advanced search

Most Recently Commented

I’d like to bring up the following statement:

“Meanwhile, the United States has criticized the memorial for not adequately addressing the wider context of Japan’s military action during the war (particularly in China) and the prospect of continued land war that, in their view, necessitated atomic force.” 

The fact that Hiroshima is barely mentioned in WWII curriculum in the public school system of the United States is appalling. While monuments may preserve memory for those in Hiroshima, how can criticism be accepted from a country that refuses to acknowledge the actual events of Hiroshima?

Yes, multiple narratives are important, but I believe that is what education is for. Memorials, to me, are meant to resonate for people affected by an event, person, or institution. They are not built to provide the multiple layers of opinion. Hiroshima is a special case, but I believe that it reflects the beauty of time and evolving opinion and acceptance. I do not believe that the memorials are expected to present an entire background to the situation. If that were the case, I would expect every monument/museum in the United States to have a detailed explanation of how the US was involved (including the internal displacement of natives and the institution of slavery). Naturally, that will not happen.

Until the US decides to revamp its curriculum and tell the entire story of Hiroshima, it has no place to express criticism to a country’s coping mechanism.

How can we prevent the institutionalization of a narrative or exclusion of peoples? We can’t. We can’t tell people how to cope with situations. We can, however, open the floor to freedom of expression. The case of Hiroshima is a beautiful example of the way in which a nation’s views began to shift, allowing for freedom of expression of a larger demographic. We, as human beings, can not expect these shifts to happen overnight. We can be open to them occurring.

– jshaff
on “Discussion of Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park”

---