How Arrogant...
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1531895,00.html
After reading an article whose title is "Japan Celebrates: It's a Boy!" published on the aforementioned Internet address, I feel the writer is really arrogant and ignorant. People like this writer think that they have the measure of the world. He seems to believe the way he thinks and feels is 100% right and ways things are done differently are old-fashioned and are not fundamentally right.
In the subtitle of his article, he said:
"The birth of Princess Kiko's son ensures the continuation of the royal line. But the news shows how far women still have to go, even in modern Japan"
Well, I guess he is saying that Japan is far behind "modern" countries because the Japanese law allows only male in imperial families to take the crown. I really wonder why he thinks it is not right. Is it because female and male should have equal rights? Are "equal rights" above any other thing? Is it more important than the traditions and cultures that Japanese has kept and practised for more than 2,600 years? As you can see in the history of many countries, once such tradition is broken, it will never ever be able to revive. He is not Japanese so probably he doesn't care, but how can he determine and know what is more important? Moreover, if the crown is passed on to only male descendents, does this really violate "equal-rights"? If so, how? And what is his opinion upon the Vatican...?
In his article, he also says:
Unlike the British royals, for instance, the Japanese imperial family's schedule is completely controlled by the IHA. They aren't allowed to have opinions, passports or even last names
You've got to laugh at his innocence. They aren't allowed to have opinions!? That is, at least partially, because of GHQ/SCAP (mainly Americans) who occupied Japan between 1945 and 1952. They had a huge impact on decisions while the new Japanese constitution were being written at that time. Upon the new constitution was issued, the Emperor and members of imperial family lost freedom to make any political comment or statement. Of course they are allowed to have opinions, but they are not to have any political influence because of the constitution and laws.
Aren't they allowed to have passports!? It is not that they are not allowed. The Emperor and Empress do not need to have their passports thanks to the international practice. For your information, other members of imperial family have their diplomatic passports when travelling overseas.
And they are not allowed to have their own last names? So what? What is wrong with that? Do they have to have their own last name like the one you have? If not, are they less privileged?
(I am still working on this post and this post is incomplete)
After reading an article whose title is "Japan Celebrates: It's a Boy!" published on the aforementioned Internet address, I feel the writer is really arrogant and ignorant. People like this writer think that they have the measure of the world. He seems to believe the way he thinks and feels is 100% right and ways things are done differently are old-fashioned and are not fundamentally right.
In the subtitle of his article, he said:
"The birth of Princess Kiko's son ensures the continuation of the royal line. But the news shows how far women still have to go, even in modern Japan"
Well, I guess he is saying that Japan is far behind "modern" countries because the Japanese law allows only male in imperial families to take the crown. I really wonder why he thinks it is not right. Is it because female and male should have equal rights? Are "equal rights" above any other thing? Is it more important than the traditions and cultures that Japanese has kept and practised for more than 2,600 years? As you can see in the history of many countries, once such tradition is broken, it will never ever be able to revive. He is not Japanese so probably he doesn't care, but how can he determine and know what is more important? Moreover, if the crown is passed on to only male descendents, does this really violate "equal-rights"? If so, how? And what is his opinion upon the Vatican...?
In his article, he also says:
Unlike the British royals, for instance, the Japanese imperial family's schedule is completely controlled by the IHA. They aren't allowed to have opinions, passports or even last names
You've got to laugh at his innocence. They aren't allowed to have opinions!? That is, at least partially, because of GHQ/SCAP (mainly Americans) who occupied Japan between 1945 and 1952. They had a huge impact on decisions while the new Japanese constitution were being written at that time. Upon the new constitution was issued, the Emperor and members of imperial family lost freedom to make any political comment or statement. Of course they are allowed to have opinions, but they are not to have any political influence because of the constitution and laws.
Aren't they allowed to have passports!? It is not that they are not allowed. The Emperor and Empress do not need to have their passports thanks to the international practice. For your information, other members of imperial family have their diplomatic passports when travelling overseas.
And they are not allowed to have their own last names? So what? What is wrong with that? Do they have to have their own last name like the one you have? If not, are they less privileged?
(I am still working on this post and this post is incomplete)
Comments