Blame and criticism, learning and endorsing - attitudes of nations

Many people say today that the West is in decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. The US and the EU are developing steadily, GDPs are at all time highs, military are massive and strong, and budgets have been cut back and loan exposure pushed down. At the same time, somehow, most people still want to live in these places.
Saudis go to the UK, Syrians to Germany, Chinese to the US, Koreans to Japan, Philippinos to Australia, Brazilians to Japan, and so on, and so on. Tell me when people start to try immigrating into China en masse, except from even more dictatorial states like North-Korea or Bangladesh (work related travel, like that of Vietnam doesn't count).

A lot of politicians and nationalist citizens are butthurt when their country is criticised. That rests on an enormous misunderstanding. Namely mixing up blame and criticism. Or thinking they are the same. Usually its the butthurt people, who are not running their countries well, who bash the West.

Criticism is just pointing out that something is wrong. But it is not saying that you are faulty for it. Your country can lack a fair justice system (like China, Pakistan, Russia and many others states do). But that is not saying that this is the individual Chinese citizen's fault. If someone tells me my country could do something better - i.e. they criticise my country - I listen to them. Why? Because they take the time and effort to give advice. If I disagree or their criticism is mistaken I can explain this to them. We both gained something and had an interesting conversation. If they are right: it's a chance for me to improve.

Blame is when something wrong is pointed out and responsibility is attributed for it. So, while it is wrong to blame the ordinary Chinese girl or guy for the bad legal system, or the average Hungarian for state corruption, and so on, it is right to blame Chinese politicians or Hungarian politicians for these things. They are the bosses, the decision makers who could change things.
Hence, people who love their country - whether they are the citizens of the US, of one of the EU countries or any other country - should learn from criticism and when justified blame their politicians.

The average person has nothing in common with his or her elected officials. No interests shared. If there is no pressure on politicians they will look to their own interests, as Bentham aptly pointed out 200 years ago.

So, don't take criticism and blame personally. Take it as a chance to gain insight on what you should pressure your overlords to change to make your country better!

A good example comes from Japan's history. Japan was forced in the 1850s to sign unfair trade-treaties with Britain, the US, Russia, France and other countries. These treaties pushed the country into a semi-colonial position. Japan also received a lot of criticism from these countries for its backwards legal institutions, poor external trading and industrial policies, etc.
Did the country deny the obvious - that the countries twisting its arm were doing better? No. It patiently put down its ass. It learned and studied how to reform its institutions, how to change its leadership, how to train its people and build up a well working industry and market. After this, between 1890 and 1911 it could revise most of the unfair treaties. In fact it grew so strong by the 1930s that the US felt threatened by it.*

Japan didn't endorse everything that Western advisors, experts, politicians, business people, philosophers and others recommended or tried to force on it. It took on those things which were useful for the country. Good management practices from the British and the Americans, yes; insane free market principles that erode society, no. Efficient army and - at the time - cutting edge uni organisation ideas from the German and the French, yes; racist colonialist ideas, no.

Being open to criticism and learning doesn't mean that you endorse everything uncritically that others tell you. It doesn't mean that others blame you and you accept responsibility. It means you are a sensible person who can choose which criticism to endorse as advice, and you can help explain to others why you think your system works better when you don't want to change.

If China would have been in a position to do the same after the 1840s or after WWI it could have become a stable power much faster. It started the same process as Japan in the 1970s however, but it only took it about forty years - thanks to its massive size, territory, military aggression and strong central government - to become the largest economy in the world.

So, when small, badly run and deeply corrupt countries like Hungary talk about the end of the West and deny that the EU is doing well...its obvious what's going on: they can't use criticism to develop. This choice is disastrous for the country: the leaders' vanity is hurt and for this reason the whole country is pushed towards Russia and China, authoritarian, and not very efficiently performing states. Time to stop such governments. Time to kick out such leaders. Time to sit down, learn, and improve.

* 34(That is why the US tried to blackmail Japan into giving up some of its conquests by stopping selling oil to it. And that's what prompted Japan to push to South-East Asia in search for oil, which triggered the US's backlash and the Pacific War. But that's another story.)

Masuji Ibuse's 'Black Rain'

I've just finished Masuji Ibuse's 1969 novel Black Rain. It is an excellent novel. It presents the story of a small family from a village near to Hiroshima a few years after the atomic bomb was dropped on the city. The tone is - as in several the works of many Japanese writers - very matter of fact, and giving a good feel of the character of the storyteller, Shigematsu Shizuma. Despite the sometimes dry tone in which what was seen is recounted, Shigematsu's genuine concern for friends and family shines true at the important points. Ibuse's book offers some very dramatic turns which can be felt in full force. It is emotionally moving, and tragic.

It mainly deals with how radiation effect crept up years after the bombing on many of those who thought they would be fine, they would survive. It was interesting to read the book in the same year as Svetlana Alexievich's Chernobyl Prayer. Both books tell stories of loss, of patriotic or nationalistic feeling that motivated people to help and work among the debris of nuclear catastrophes, and the tragedy of not knowing what they were dealing with. At the time the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese - including doctors - had no idea about the effects of radiation, and at the time of the Chernobyl catastrophe the masses of people living in the regions affected, as well as those who were sent there for relief work were kept in the dark about those effects. Both books tell about much suffering, but also about remarkable cases of community spirit and a feeling of belonging to the places, even after they have been affected by catastrophes. Of course the Japanese - with the help of the U.S. - dealt with Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the war was very different from the way in which Moscov - and Belarus and the Ukraine - handled the consequences of Chernobyl.

Ibuse's book mentions criticisms of the Japanese Imperial government, army, and navy only in a very subdued way. It is hard to guess today whether this is a literary tool employed by the writer to express that people were genuinely afraid to criticise the leadership and the army, even at the end of the war, or simply a reluctance to engage in such criticism when he wrote the book. What makes the former interpretation more likely is that in some places in the novel there is a marked contrast of descriptions of malpractice, mistreatment of civilians and soldiers by the military, still people who are obviously aware of the ridiculousness of what was going on are silent. The horrible plans of the army to arm all civilians to defend Japan against the invasion of the U.S. forces is mentioned in several places - in no way favourably -, also showing that there were people who genuinely believed - or at least talked as if they would believe - in such policies.

The book is another great argument for never again wanting a war and strictly keeping away from using nuclear weapons ever, in any situation. This makes it an especially relevant book to debates today, when the Russian military publicized in the last years that it carried out practices for scenarios of nuclear strikes against European targets, and where the false rumour was spread that the U.S. was threatening Russia with a nuclear war (this is supposed to have been averted by the election of Trump).

Russia is obviously at a point where it is under huge international pressure, and it Putin, his government, and his generals are willing to go to great lengths. Novels like Ibuse's and Alexievich's can help people understand in Russia, the U.S. and everywhere else, that threatening with nuclear strikes is a horrible thing to do, and any use of atomic bombs that affects civilians is a terrible crime. Tension and Russian propaganda need to be defused. Merkel and Obama have gone to great lengths to achieve this. However, Putin is willing to risk much, and Trump is fool enough - so it seems at the moment - to go along with his games.

You can read a review of Black Rain from The Japan Times here.