I especially appreciate Ken (otomeki5) having the guts to take controversy personally; though it’s not written on my forehead, there are those who can tell on first sight that I’m Israeli, and others find out when they ask where my name is “from”. I often feel that I have to follow the admission with “yes, I’m Israeli, but don’t worry – I promise I’m not a fascist.”

We have to ask, what can we do, the inheritors of these legacies? How much Arabic do I have to learn, how many marches do I have to organize before the lives that my father and grandfathers have destroyed are no longer with me always, like sand caught in my teeth? So far, if I chance to meet someone who’s been affected by it in some way, one “La ilaha il Allah, wa Muhammad -ur-Rasul-Allah” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada) seems to get me a tight-lipped smile and nod or (only once) a tearful hug, which is really just an acknowledgment of my efforts to confront (my own) ignorance, to confront that legacy – that I’m trying, really, but please, tell me what I can do? In the museum context, I am of course very interested to see how the newly-minted CJM chooses to respond, though I suspect the answer will be disappointing if not infuriating. Realistically, these are questions that everyone should ask themselves, since these legacies exist in every culture around the world, as is pointed out in more than one of the comments here; naturally though, it is most palpable for those for whom these events occurred (or are occurring) in more recent historical memory or are more often addressed in the West (our context), which Japanese militarism and colonialism is not, for the most part.

The “parody” website accuses us of ignoring the issue, which feels unfair to many here, since these questions are addressed behind the scenes on a regular basis – but are doing enough publicly? I suppose then that the question is whether we must depend on our visitors to dig deeper while we concentrate on bringing art to the public, first and foremost, without muddying it with political affiliations, judgments, or caveats– in this instance, to bring an amazing group of objects from a museum in Japan that much of the public here will never have the chance to visit. I think that simply because we sit on the cusp of a cultural museum and an art museum (which is why SFMOMA for instance is less often the subject of this particular critique), everything we do will be inherently political, whether we make an effort to break down those categories or not.

Personally I would love to have a lecture series available that addressed the cultural context of both special exhibitions and the permanent collection, a fantastic suggestion by Nancy, above – but it would take time, and no small amount of resources.

In the meantime, Nicole (nico) and I will be downstairs, trying to make sure that even without a dedicated lecture series, we can make an effort to bring in a few books that might create a context or generate a discussion; certainly this is on our minds in preparation for Emerald Cities, and the inevitable focus on the controversy surrounding Burma/Myanmar in the coming months.

For instance, pederasty was common among all privileged classes in Japan during this time, not only the samurai. It was most prevalent among bhuddist clergy, and during the Edo period, also practiced by the chonin. Compare this with Classical Greece, where most males who entered public or at least privileged life went through a similar process.

The “Nose Mound”, or more properly; “Ear Mound” is a product of Kato Kiyomasa, one of the main generals of Hideyoshi’s Korean campaigns. Kato was a Nichiren Bhuddist. Nichiren Bhuddism is associated in modern times with peace activism, but even today has some non-mainstream connotations in Japan. They are Japan’s equivalent to American Evangelicals. They have a history of xenophobia, and Kato spent much of his time in Korea undermining one of his co-generals who was Catholic. Kato’s collection of ear trophies is the foundation of similar stories in modern Asian warfare, including the Vietnam conflict. The collection of ears, noses, and indeed scalps, as war trophies is certainly not unique to Japan or Asia.

It is most certainly true that Japanese militarists, empowered by the national policy of deficit spending which helped Japan avoid the Depression, used allusions to history to justify aggressive war and atrocities. Certainly they are not alone or unique in this regard. There is also some reticence on the part of Japanese political leadership to acknowledge this, although I suspect this will change now that the LDP is out of power. Compare this to the average American view of Manifest Destiny, or popular Chinese views of the unification of their country. It’s notable that the most vociferous critics of Japanese historical revisionism are often Chinese who themselves have hegemonic world views. It’s almost as if the Japanese never paid for what they did. Well, they did. We incinerated their cities (mainly with conventional incendiaries; the nuclear weapons were for show) and strangled their ports. We laid waste to their country. Would some people feel better about things if we had invited Chinese to board our bombers and drop the bombs?

Additionally, the connections made between Japanese imperialism and postwar commercial culture are rather ludicrous. Compare the culture of the hard-drinking Salaryman with postwar American executives such as those portrayed in TV shows like “Mad Men” or movies like “Revolutionary Road.” Additionally the culture of suicide never was unique to the Samurai, seppuku was not even formalized until the Edo period.

Much of the postwar romanticization of Samurai values are more like a collective tatemae, put together by protoconservative postwar writers like Mishima Yukio and Ishihara Shintaro. So is the idea of a monocultural Japan, which it could be argued never existed. These notions are essentially products of American occupation. Japan was originally settled by multiple Asian cultures, at least one of which “pollinated” with an indigenous non-Asian culture. The Koreans and Taiwanese brought back to Japan during expansionist periods further contributed to what is essentially a hybrid culture, as do the continuing presence of non-Asians in Japan today, whether certain people there like it or not.

The exhibit is one of family heirlooms and should have been promoted as such, rather than attempting to use a single exhibition to describe all of classical/medieval Japan. That’s a result of parochialism, not necessarily “orientalism” or paternalistic racism. San Francisco is a very parochial city, despite its collective protestations to the contrary. Parochialism is catered to, as evidenced by the “New People” building in Japantown – instead of the prime cut of Japanese fashion and retail, like Beams, Tomorrowland, or even Uniqlo, we get a small sampler of the quaint (jika-tabi and handicrafts) and the freakish (”Gothic Lolita”). Why does no one protest this?

Meanwhile, we get all hot and bothered over the admittedly polished product of an ethical nudnik, who uses the over-the-top indictment and re-recrimination of a cultre to promote a remarkably one-dimensional and unrealistic form of pacifism.

It’s rather ridiculous.

And I do.

But also things like: an entire county in China paid for this Buddhist stele in 549; that when Tibetans in exile protested our Tibet exhibit in front of the museum–because we had to deal with China to get them, the Dalai Lama said: what does it matter whose things they are now? They represent our tradition, and the way we adorn holy objects–and the protests stopped; that a high Chinese official, visiting Korea in the 12th century declared Korean celadons to be “first under heaven,”–and how hard it is to be humble if you;’re China; that a geisha doesn’t get to be a geisha by twiddling her thumbs!

A little history, positive and negative, is always welcome.

And when the rose’s thorn is more painful than the rose is beautiful…I tend to remember that.

Editor’s note: The author is a volunteer art and architecture guide at the museum.

The art of the tea ceremony, the accoutrement, armor and weaponry as well as poetry and painting. These are all the remaining visible arts of the time and culture. Why should the negative aspects be considered relevant to the display?

Another great case of San Francisco having too many idle intellectuals. Maybe they could spend the energy solving actual problems. Well, not this week, because it’s burning man, but next week maybe?

I did not see the pointed commentary, just someone who hates the military and apparently whites.