll only take active steps to save your children, your precious flesh and blood, from the horrible danger if it is "convenient and easy"? Wow, what a proud specimen of concerned parenthood.
Seriously. If you are so irrationally afraid for your kids, then just leave and spare us all the tortured dramatics. And the whiny platitudes about 'wanting' to help the refugees (with the implication that you have not actually 'done' anything to help other than drop a few coins into a donation box at a convenience store).
Just leave, and let the rest of us who live a hell of a lot closer to ground zero than you, do the heavy lifting on this one.
The name of your blog - anarchyjapan - tells us just how you feel about your adopted country where your kids are 'really at home'. And don't worry, you can keep spouting the hate and fear from a 'safe' overseas location.
So again, just leave. Please.
"I don't understand why you think that you cannot leave. Is work more important than your children?"
If you are trying to suggest I'd do other than that which is my children's best interest, then your just being a jerk and not seriously engaging in conversation.
You don't seem to understand that each *individual* has to weigh many separate risks. Moving presents risks to my children. I have to weigh those risks against risks of not moving.
Obviously, the accident in Fukushima increases the risks of staying. Does that mean that now the risks of staying outweigh the risks of going? I don't know. I'm trying to study this as best I can.
On the one hand you seem to want to deny Fukushima presents any risk at all, but now you take me to task as if it represents an immediate danger. That doesn't make any sense.
I once had to have one of my children receive a CAT scan. I was really unhappy about this. He was five at the time. I don't think this was good for him, however the risk of not getting the CAT scan outweighed the risks of getting it. So I let the doctor proceed.
As opposed to seeing staying or going as an *individual* choice based on each person's own unique and probably fallible viewpoint, you seem to see it as a betrayal. You're suggesting you *know* that many people should have stayed, and they were wrong to go. Yet, how can you decide that for them?
The post you point to is not a study, but a series of claims that aren't given in a very organized manner, and it's not entirely clear to me what studies are being cited or where the individual numbers come from.
I am studying this issue and will eventually post some stuff on my blog.
Do you support state subsidies for nuclear power? Do you support limiting liability to the owners of nuclear power plants?
Nuclear power in its present form would not exist without either of these.
As a mother of two boys - and a former professional child therapist - I must say that I think Matt's comments are baffling indeed. What parent makes decisions on what's best for their child's welfare based on the child's desires? (a 4 & 8 year old, no less). What kind of parent risks their child's health because of a job? We live in Azabu and if my husband and I thought for a second that it were dangerous, he'd quit his job - he is a VP - and our family would be out of here. Any parent who wouldn't do so - or wouldn't leave because "Moving would be too hard on them as they are really at home here" while claiming that their loyalty is to their kids is simply guilty of parental negligence... I might understand this if a Japanese national said this, but a foreigner?
- Linda
Matt, Thanks. I write for the world's most popular Anti-state, anti-war and pro-free market website in the world; Lew Rockwell.com. I hope my credentials when speaking about the free market are pretty solid.
1) I think you are not thinking rationally and are panicking.
2) You say that there would be nuclear power in a free market? Total nonsense. We'd have it and it would be completely safe by now ( Fukushima reactor is 40 yrs old) had it not been for government meddling.
3) The worst thing that could ever happen to Japan is losing cheap clean energy and relying on coal or gas for power (check the stats for pollution deaths in China for proof of that).
4) I have a daughter who had rhabdomysarcoma cancer when she was 1.5 years old. She was given 2 months to live. She is now 17 years old. I moved the world to save her life. She is wheelchair bound... But I still call her "perfect."
5) I have 4 children ages 7 ~ 26. If I thought it were dangerous, I'd leave.
6) Your blog is Anarchy Japan but you obviously do not understand what Anarchy really means. Read this for a primer: What Is Anarchy? by Butler Shaffer ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html )
I am a true anarchist. I am anti-tax, anti-war, pro-business, pro-freedom of choice. That means freedom of choice for everyone.
8) Freedom of choice carries responsibility with it.
9) I think you need to reread the articles I've written on this subject with a clear, calm attitude, I never criticize people for leaving. I criticize HOW some of them left.... Many left in the most irresponsible way. Like I said, freedom carries responsibility (see #7 & #8 above)
10) I always link to data on my posts. Please click on the links. If you don't click on them, then I can't help you with information verification.
People can leave when,why and how they want-period. Take a look at yourself. Responsibility is not an excuse to put your ideas on others.
244,000 foreigners leave Japan in week after quake+
I agree with Mike: it's not whether people left or not, it's how they left. And what is more interesting is why they left: the way they made the decision. There seem to be very different values at play here. Broadly speaking, the Japanese usually consult others before acting or speaking because they are very concerned (some might say obsessed) with what other people think and are trained from a young age to give a lot of weight to how their words and actions might affect others. Westerners (again, speaking very broadly) tend to consult less ("why should I consult my neighbours or colleagues? Are they nuclear experts?") - the comments here express that pretty clearly. They put their family first; their safety and that of their family is their individual responsibility. It is irresponsible (in this view) to trust the authorities at such a time.
Both value-systems clearly have their strong and weak points. And gulf between them is vast!
"Responsibility is not an excuse to put your ideas on others." What a lame-assed stupid, idiotic comment. Aren't you ashamed of writing such stupid crap? So what is responsibility? According to Merriam Webster: "Responsibility: moral, legal, or mental accountability to others"
Your cravenly idiotic thinking is selfish and self-centered to to the core.
The comment above just shows how lame and disgusting immature some people are. Oh, yeah... And if your spouse or boss just runs out on you leaving you to hold the bag, you wouldn't be upset. Sure, sure. Get into reality and quit making excuses for your cravenly behavior. Most people learn that their actions have consequences by the time they are ten-years-old... You seem like you still think mommy and daddy will take care of your screw ups. Well, mommy and daddy are not here to cover for your ass anymore.
@mikeintokyorogers
This is the first time I visited your blog. I can't say how deeply horrified I am at your responses.
Trust in Government propaganda and all will be fine:) "Duck and cover". The decision to stay or go depends on many factors. Being aware of potential dangers in your environment is key. This is the case whether you live in an earthquake and tsunami prone area or live in the Bronx. Having a coordinated plan for family evacuation is also key. Usually, the prudent and the panicky leave first. The remainders suffer from"Normalcy Bias" and denial.
The complacency of people before and uncertainty immediately after the Nuclear accident led many people to panic. The people who lived near the reactors should have evacuated. Those in Toyko should not. To call some one a cowardly based on your own sense of idealism is in itself cowardly. How dare you as a "Pro freedom of choice for everyone" then proceed to past judgement on others. Questioning "How", really? Listing your credentials while passing judgement shows a rather conceited nature. Maybe some self reflection and a slice of humble pie is due after you step down from your Ivory Tower.
"Freedom of choice carries responsibility with it."
"I criticize HOW some of them left.... Many left in the most irresponsible way. Like I said, freedom carries responsibility"
I average person today, at least in the USA, does not understand personal responsibility.
They do not understand that "freedom: does *not* mean that you can do what you want when you want to do it. Nor does it mean that you do not need to take responsibility for your actions. We are living in sad times.
M.
@anonymous..."The people who lived near the reactors should have evacuated. Those in Toyko should not."
Then you go on to criticize Mike for writing exactly what you say. I read this blog everyday and Mike has never once criticized evacuation of those in the affected regions. Learn to read basic thirtd grade level please. The criticism goes to those living hundreds of miles away from the problem zone who panicked and left their coworkers and neighbors behind.
I've been trying to get back to respond to comments. Right now I can only respond to Linda's comments:
As a mother of two boys - and a former professional child therapist - I must say that I think Matt's comments are baffling indeed. What parent makes decisions on what's best for their child's welfare based on the child's desires? (a 4 & 8 year old, no less).
I don't think the future is something we can know with certainty. I don't think theories on radiation, health, weather, earthquakes or any of this is something we can know with certainty. Say, you take your child to a new park. There's a really elaborate playground. You see a part that causes you a little concern ... is it safe? You child really wants to play there. So you make a decision. That's life.
Is the degree of radiation in Japan and in it's food supply dangerous? I don't think it's immanently dangerous. Is it a health concern? It certainly might be. There is a lot of conflicting information. I'm trying to go through it as best I can. This is taking time.
What kind of parent risks their child's health because of a job? We live in Azabu ...
There are health risks associated with living in Japan. For example earthquakes, pollutants in the air from China -- in Tokyo there is a considerable amount of car exhaust. Children die every year walking to school in Japan via car accidents. These are all risks. Should you be afraid and constantly worried? I don't think so -- risk is a part of life and we all have to deal with it. There are now at minimum trace amounts of iodine-131 and cesium-137 in Tokyo. Some will tell you everything is perfectly fine. Some will even argue this is good for you. Some will argue it's serious health risk. I'm trying now to sort through these opinions. I have obtained some books on it. Have you? Are you actively trying to learn about this?
You seem to see this as a 0 or 1. Either safe or dangerous. Either go or stay. I see it as a situation where the risk has increased, how much? That's something I have to study.
When the situation first happened, I had no idea what was going on. Just because a government spokesperson assures me I'm okay, I don't necessarily feel secure. What if they were just trying to avoid a panic and the situation were a lot worse? Again, more risk to deal with.
Given the uncertainty should people have left? Well, each person has no choice but to weigh a lot of different factors. Each possible choice carries its own separate risks. I certainly don't fault people for leaving. I agree with Mike that depending on how they left there might be a problem there -- but that really depends on each individual case. The last thing in the world I want to do is impose pressure on people making a difficult decision by calling them names like *flyjin* and stuff like that. To me that strikes me as overbearing.
I guess if someone wants to insist the situation is safe and then impose that judgement on others, they can do this, but I don't favor such an attitude. I don't think things are so certain.
-- Continued in next comment ...
and if my husband and I thought for a second that it were dangerous, he'd quit his job - he is a VP - and our family would be out of here.
Your husband doesn't know that Fukushima Daiichi won't be at the epicenter of a quake tomorrow with the whole plant sliding into the ocean. Nobody knows this. What are the chances? Probably pretty small. More risks to weigh. Let each individual make up their own decision as they see fit.
Any parent who wouldn't do so - or wouldn't leave because "Moving would be too hard on them as they are really at home here" while claiming that their loyalty is to their kids is simply guilty of parental negligence... I might understand this if a Japanese national said this, but a foreigner?
These comments don't appear to me to be sensible. Obviously a child's happiness is a factor to consider. Risks exist everywhere and whatever we do. When making a decisions we don't just assess *only* our child's physical bodily health, but their overall happiness.
The fact we have personal connections here would also weigh on our decision. Both my children are Japanese. How would my older son feel if he were to runout on his friends, his cousins, his grandparents ... all the people who have given meaning to his life? That's not decision to make lightly -- for us. But I refuse to judge others on how they respond to the current situation however it evolves.
There was a first part to my comment that must have not gone through, it read as follows ...
Responding to Linda's comments:
As a mother of two boys - and a former professional child therapist - I must say that I think Matt's comments are baffling indeed. What parent makes decisions on what's best for their child's welfare based on the child's desires? (a 4 & 8 year old, no less).
I don't think the future is something we can know with certainty. I don't think theories on radiation, health, weather, earthquakes or any of this is something we can know with certainty. Say, you take your child to a new park. There's a really elaborate playground. You see a part that causes you a little concern ... is it safe? You child really wants to play there. So you make a decision. That's life.
Is the degree of radiation in Japan and in it's food supply dangerous? I don't think it's immanently dangerous. Is it a health concern? It certainly might be. There is a lot of conflicting information. I'm trying to go through it as best I can. This is taking time.
What kind of parent risks their child's health because of a job? We live in Azabu ...
There are health risks associated with living in Japan. For example earthquakes, pollutants in the air from China -- in Tokyo there is a considerable amount of car exhaust. Children die every year walking to school in Japan via car accidents. These are all risks. Should you be afraid and constantly worried? I don't think so -- risk is a part of life and we all have to deal with it. There are now at minimum trace amounts of iodine-131 and cesium-137 in Tokyo. Some will tell you everything is perfectly fine. Some will even argue this is good for you. Some will argue it's serious health risk. I'm trying now to sort through these opinions. I have obtained some books on it. Have you? Are you actively trying to learn about this?
You seem to see this as a 0 or 1. Either safe or dangerous. Either go or stay. I see it as a situation where the risk has increased, how much? That's something I have to study.
When the situation first happened, I had no idea what was going on. Just because a government spokesperson assures me I'm okay, I don't necessarily feel secure. What if they were just trying to avoid a panic and the situation were a lot worse? Again, more risk to deal with.
Given the uncertainty should people have left? Well, each person has no choice but to weigh a lot of different factors. Each possible choice carries its own separate risks. I certainly don't fault people for leaving. I agree with Mike that depending on how they left there might be a problem there -- but that really depends on each individual case. The last thing in the world I want to do is impose pressure on people making a difficult decision by calling them names like *flyjin* and stuff like that. To me that strikes me as overbearing.
I guess if someone wants to insist the situation is safe and then impose that judgement on others, they can do this, but I don't favor such an attitude. I don't think things are so certain.
-- Continued in next comment ...
@anonymous
"Learn to read basic thirtd grade level please".
Learn to spell at a THIRD grade level please. Even with spell check you blow it. Really?
If you actually read what I said you would not make such a comment. I criticized Mike's high horse attitude. People left for many reasons. People stayed for many reasons. Some out of caution and some out of fear. To lump everyone as "Flyjin" is very intellectually dishonest. There were many "Nihonjin" bailing out as well. Prior to and immediately after the disaster how many people do you think knew what the "Safe" zone was? 100km? 500km? 1000km? What about the after effects? Would you willing to put your family at risk based on information from the Ministry of Truth? Did some people wrongly panic? Sure. Look at the panicked reactions out of Europe. So are all panic prone individuals cowards and irresponsible?
Most of the foreigners who work in Japan do so primarily for money. Their loyalties are to their families back home that they are financially supporting. Do you think an Indian man would willingly move to Japan to live in a closet sized apartment, get paid less than a Japanese national, learn a completely different language, treated as an outsider, and pay $40+ for a melon just for the love of Japan culture? Grow up. Are there backstabbing, double speaking, cowards looking for resume embellishment among the foreigners? Sure, just as it is for the locals.
Japan seems to be not very accepting of foreign nationals ( This has been changing for the better, albeit snail paced slow ). Just look at the Koreans in Japan. Caste system still remains prevalent. Dynastic corruption is ingrained. Japan has not yet apologized for all its raping and pillaging during WW2. Japan is also sitting on a demographic time bomb of its own making. Debt/GDP is over 200%. The multi-layers of bureaucracy and middlemen drive up end user costs. Foreign and domestic corporations contract out the work to "Foreigners" to boost their bottom lines. The "Blame the Evil Foreigners" song is only for the retarded and dimwitted lemmings. The cure to the slow cancer in Japan as well as most Western nations has always been internal.
Western moral decay has infected the world. XBoxes and GMO food for all. The idolatry of "American Idol" is also quiet sad. What's up with Japanese fascination for S&M and Bondage films? Also, worshipping Godzilla is probably not a good idea. So, get off the ol' nag Oh Enlightened One.
Since Mike runs his own marketing company he should be well aware of the uses of propaganda, catchy headers "Flyjin", the dimness of man, and the selling of fear for gain.
I believe everyone should do their homework and think for themselves. I may not agree with their actions, but its not my life. I am accountable to myself and those I care about.
I suspect Mike's venting at foreigners is a struggle with his own acceptance into Japanese society as a mixed raced individual. Yeah, true sucks.
@anonymous comments are so scatological that I don't know where to to begin.... Once again, for the 1000th time... People who live in Tokyo (230 km. from the evacuation zone) - who panicked and fled and shirked their responsibilities to their coworkers, friends, and neighbors (and those people's children) - even with the local government saying "30 km" as according to IAEA rules (even the USA government only evacuated 80 - and later said it was too far and an overreaction) are Flyjin.
People in the disaster zone or people who sent their families away due to concerns are not. It's simple.
What's so hard to understand? Foreigner living in Nagoya - about 600 kilometers away from Fukushima panicked and fled... Sorry, but they too are Flyjin. It is a generalization but pretty easy to spot those who fits the bill.
This is not a question of mass generalizations.
PS: Anon wrote: "I am accountable to myself and those I care about."
Perhaps. But your order of writing is wrong. You are accountable to those you care about first. You are second. Some would put God first.
That is an important distinction.
"What Kind of Person Are You if You Leave?"
A liberal who believes that guns should be banned along with TV and video games because they are turning people into murderers.
@Mike
"@anonymous comments are so scatological that I don't know where to begin"
Personal attacks and name calling. Playground mentality, really? Did you read what I wrote? Impartial and reasoned readers please though this blog and draw your own conclusions. If an individual perceives that a dangerous situation exists should they not alert their family and friends to that fact and have a plan of action to follow? Whether the danger is real or not is another story. Many people, both locals and foreigners, perceived a danger and acted accordingly. Some acted out of reason, but most acted out of fear and panicked. Some only thought of themselves and ran. Were these people cowardly and irresponsible? Other people close to the reactors in denial stayed. Are these people responsible heroes or are they idiots? Why don't you question their actions? It is not your Imperial role to play Captain of the vessel and praise or denigrate peoples actions during this disaster. There has been and always shall be stupid people on this floating rock. Its easy to armchair quarterback after the fact. I was not there and can not know what their state of mind was. What's so hard to understand.
"Flyjin"
If you would care to include locals and foreigners into this category then I would agree. Blame the foreigner only song is intellectually dishonest. Many of the foreigners are the primary bread winners to their families back home. This is where their loyalties and responsibilities lie. If these people are incapacitated their families will suffer greatly. In fact, your focus should be on the locals with family and work ties who ran. Perspective.
"You are accountable to those you care about first"
You are imposing your priorities on others. I have not. My list may differ from yours, but that does not make them wrong. One can not be accountable and responsible to others if they are not accountable and responsible for their own actions first. That is the distinction.
Post a Comment