I can understand why a nation would not like to think about the horrors of recent war (and the events surrounding it), whether they see themselves as aggressors or as survivors. I’ve met many people who feel uneasy talking about difficult things in their lives, and who want to get on with a more pleasant life, forgetting the pain of the past. Meanwhile, they forget their children have no real knowledge of what happened, and won’t know unless it is talked about. Studies have shown that people deal with disaster in a more healthy manner when they talk about it . . . it helps them integrate it into their lives, to understand what it means (and doesn’t mean), and how to go on from there.

Regrettably, I have to admit his comment that “Japanese today do not seem to have an overall understanding of their own contemporary history.”
I almost did not learn contemporary history at school, in retrospect. Until visiting the Pearl Harbor, the USS Arizona Memorial in l990, when I was 35 years old, I had not known Japan’s contemporary history so well. I’m afraid I did not know well what was the Pacific war, and why so many people had to die with war.
I quote “preface” from “Contemporary Japanese History: since 1945” as follows.

“This volume is intended for the general reader to give an overview of the flow of Japanese history since 1945. It is motivated by a feeling, evolved over more than three decades of teaching university students and discussing recent history with friends and colleagues, that Japanese today do not seem to have an overall understanding of their own contemporary history. While high school students and university examinees may be well versed in the events, people and dates of, say, the Kamakura period, they seem to have little knowledge of the period in which they live and in which their own parents lived. Perhaps this lack is inevitable given the subjects of university entrance exams, but it is distressing when one considers that unless a person is particularly interested in our own times, he or she may never read about it after high school. It is hoped that this volume will help to fill the gap for those who want to know more about their own recent history.

It is commonly held that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are destined to repeat them. An even more important reason for learning history is to more adequately understand the present. History is not static but dynamic and if we are to gain perspective on where we are and where we seem to be going, we need some grasp of where we are in the flow of time.

We can do this only if we realize that events do not just “happen” in a historical vacuum. They occur because someone made choices and acted upon them. It is important for us to try to grasp why those people did what they did, if we are to understand why we do what we do.

It is my fundamental stance here that there is no single “correct” view of history. As Kurosawa Akira’s 1950 film Rashomon suggests, virtually all “fact” are “relative.” To cling to a conservative, revisionist, liberal, masochistic or idealistic view of history is to over-simplify.

In the same vein, to pull together all the “loose ends” of history in some neat chain of events is to ignore the general chaos in which events take place and focus on only those things that fit neatly in one’s perspective. Instead, I contend that there are multiple views of history and that we do better service to the reader by showing different views and refraining from attempting to tie the “loose ends” together. Conscious effort has been made to place contemporary Japanese history in the international context, especially describing foreign views which differ from Japanese views and showing how the Japanese situation compares with similar situations abroad.
…………….
Perhaps the most symbolic of all the immediate postwar films was Kurosawa Akira’s Rashomon, 1950, because with its multiple perspectives it showed that there is little that one can depend on as factual. Virtually everything depends upon one’s point of view.”

In addition, I quote “War Responsibility” from the same book.
“There is a particular difference in points of view between Japan and the rest of the world regarding Japan’s role in the 15-year period from 1931 to 1945. The rest of the world –especially the nations of East Asia and Southeast Asia-has generally viewed Japan as the “aggressor” in the conflicts. Many Chinese, Koreans and Southeast Asians have felt that Japan never adequately expressed remorse for its actions in their countries. This charge is repeated in connection with a number of issues. ———
In contrast to the outside world’s view, a common perception within Japan has been that Japan was a victim of the war. First, the Japanese people saw themselves as victim of militarism. Second, they felt uniquely victimized as the target of extensive firebombing and two atomic bombs. For many Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki became symbolic of the catastrophe of World WarⅡ, and they focused on the unique suffering of the Japanese. The memorial services on the anniversaries of these bombings became a way of remembering Japanese suffering while forgetting the suffering that Japanese had caused on other peoples during the war.
This view attempts to shift all blame onto the shoulders of military and the heads of the government, allowing the people to believe that they were only following along against their will. In actual fact, according to one view, citizens at large eventually supported the war in one way or another, and as a result, they bear responsibility as well.”

Incidentally, I quote your comment on Hiroshima Notes from your letter, dated September 28, 1983.
“I also read Hiroshima Notes, by Kenzabro Oe, though it took quite a few weeks. I would read some of it, then put it down and not want to read it because it was depressing. Mr. Oe made several comments which caught my attention.For instance, his suggestion that an A-bomb would never have been dropped on a developing area such as Leopoldville. (Of course not – that would be like using a shotgun on a mosquito.) He suggested that by reacting as well as they did, the people of Hiroshima “served also to lessen the burden on the consciences of those who had dropped the atomic bomb,” That is an unsettling, and possibly valid, observation.
I felt his metaphor comparing the A-bomb destruction with the Biblical flood is poor. And I disagree with his assessment that it is only people with “dull” eyes who cannot really understand disaster, who will come through. What about those who see, but have strong faith in God which pulls them through? A person is capable of seeing and understanding tragedy, without dwelling on it and magnifying it. I felt sympathetic with his words about a young man who eventually died of Leukemia. A “person of high rank” could not understand why, during a remission, the young man allowed to work (rather that lie in a hospital bed). “Such understanding comes hard to ‘persons of high rank’ who are accustomed to phony life-styles that involve no daily work.” Mr. Oe’s book forced me to think again about the horror the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered, and still suffer. Yet I still know that the A-bomb had to have been dropped somewhere. We, as humans of all nations, must know what such bombs do, so that we will shudder with fear at the thought of them ever being used again. And I think most of the world is aware that if A-bombs are ever used again, there will be no “winners”.
Thank you for sharing these books with us, Fumio.”

Thank you for reading the Hiroshima Notes, by Kenzaburo Oe, and your comment, Judith. Incidentally, Kenzabro Oe received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1994.

Summer in 1945
August 6: Atomic bomb was dropped at Hiroshima.
August 8: The Soviet Union declared war on Japan.
August 9: Atomic bomb was dropped at Nagasaki.
August 10: Japan basically agreed to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
August 15: Japan’s surrender was formally announced to the Japanese people by the emperor. August 15 became the anniversary of the end of the war, when we appreciate peace and think about people who passed away.

Excerpt from Judith’s letter, dated October 23, 1984.
The photocopy of “Japan’s aimless generation” in “Newsweek” is very interesting. Thank you for sending it, Fumio. Actually, I see this rebellion as having two factions: Those who are committed, and those who do not care. The committed ones are starting low pressure business, and creating communes. They dislike what they see and are making an effort to improve their lives. I can well understand how their efforts (which I find admirable) would worry their “workaholic elders”. These people remind me of the back–to–the–land movement here in the U.S. during the 1970’s. The other faction dislikes what they see, but do not appear willing to make constructive changes. They remind me of “punkers” here in the U.S. I see them as useless.

Japan must realize that it is easier to work toward being #1 in anything, than it is to stay there. Your nation achieved great things in the previous 30 years, and you all have much of which to be proud. Japan’s success has generated much admiration and envy. Yet being #1 tends to promote complacency, and unwillingness to try new things. (We have become the best by doing it this way, why risk something different that might not work?”) This can start a downward slide (in any endeavor) which is difficult to halt. I speak from experience, on both a personal and national level. The U.S. was #1 back in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. At least, we thought we were. (smile) And we received both admiration and hate because of it. But it went to our heads, and by the time we realized it, it was too late. I would hope that other nations have the boldness and determination not to make the same mistakes we did. Yet history is full of lessons which are ignored.

Actually, what is so great about being #1? Is the price paid worth it? The “Newsweek” article mentioned that, too. Many people decide that they want a quality life, rather one of quantity. That is what my husband and I have chosen. The important thing is not to waste that relaxation in front of televisions, or spacing out on drugs, or over–eating, or whatever. We need to use that time with our families, or in healthy activity, or helping others, et cetera. “Wasting time” occasionally is necessary, but it can become a bad habit.”

Incidentally, Japan enjoyed prosperity in 1980’s.The bubble economy started in 1986, but when the bubble burst in 1991, the economy entered a serious recession. The recession continued over ten years, which we call “lost decade” and young people, who graduated from school faced difficulty to find job. They were called “lost generation”. in Japan.
The world is changing. Everything is impermanent and passing.

Judith’s comment in the letter, dated July 17, 1981
When I first read your comment about foreign people regarding “Japanese as cruel people and killers”, I thought, “No!” But then I remembered one of husband’s cousins. She saw so many war movies and war comics as a child, that she has an unreasoning fear of Asiatic people. She knows it is unfair, but it is a part of her. Racial prejudices are like that. Right now our U.S. Congress is holding hearings to expose the injustices done to Japanese-Americans who were “relocated “to compounds during the second World War. This did not happen to German-Americans or Italian-Americans. There is so much we look back on and at which we shake our heads. If only we can learn from our mistakes. I feel safe in saying that large majority of U.S. people see the Japanese people as being industrious, highly knowledgeable, thrifty, competitive, polite, and good friends to have. Those are still stereotypes, but much more agreeable ones.

Fumio’s comment in the letter, dated January 2, 2007,
I watched the movie “Letters from Iwo Jima” at theater last week.
Clint Eastwood directed “Letters from Iwo Jima”. I felt his respect toward Japanese soldiers, who died for their country at war, not as enemy of evil in his movie. It is very important that Clint Eastwood made the movie, with dignity and fairness, not by Japanese. Many actors in the movie were Japanese. I really appreciate the movie so much as Japanese.　

Incidentally, the original book was written in around 2005 by Kumiko Kakehashi, who is Japanese and it became one of best sellers at nonfiction category in Japan and it was translated into English. She was born in 1961, then, she did not know the actual war. Fortunately, she had opportunities in 2003 and 2004 to interview the son and the daughter of Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the General of Iwo Jima. They showed all the letters from their father, who wrote many letters to his family, through all his life. They kept all the letters as valuable and precious memory of their father. They included letters with many splendid pictures, his father draw for his son when he was staying in U.S.A. apart from his family. He knew U.S.A. well and valued the military power and economy of U.S.A. properly. He had friends in U.S.A. through his three-year staying from 1928 till 1930 in U.S.A. as an officer.

It is said that almost twenty thousands Japanese soldiers and seven thousands American soldiers dyed at Iwo Jima. The island, Iwo Jima is only 750 miles south of Tokyo, was strategically vital in those days. Its fall on March 17, 1945, after the battle during thirty-six days, provided a base for U.S. fighters escorting B-29 bombing raids on Japan.

Kumiko Kakehashi wrote the respect and appreciation toward the people, who dyed at Iwo Jima for their next generation. Incidentally, it was a pity that the daughter passed away at 69 in 2004, and the son passed away at 80 in 2005, after the interviews by Kumiko Kakehashi, just before publishing this book. It remained as valuable memory of Japan in the book, by their contribution to this book.
　
I felt that nowadays Japan exists on the sacrifice of many people at war, even if the government policy was wrong in those days. Japan accepted responsibility of war. Japan apologized to foreign countries and we feel sorry for foreign people, who did fall victim to war. My mother said that young people always fall victim to war, due to the politics, at any times, at any country. In general, Japanese young people nowadays do not know the war at Iwo Jima well. Then, the movie reminded us of those people, dyed for their county, misery and sorrow of war, and the appreciation to peace. Then, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Clint Eastwood, “Thank you very much for the excellent movie with dignity!”

Judith’s letter, dated October 14, 1982
“You commented that most U.S. movies seemed to be just for entertainment. That is true, at least in the previous 6-8 years. You see, it is part of a cycle. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, movies were all realism and social commentary. And people got tired of all that “true life”. As entertainment and fantasy films drew bigger crowds, they made more such movies. So now the pendulum has swung in that direction. It is also tied to our economy. When economic conditions are poor, people want to escape into fantasy (as during the Depressions and now). When conditions are good, they have the mental energy to deal with commentary and philosophy.

Did you enjoy the Joan Baez concert? We have seen her on television and in the movie “Woodstock”, but never in person. I admire her music and her personality, if not always her politics. We share the same birthday, along with Richard M. Nixon. I always thought it funny that Baez and Nixon should both be born on the same birthday (because they were political enemies).”

Fumio’s letter, dated October 31, 1982
“I enjoyed the Joan Baez concert at Nagoya in Japan so much. I also admire her music and her personality. She commented, ”I still have my musical career, but the biggest difference is that now I’m a mother of 12- year- old boy, and I’ve become more flexible, and want a decent world for my son to live in.” She also said “I changed my long-hair to short-cut. But my political position did not change.” She sang two Bob Dylan’s songs and commented on him, “I admire Bob Dylan. He made many beautiful songs for us. He was a spokesman and symbol of our generation.” She sang “Donna Donna” “We shall overcome”. Her invoice was beautiful. She told us,” Right or Left in politics is not important to me. Care and aware of our society is just important.” She told us that she went to Germany to have her concert. Many people from younger generation came to her concert. She was surprised at so many young people and she asked them why they joined her concert. They answered that they would be and lived in 1960’s and early 1970’s, instead of 1980’s. She told, “It is in 1980’s now, which is important.” Then, she made songs for “Children in 1980’s”. She said, “We live in 1980’s now. It is dangerous era. We should be care and aware of atomic bomb, pollution, and I will sing songs for Lebanon’s children tonight.” There were many foreign people among Japanese audience at Nagoya concert. It seemed to me that their age is in late twenties and in thirties. I thought they were belonged to the same generation with us. Incidentally, audience expected her to sing old famous songs. But she sang half of them from her new album and I smiled it is just right, because we live in 1980’s. I enjoyed her concert very much. I will send some clippings on her concert at Nagoya.”

Judith’s letter, dated December 1, 1982
“It sounds like the Joan Baez concert was very good. I am glad you enjoyed it. I am identified with her urgings to live in the here and now, not wishing to live in another situation and time. Sometimes it is tempting to think the past was somehow better, or to wish we had done things differently. But we ought to live now to the best of our abilities, or in five to ten years we will look back at 1982 with regret. Husband and I chuckled at the audience expecting Joan Baez to sing her old, famous songs. That happens to most famous singers, I think. Ricky Nelson wrote a song, “Garden Party”, about how that happened to him at Madison Square Garden, during a rockn’ roll revival. The crowd booed when he sang new songs. Most entertainers handle it like Joan Baez did, by singing old and new songs.”

2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

We learned at school that Japanese constitution is an ideal constitution, called peace constitution, which we proud of, to the world, when I was a pupil in 1960’s.
It was enforced in 1947, just after Japan lost World WarⅡ, by sacrificing more than 3 million Japanese died and the more foreign people died involved the war. Japan owed responsibility. Nowadays Japan is existed on sacrifice of many young people, who died for their country at war, even if the government policy was wrong in those days.

It was not easy for pupil to understand ideal constitution at school. But it is more difficult to adjust Japan into nowadays realities among the world. There is constant debate over the interpretation of the Constitution and its possible revision. Something about the revision of article 9 bothers me. It seems to me that Japanese opinion is completely divided into half among pro and anti revision.

For example, Kenzaburo Oe, who is novelist and received novel prize for literature in 1994, respects article 9 highly and he is against revision of article 9. He wrote Hiroshima and Okinawa Note.
On the other hand, Yukio Mishima who was a writer and killed himself in the base of Self-Defense Force at Ichigaya (Tokyo) in 1970, just in order to looking for the revision of the constitution. He mentioned the revision of article 9, in relationship with Self-Defense Force.

The revision of article 9 is a very touchy subject here in Japan. This is rather the gun control, on a basis of nation, on commitment in constitution, not on individual basis. As for article 9, we have to consider Self- Defense Force and the Security Treaty between the United States and Japan in 1951. I was thinking the dignity of nation in regards to article 9, as the only country, suffered from atomic bomb.

Recently, North Korea will intend to use atomic bomb as the threat to the world. “When atomic bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have atomic bombs, except countries, playing roll of world police.” Fortunately, the 63 years has passed in peace in Japan since the end of World WarⅡ.
Will Japan survive?

In reference, I excerpt some explanation on article 9 from “Talking Smart about Japan: All you need to know” written by Uchiike Hisataka, published by Japan book.

“The new Constitution of Japan was made public in 1946, the year after World WarⅡ ended, and went into effect the following year. It is highly liberal in content and stands on three basic principles: respect for fundamental human rights, democracy (the sovereignty of the people), and pacifism (the renunciation of war).

However, there is constant debate over the interpretation of the Constitution and its possible revision. One problem is the unusual way in which the Constitution was formulated. The new Constitution was first formulated as a revision of the Meiji constitution by the Japanese government. However, since its proposal was not fundamentally different from the Meiji constitution, the staff of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces (SCAP; or GHQ) created a draft upon which the new Constitution was then based.

The conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has long wanted to revise the Constitution, which it feels was forced upon Japan, and to make a constitution created by the Japanese themselves. Recently, the LDP has begun to move aggressively toward this goal, but in fact there is opposition among the reformist parties, the major point of contention being the pacifistic Article 9. The pro-revision faction wishes to clearly recognize the existence of the Self-Defense Force and to broaden the scope of its permitted activities.

The anti-revision forces argue that the renunciation of war should be maintained as a unique feature of the Constitution.”

“The Japan Self-Defense Force, made up of ground, maritime, and air forces, constitutes the military and defense establishment of Japan. Following World WarⅡJapan was totally disarmed and possessed no military forces. However, with the outbreak of the Korean War and the transfer of many American troops to Korea, GHQ requested that Japan establish a National Police Reserve to replace the transferred troops. In 1954 the Self-Defense Force was established, building on the National Police Reserve.

In other words, Japan had originally formed its war-renouncing constitution under the guidance of the US-dominated GHQ, and now, less than ten years later, it had established a military force at the request of the United States.

While the Self–Defense Force also plays a role in times of natural disaster and in internal peacekeeping, there is no denying that, in reality, it is an army, given this it follows that some people believe that the Self-Defense Force is unconstitutional.

In fact, however, Article 9 reads in part as follows: “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes,” and “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained,”

Some argue that since the aim of the Self-Defense Force is the defense of the nation, not aggressive war, it is not unconstitutional.
This interpretation accounts for the actual existence of the Self-Defense Force today. The debate over the interpretation continues without letup, and has given rise to the movement to revise the Constitution and make the Self-Defense Force’s position clearly legitimate.”

Sorry for the long quotation from guidebook. It is a little difficult for me to explain this controversial subject to the point, with my poor English ability. Your comment on gun control reminded me of article 9. I was thinking for recent years the concept of dignity as a nation and I did excerpt here as a memory of correspondence.

As for gun control in Japan, it is severely forbidden to have gun. It is only exception for hunting gun under severe permission. Most people do not have gun fundamentally, however, there are some incident using gun, among yakuza, or gangster.

Excerpt from Judith’s letter, dated December, 1980
“I was also shocked by John Lennon’s murder (December 8, 1980). He was my favorite member of the Beatles. But I heard some comments from people of other countries (mostly England), which made me angry. They said it happened because America is a lawless country, without gun control laws. I felt that was very unfair. All countries have crime and murders, not matter how the laws are written,”

Excerpt from Judith’s letter, dated April 30, 1981
“ I really enjoy our correspondence, Fumio. I enjoy learning about you and your ideas, and learning about Japan in general. I also enjoy it because you are not afraid to ask about controversial subjects, such as gun control. It makes me really think about many issues, in a way, which I have seldom done since college.

We were quite distressed about the attempt on President Reagan’s life (March 30,1981). We rejoice at his rapid recovery, and of the recoveries of the other three men who were shot. The press secretary received a head wound, and though he sustained some brain damage, his recovery is “near miraculous” according to the doctors. Reagan has never been in favor of gun control, and I did not imagine his opinion would change, even after the assassination attempt. Gun control is a very touchy subject here in the United States. There is some gun control, but it is on a local basis rather than nationwide. You mentioned that people protecting themselves on an individual basis is a nice ideal (it is at least understandable, not ideal), “but ideal is just ideal”. Unfortunately the same might be said for gun control. It is a nice idea, but impossible to enforce. Even if we ban or severely control the sales of guns, what about the millions of guns all ready in existence in the U.S.? There is no way people will voluntarily give them up. And it would create an even larger black market in guns. There is a saying among anti-gun control people: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Unfortunately there is some logic to that. As I mentioned earlier, I am a pacifist at heart. Yet something about the idea of gun control bothers me. I do not like giving the government more control over our lives. They all ready have enough rules and regulations about everything to sink an aircraft carrier. I do not remember who said it (Thomas Jefferson?) but there is a quote I like: That government, which governs least, governs best. So on that basis I guess I am not in favor of gun control. Please tell me about gun control in Japan, Fumio. How effective is it? “

Your review is nicely written and I’m sure Stephanie was flattered.

Fumio’s comment, dated December 1980.
“British and American people blame Japanese people for killing whales and eat them. They say that Japanese people are cruel to animals.

1) I am reminded of the Biblical story.
“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. In our Law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say?” They said this to trap Jesus, so that they could accuse him. But he bent over and wrote on the ground with his finger. As they stood there asking him questions, he straightened up and said to them,”Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone at her.”
If British and American people depended on vegetables, they would seem to be in the right. They killed animals such as cattle and other animals not only for food, but also for their amusement, such as shooting birds and animals, and they blame Japanese for killing whales for food. Also, it is said that whales were killed mainly for its oil, not for food in West.

2) Due to the influence of Buddhism in Japan, the eating of meat was forbidden for over a thousand years. Japanese people didn’t eat animal and people depended on rice, vegetable, fish until the onset of Westernization in the Meiji period (1868-1912). It is one of the reason Japanese cuisines such as sushi is gaining popularity abroad as a healthy food. Traditionally, Japanese didn’t eat meat, and sukiyaki became popular only after the onset of Westernization. And it seemed that whales were regarded as a kind of fish, not animal. Incidentally, I remember there were some whale- dishes at school lunch when I was an elementary school pupil, because it was cheap, compared with beef and pork in those days.

It seems to me that it is not reasonable at all. It’s just an emotional problem. What do you think of this problem, Judith? ”

Judith’s answer, dated, January 29, 1981
“Thank you for sharing with us your thoughts about the killing of whales and the resulting world opinion. As I read your letter aloud, my husband commented that you obviously feel very strongly about it. I have thought much about what you wrote, and will try to respond as honestly and fairly as I can. I agree that the United States and other Western nations have done a lot of wrong things in regard to animals (and in other ways, too, but let us not get into a universal guilt trip (smile).) Perhaps it is because our ancestors and we ourselves have made so many mistakes, that we hope to encourage others not to make them. But perhaps you misunderstand why most Americans are in favor of the ban, not because we feel it is wrong to kill animals, but because the whales are threatened with extinction. If whales could be raised commercially, as chickens and even fish are, most of us would not object to “harvesting” them. But because whales are wild, and because their numbers are becoming so few that they can not reproduce fast enough to keep up, eventually there may be no more whales. Here in the United States that happened with several varieties of animals, and almost happened with the buffalo and others. But because these animals are now protected by law, they are beginning to grow in numbers and will survive. Whereas the view that all animals have a right to live is a very valid one (I was a vegetarian for a while), that is not the primary reason for the ban on killing whales. (By the way – though many people still hunt animals for food and sport, it has never in my lifetime been as popular as games such as football and baseball. And even hunting is controlled with limits.) I agree with you that most reaction to this issue is emotional, and not always based on reason. When I discussed this with my friends, most of their primary answers were of the emotional variety. I hope I have logically shared some of the reason I favor the temporary ban on killing of whales.”

Judith’s answer, dated October 14, 1982
“Whaling: I read the various clippings concerning whaling, and have given them much thought. I even went to the library to try to find another version of what happened during the conference at Brighton, but was unable to find anything. (One of the frustrations of living in a rural area with an inadequate library) So I can make no comment in regard to Takeshi Nakamura’s accusations of fascism. However, I feel he is over-reacting when he suggests that Japan is despised. The moratorium was not an attempt to hurt Japan, but to preserve the whales. This whole thing has become an emotional issue, for both the pro-whalers and anti-whalers. I am concerned for the people who will lose their livelihoods as the result of the moratorium. (Salmon fishing is threatened by conservation measures here in the U.S. so we do identify with those who will be out of work in the whaling industry.) I appreciated (as you did, Fumio) the article by Clifford Ueda. And perhaps a letter from “Readers in Council”, by Gillian Donaldson-Moriuchi sums up my feelings best:
The imminent danger lies where people fail to recognize that the future of the world food supply must take precedence over the loss of jobs in the whaling industry. People currently employed in this particular industry will just have to do what other people in now obsolete professions have been doing for centuries: look in new fields for their livelihood.
It is a hard thing, where any decision would hurt someone or something.
I hope this moratorium was the right decision. “

Thank you for your honest and fair answers to the controversial subject.