Talk:Eugenics in Japan

Getting Better

I am glad to have sparked some interest in this article again as it was sorely lacking. I will get some direct sources for the connection between Japanese Eugenic Science and American as we the USA was the main motivator of this science globally. It is a well established fact that the Japanese emulated American (Western) scientific and social ideals mora than any other in the 19th century. I will add these facts as sourced material becomes available for reference. Takashi Ueki (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Editing

Great editing and cleanup by 209.90.145.149 and Charles Matthews! The article is now worth keeping, I think. I am changing my vote on the AFD page to keep. The article could use expansion and sources but it is a great start. ♠ DanMS 00:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

afd

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Samurai?

The Meiji Restoration abolished the samurai class. How could the goal of the eugenics programme in Imperial Japan be to produce a race of samurai?

This is very difficult for a native English speaker to read

It makes it very hard to determine how people are editing, as the edits are unclear in their meaning.

• "In 1926 the birth rate of abnormal persons was estimated at 60,000, but had increased by 1938 to 90,000 births" - This needs a citation, and context. Currently it makes not much sense just stating some irrelevent fact of estimated "abnormal" birth rate. No clues as to how it was estimated, by whom, and how "abnormal" is qualified.

• "During Greater East Asia War, healthy Japanese frequently died during combat. This led to the suggestion that physically handicaped persons, who were not able to fight, were the ones left to create the next generation. The government considered that the increase of ratio between disabled versus "able-bodied" persons should be corrected. [4]" - This paragraph has a reference (though Japanese), but it's meaning is not quite clear. And it also appears to be POV pushing. Who says these facts, and in what context. I modified it a bit so it wasn't quit so inflammatory, but it still needs work to say what it should.

• "Eugenic thinking probably had wider effects[citation needed]. Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated. Military personnel who violated these instructions were severely punished.[citation needed]" - needs a citation or it should be deleted.

• "This forced sterilization upon people with leprosy as well as certain genetic disorders.[citation needed]" Leprosy is a disease, not a genetic disorder. Please clarify this sentance further - what genetic disorders, any other disease?

Thx--ZayZayEM 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also anything in quotes taken from a japanese document (ie. laws) should also prvide the original Japanese. Using quote marks around English translations is misleading--ZayZayEM 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles were presented by Flying-Tyger. He tries to relate the war crime of Japan and the eugenics at the Showa era. I think that I should delete this part. --Azukimonaka 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The insinuations of Azukimonaka are completly false. He first put an incomprehensible mess of informations that I tried to translate the best I could. Since then, he is keeping deleting categories that were in the article from the begining and clear references to eugenic policies in the Higashikuni government. --Flying tiger 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please present the part that I concretely deleted. I feel that it keeps writing the article without evidence so that you may slander Japan. Because a Japanese army was negative in Eugenics. Sterilize being done only by 400 people in ten years has proven it. (After the war, sterilization was positively promoted. )　ecause you do not present the concrete evidence, I am embarrassed. Please present a clear source. --Azukimonaka 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And, please answer the question on ZayZayEM Fly. The excuse is not needed. --Azukimonaka 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Azukimonaka, I hate to suggest this, but I think your level of English communication skills are making this a very difficult task. The information you provide is very hard to understand, and you also seem to having difficulty understanding the meaning of some categories, and the relationship between these topics as phrased in English. None of tiger's edits are suggesting the "slander" you are seeing.--ZayZayEM 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User Azukimonaka, this is a clear source with reference, much more clearer than your obscure one page links in japanese with the "454 number":

«One of the last eugenic measure of the Shōwa regime was taken by the Higashikuni government. On 19 August, 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". The official declaration stated that : «Through the sacrifice of thousands of "Okichis" of the Shōwa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future...» Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, 2001, p. 538, citing Kinkabara Samon and Takemae Eiji, Showashi : kokumin non naka no haran to gekido no hanseiki-zohoban, 1989, p.244 ».

You keep deleting this excerpt for weeks. --Flying tiger 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism

Please present the grounds though Flying Tyger starts relating the eugenics at the Showa era and the war crime of Japan. (A Japanese army opposed eugenics.)　Please specify the reason that you relate. --Azukimonaka 06:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting categories related to MILITARISM that were in the article from the begining and trying to infer that I want to refer to "war crimes". Eugenism is related to Showa militarism. --Flying tiger 13:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been proven not to relate to the militarism at the Showa era by evidence that a Japanese army did not promote Eugenism. It was 450 people that sterilization done before the war. --Azukimonaka 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not what FlyingTiger is saying at all. This is not what those categories suggest. --ZayZayEM 10:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic is for citable relationships not those that are made up for whatever personal agendas exist. There was no relationship between the Japanese military and eugenics, other than being part of the Showa Government. The military never promoted eugenics, it was largely promoted from within the Heath and Welfare Government departments and never included mass extermination of a group of people like the Germans. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the topic and cite sources. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction work of mistake by Flying-Tyger

I start explaining from the history knowledge of basic Japan for Flying-Tyger.

One of the last eugenic measure of the Shōwa regime was taken by the Higashikuni government. On 19 August 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". The official declaration stated that : «Through the sacrifice of thousands of "Okichis" of the Shōwa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future...» Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, 2001, p. 538, citing Kinkabara Samon and Takemae Eiji, Showashi : kokumin non naka no haran to gekido no hanseiki-zohoban, 1989, p.244 .

.

• There is no record to which eugenics is measured in Higashi-Kunimiya Cabinet. [1] This Cabinet did not have an administrative ability. How was the investigation directed? This Cabinet was under the rule of GHQ. It dissolved on 54 days.
• preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". This is not written in the instruction sheet at all on August 19, 1945.

外国軍駐屯地における慰安施設の設置に関する内務省警保局長通牒(無電)[原文漢数字]
1945/08/18
外国軍駐屯地に於ては別記要領に依り之が慰安施設等設備の要あるも本件取扱に付ては極めて慎重を要するに付特に左記事項留意の上遺憾なきを期せられ度.
1.外国軍の駐屯地及時季は目下全く予想し得ざるところなれば必ず貴県に駐屯するが如き感を懐き一般に動揺を来さしむ如きなかるべきこと.
2.駐屯する場合は急速に開設を要するものなるに付内部的には予め手筈を定め置くこととし外部には絶対に之を漏洩せざること.
3.本件実施に当りて日本人の保護を趣旨とするものなることを理解せしめ地方民をして誤解を生じせしめざること.

(別記)
外国駐屯軍慰安施設等整備要綱
1. 営業行為は一定の区域を限定して従来の取締標準にかかわらずこれを許可するものとす.
2. 前項の区域は警察署長に於いて之を設定するものとし,日本人の施設利用は之を禁ずるものとす.
3. 警察署長は左の営業については積極的に指導を行い設備の急速充実を図るものとする.
性的慰安施設
飲食施設
娯楽場
4. 営業に必要な婦女子は,芸妓,公私娼妓,女給,酌婦,常習密売淫犯者を優先的に之を充足するものとする.

吉川春子『従軍慰安婦 新資料による国会論戦』あゆみ出版1997/11/01 pp.230

• Through the sacrifice of thousands of "Okichis" of the Showa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future. Similarly, this description is not being written.

The content of this source is wrong for the above-mentioned reasons. Flying-Tyger might have falsified the content of the source. Therefore, this source was deleted. Is there a question?--Azukimonaka 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your arrogance has no bounds. Your poor scientific demonstration does not give you the right to accuse me of falsifing sources. This was a public declaration by the Home Ministry, not a cabinet directive. Even you should know that Higashikuni and Shidehara cabinets had the power to took administrative decisions. --Flying tiger 18:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This was a public declaration by the Home Ministry, not a cabinet directive. Please present the cabinet directive.

Higashikuni Cabinet was under the rule of Allied Forces. And, can you present eugenic measure of Higashi-Kunimiya?

It is more arrogant that Flying-Tyger without basic history knowledge scribbles the Japanese war crime. --Azukimonaka 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Flying tiger has already told you that it was not a cabinet directive. He cannot tehrefore show one. It does not have to be a cabinet directive or law to be included in this article. This paragraph is referenced to a book by Herbert Bix. This is sufficient. Wikipedia does not need, nor solely rely upon, primary sources for everything--ZayZayEM 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot support the falsification of a clear source. --Azukimonaka 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is why it is important to include the original Japanese with any English quotation from a 日本語 source.--ZayZayEM 01:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

These programs were guided by Katsuko T

Please present the source that proves this part.

These programs were guided by Katsuko Tojo, the wife of General Tojo. The Japanese government gave economic support to all mothers with large families. Eugenicists planned a ten-year program to augment the number of future soldiers to 100,000,000.

I'll agree. This needs a source. Please find one.--ZayZayEM 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This sentence was put in the article since 2005, so I don't see why user Azukimonaka keeps asking ME to find sources for this. I'm no more concerned than anybody... Meanwhile there should also be a reference for this sentence or it should have the same fate : «This law limited compulsory sterilization to "Inherited mental disease", but sterilization campaigns were not implemented until the end of the war.»--Flying tiger 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then, let's delete it. --Azukimonaka 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How are the militarism and the nationalism of Japan related?

I confirmed the source quoted so that Flying-tyger might write "There were also campaigns to ensure reproduction amongst the "intelligent or superior elements" in the population".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12155095&dopt=AbstractPlus

Following the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937, the Japanese government established the Ministry of Health and Welfare and adopted, in 1938, the policy of population increase. The government began at once to formulate the National Eugenic Law which was promulgated in 1940 and put into force in 1941. The original draft of the law was first prepared by the members of the Imperial Diet since 1934. It included no prohibition concerning abortion or sterilization, but before the government submitted the bill to the Diet, and even after its enforcement, the restriction on birth control had gradually been strengthened. The law not only allowed sterilization to prevent reproduction of inferior descendants but prohibited sterilization and strictly limited induced abortion. At the same time, it was used as a means of strong support for the suppression of contraception. The eugenic movement did not advocate contraception as a means of eugenic control because it feared counterselection through the diffusion of contraception only among the intelligent or superior elements in the population. During the 1920s, the eugenic movement in Japan advocated contraceptives as a means of practicing eugenics, but then it adapted policies concerning population increase and assisted in the suppression of birth control. Eugenic measures became law when they were combined with a policy of population increase, and policy concerning population increase became realized as eugenic law. Many criticisms and objections were posed by the members of the Imperial Diet. Some were opposed to the principle of eugenics in the context of Shintoism. This law created tension between obstetricians and the government with regard to induced abortion. The Japanese Association of Obstetrics made the standard for medical application of induced abortion in 1943 and the government altered the judging authority from police administration to that of hygiene in 1942. The Eugenic Protection Law which was published in 1948 eased the tension in the field of maternal health in accordance with the general acceptance to slowdown population growth. But the law incorporated the same cautions concerning contraception. These aspects of the law, which were derived from the National Eugenic Law, strongly affected the mode of rapid fertility decline in Japan after the War.　

As for this source, it is being written that the militarism and the nationalism of Japan are unrelated. Why is Flying-Tyger related to the militarism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

:Militarism and nationalism are very closely related in almost any context. However, the more pressing question, regarding this article would be how are militarism and eugenics related in a Japanese context. Sources seem to be pointing to opposition to eugenics, if anything, from the militaristic factions of Showa Japan. --ZayZayEM 07:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually on checking the "see also" links, nothing in the article suggests a link between Eugenics and Militarism in Japan; Militarism Socialism is an important topic to create context and should be included as a see also. Again nothing in this article, as far as I can tell links militarism and eugenics, so really its a non-sequitor/red herring that Azukimonaka is throwing in here.--ZayZayEM 07:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare managed eugenics. --Azukimonaka 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No response?

User Azukimonaka no response has been given because none is possible.

Your claims are a combination of nonsense; either from absurdity, illegibility, or simple trolling.

Please do not edit in a disruptive manner, use wikipedia to grind an axe or as a Battleground.--ZayZayEM 04:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I present the source, and am answering your question. It is easier to call TROLL than to investigate the history of Japan. Well, do you stop talking?　--Azukimonaka 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it in TalkPage of ZayZayEM. I am ready to make Timeline. It might be useful to understand Eugenics in Japan. Do you reject my proposal?　--Azukimonaka 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean.--ZayZayEM 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reqphoto tag

--ZayZayEM 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Picture suggestions:

• propoganda posters to go with this topic c.f. Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
• rallies/gatherings by JSHHE
• photos of key figures; Ikeda Ringi, Nagi Hisomu, the Tojos
• pictures illustrating opposition by religious fundamentalist movements

Contraceptives

the Hiroshima abstract [2] (quoted above anyway). Has some interesting information about the attitude towards contraceptives in Imperial Japan.

The eugenic movement did not advocate contraception as a means of eugenic control because it feared counterselection through the diffusion of contraception only among the intelligent or superior elements in the population. During the 1920s, the eugenic movement in Japan advocated contraceptives as a means of practicing eugenics, but then it adapted policies concerning population increase and assisted in the suppression of birth control.

This sort of information should be used to expand the article.--ZayZayEM 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you make "Birth control" confused with Eugenics?　--Azukimonaka 10:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a specific eugenics movement. It may entail activities outside of the scope of pure eugenics. That aside, contraceptives can play a role in eugenics, indeed one might say it would be important.--ZayZayEM 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes promoted the "Birth control" of Japan. (It has the women's liberation movement and implications. )　Are they related to Eugenics?　--Azukimonaka 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this an attempt to make a point? If the figures involved weren't related to eugenics, then, no their efforts don't relate to eugenics. Just as Alexander Bell's telephone doesn't have to with eugenics, but his thoughts on deaf people breeding do.--ZayZayEM 03:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please write a final opinion. Do you want to add Birth control to the war crime of Japan?　--Azukimonaka 15:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Figure context

"From 1940 to 1945, the Japanese Empire sterilized 454 people."

Was this a total number of people sterilized? forced sterilized? were all sterilizations related to the eugenics laws? eugenics movement? did they fit the criteria (even better, is their a demographic breakdown of how they fit the criteria)?--ZayZayEM 09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

454 people were sterilized arbitrarily. The compulsion of sterilization started in 1948. --Azukimonaka 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Illegible text about South Korea and lepers

The Hansen's disease patient who had survived received the guarantee from Japanese Government though the number of Hansen's disease patients in South Korea decreased greatly by the slaughter by the South Korea government. Moreover, Eugenics of Japan was succeeded to the South Korea government, and sterilization and the aborticide were compelled in South Korea until the latter half of 1980's. [3]

This makes zero sense.--ZayZayEM 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Source is Japanese.--ZayZayEM 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This source is JoongAng Ilbo. JoongAng Ilbo is a newspaper in South Korea. In a word, this source is information on not Japan but South Korea. --Azukimonaka 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The wording of this paragraph cannot be understood in English. If it is about Korea, why is it in an article about Japanese socio-politics?--ZayZayEM 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AN/I

Discussion about editing behaviours of User:Azuminoka and others at this page has been brought up at the Administrator's Noticeboard for Intervention -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#User:Azukimonaka__Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan --ZayZayEM 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Health?

Does anyone object to adding the article to Category:Health in Japan when it is unprotected. Eugenics is a public health issue - though I think this article will more than likely focus on the socio-political and legal aspects of the historical situation. Speaking of legal, perhaps Category:Japanese law may apply too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the two; more is better than less...--Flying tiger 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Possibly an article restructure might be needed headings such as:

• Background (describe social climate of war/xenophobia/German and Western influence on health aspects; as well as the Shinto position more clearly defined)
• Early movement (similar to current "Greater East-Asia War" section)
• Laws and measures - the actual laws, ordinances, decrees and/or measures that were instituted, their effects (i.e. numbers sterilized etc.), and targets (lepers, genetic disease) etc.
• Post-war (the Higashikuni measures etc.)
• Abolition of laws

--ZayZayEM 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have problem with a new structure. However, we must remember the article is relatively short and we should refrain from adding "one sentence" sections. Background should possibly include the Leprosy prevention laws and the reference to occidental eugenism. I don't think there is need for two sections such as "early movements" and "laws and measures" but I would keep the "war" and "post-war" sections. There is indeed a law in 1940... In the "war" section, we could refer to the shinto opposition movements. The last section, "abolition", should not refer to the 1948 law (which is truly eugenic) but in fact the the abolition of 1996. --Flying tiger 13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see now about the 1948 law.--ZayZayEM 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Okay. I'm switching from AN/I (innapropriate - oops) to RFC to resolve this.

Issues at hand are:

1. Does this article link Eugenics in Showa Japan with war crimes?
2. Are the "see also" links appropriate?
   1. Nazi eugenics
   2. Reproductive rights
   3. Margaret Sanger Marie Stopes
   4. Japanese fascism Japanese nationalism Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period
   5. Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan
   6. Xenophobia in Showa Japan
3. Are the actions attributed to the Hishikuni cabinet, referenced to Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, 2001 i) accurate ii) relevant
4. Should any term presented in inverted commas from a Japanese source have either an in-text or footnote that contains the original Japanese? - eg "This law limited compulsory sterilization to "Inherited mental disease", promoted genetic screening and restricted birth control access " (優生学と人間社会 Eugenics and society - Yonemoto Shohei)
   1. If this is not done, should inverted commas be removed?

--ZayZayEM 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think there is a problem with "war crimes". User:Azukimonaka is the only one referering to this matter. For the Higashikuni's "declaration", it only needs a neutral user who has the book and can confirm the accuracy of the reference. I also think the main isue is : Japanese sources must be verified by a neutral Japanese speaking user. --Flying tiger 13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement above is worded as neutrally as possible to comply with usual process. It overly sues WP:AGF to prevent accusations of bias against initiating parties.--ZayZayEM 02:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger,Marie Stopes,Xenophobia in Showa Japan...Please explain the reason to add these. --Azukimonaka 10:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanger and Stopes are at your behest. You indicated these figures were involved in lifting the profile of Eugenics in Showa Japan. Their articles appear to support this.

Birth control of Japan is influenced by Sanger and Stopes. However, they are not eugenists. Why were they related to eugenics?　--Azukimonaka 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, In the document of Europe and America, Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger were classified into Eugenics. --Azukimonaka 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger comes to Japan to Japan in 1922. However, because she was a friend of Shidzue Kato, the political campaign was limited by Home office in Japan. (The military in Japan did not support her eugenics (Birth control).)--Azukimonaka 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Birth control and family planning are tools of eugenics. Eugenics is not necessarily a negative thing.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Originally brought to Japan through German influence, eugenics during the Japanese Shōwa period had similarities to Nazi Eugenics". Margaret Sanger is not the German. They are not supporters of Nazis either. --Azukimonaka 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

please understand "Originally". no one is saying she is either of those two.--ZayZayEM 03:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confused. Please make Timeline. --Azukimonaka 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Xenophobia in Showa Japan is linked because it allows a reader to examine other political idealogues in the same period. Any 何々 in Showa Japan article (though preferable those of a politic-social nature, like Xenophobia) should be allowed in the see also section. It does not link Xenophobia with Eugenics. It allows a reader to know about social politics of the Japan in the era.--ZayZayEM 12:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Japan sterilize the mental disease patient by Xenophobia in Showa Japan? --Azukimonaka 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This sentence makes little sense. Nor is it relevant to my comments. And finally, it is not relevant to the inclusion of "X in SJ" as a see also link. If it was being included in the body, then yes a direct relationship would need to be established, but it is not being included in the article body, but as an indirectly related history topic.--ZayZayEM 00:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the 'see also links', they do seem a little eclectic- possibly the Nazi Eugenics links should be changed to simply the Eugenics page, which gives a much broader context for the Japanese program and leads the reader to the programs in countries as diverse as Sweden, Nazi Germany, Australia, etc.. Perhaps Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger could be brought into the initial paragraph refering to the spread of eugenics as a concept in Japan? Today is the first time I saw this page and in comparison with the heated discussion here it seems quite balanced as well as suitably short and substantiated. Well done!!--86.52.127.208 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We need verifiable sources on Stopes and Sanger's actual activities. I really only included them in attempt to appease Azukimonaka and show that we really aren't interested in painting Japanese as demons. Nazi Eugenics is important as it is Eugenics movements from the same era, I'm really surprised Wikipedia doesn't have an article such as Eugenics in 20th century America or even Eugenics in the United States of America, as America has also been a very heavy propogator of eugenics movements.--ZayZayEM 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem of Flying-Tyger

The first

Flying-Tyger is an editor who likes to add the war crime of Japan. However, Flying-Tyger gives priority to his feelings more than facts. (The Japanese is cruel. ) Therefore, when the fact that contradicts his opinion is written in the source, he falsifies the source. I explain his falsification act one by one.

Flying-Tyger wrote. [4] <- First Version　

Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.(#1"The National Eugenic Law)(#2[5])

The source#1 is being written like this.

"The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well."

He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior.

"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. 　
Source #1 is written, Only "hereditary disorder (遺伝性疾患)".
Source #2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948.　

There is still his malignant falsification. (It explains it at the end of October. ) --Azukimonaka 10:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

your link to this version [6] does not contain the disputed text. Please bear in mind that false accusations against other editors is a gross abuse of faith. A diff [7] clearly shows the only content added by Flying Tiger in the version you are pointing to was a reference to Sadao Araki.--ZayZayEM 11:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The current lead is of my primarily construction (see [8]) as part of an attempt to make an article that makes sense in Native English, as well as following standards for article leads. ad hominem attacks on FT here are pointless. Again no sufficient new content was introduced, the changes were merely rewording of text already found in the article.--ZayZayEM 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. So many reversions. This diff [9] probably points to the origins of the new lead. Again, instigated by me, following content already in the article. Not FT.--ZayZayEM 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Further. I'd like to again remind Azukimonaka, this article does not merely deal with the wording of the laws. This deals with Eugenics movements. Some laws of Eugenics will include non-eugenic related matters, nor are all eugenic matters contained in law. Source #2 also lists 34 heriditary, semi-heridatary and non-heridetary disorders as reasons for "non-voluntary eugenic operation", including nymphomania (Remarkable abnormal sexual desire), schitzophrenia and blue sclera (table 1). If you wish to include information regarding the maternal protection laws, I would suggest trying to in the appropriate section. Though I would recommend suggesting your edits on the talk page, so we can deal with appropriate communication of ideas.--ZayZayEM 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not hope for "Include information regarding the maternal protection laws". I hope for the explanation of the reason to delete "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". And, I hope for the explanation of the reason why Flying-Tyger falsified the source in other parts. --Azukimonaka 13:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please link to a case of deletion of this comment (I suspect it has never been included in the article). Leaving out certain information isn't "falsifying". It may be misleading, but not falsifying. Feel free to add any information, or suggest addition of any information that provides a better WP:NPOV.--ZayZayEM 00:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Because a lot of biases hang, many of edits of him are removed, and the edit of Flying-Tyger is rewritten. --Azukimonaka 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Source of rewrite
Japanese Eugenics and the Role of Psychiatrists

The second

According to his history, He is a propagator of the war crime of Japan. To emphasize cruelty in Japan, he often inserts an unrelated article to the war crime.

For instance, he quoted it from Hirohito and the making of modern Japan (This book is not a book on Eugenics though it is natural.) [10]

　

One of the last eugenic measure of the Shōwa regime was taken by the Higashikuni government. On 19 August 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". The official declaration stated that : «Through the sacrifice of thousands of "Okichis" of the Shōwa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future

外国軍駐屯地における慰安施設の設置に関する内務省警保局長通牒(無電)[原文漢数字]
1945/08/18
外国軍駐屯地に於ては別記要領に依り之が慰安施設等設備の要あるも本件取扱に付ては極めて慎重を要するに付特に左記事項留意の上遺憾なきを期せられ度.
1.外国軍の駐屯地及時季は目下全く予想し得ざるところなれば必ず貴県に駐屯するが如き感を懐き一般に動揺を来さしむ如きなかるべきこと.
2.駐屯する場合は急速に開設を要するものなるに付内部的には予め手筈を定め置くこととし外部には絶対に之を漏洩せざること.
3.本件実施に当りて日本人の保護を趣旨とするものなることを理解せしめ地方民をして誤解を生じせしめざること.

(別記)
外国駐屯軍慰安施設等整備要綱
1. 営業行為は一定の区域を限定して従来の取締標準にかかわらずこれを許可するものとす.
2. 前項の区域は警察署長に於いて之を設定するものとし,日本人の施設利用は之を禁ずるものとす.
3. 警察署長は左の営業については積極的に指導を行い設備の急速充実を図るものとする.
性的慰安施設
飲食施設
娯楽場
4. 営業に必要な婦女子は,芸妓,公私娼妓,女給,酌婦,常習密売淫犯者を優先的に之を充足するものとする.

吉川春子『従軍慰安婦 新資料による国会論戦』あゆみ出版1997/11/01 pp.230

Because this part is a description based on flying-tyger's personal preference, it deletes.

Other mistakes of Flying-Tyger are added on around November 5. --Azukimonaka 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics in Korea

Because Flying tiger positively adds the topic of Korea, I make Eugenics in Korea to avoid confusing. (The South Korean who slanders Japan emphasizes the damage of Korea. However, they are indifferent for the damage of Taiwan.) --Azukimonaka 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is innapropriate.--ZayZayEM 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Other mass deletion by Azukimonaka

Yesterday, I added a lot of info from "Blood Talks", a useful study by Jennifer Robertson of University of Michigan [[11]] However, user Azukimonaka deleted it without any justification as he is doing on Japanese expansionism. He can not accuse me of "falsifying source" as I provided the link. What is the object this time for such "mass deletion" ?

[[12]] --Flying tiger 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You extract only a convenient place from the source to your insistence. (I do not deny the source. )　

By the way, please do the reason why you falsified the source.[13] --Azukimonaka 21:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a way to act on Wikipedia. If ANY user deleted ALL the contributions of other users when he want other excerpts, there would be no content in articles. This is a destructive way to act. A constructive way is to modify or add other excerpts. I gave you the link, you should have add other excerpts instead of carelessly deleting my contribution.

About your silly and personal accusation, user:ZayZayEM answered you above. There was no "falsification" by anybody. We simply can not understand your way weird of thinking. --Flying tiger 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am demanding the explanation that removes and to protect the life and health of the mother as well from the source. (Though this is the first demand. )　--Azukimonaka 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Flying tiger, Please participate in the discussion about Talkpage of Japanese expansionism. --Azukimonaka 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Both of you please refrain from editing. Involve yourselves in the mediation process. This is getting nowhere. At the very least mediation may improve communication between you two.--ZayZayEM 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

If this article survives the Afd, which it appears it will, the title of the article should be changed and moved, at least to Eugenics measures in the Japanese Empire, or maybe even better Eugenics in Imperial Japan. Any thoughts?--Kewp 16:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'll support the second. Short and sweet, and already a redirect. Any dissent?--ZayZayEM 07:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archives, there was a discussion about it in 2007... --Flying tiger 12:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Eugenics in Japan" is good enough. There is no reason to limit it to a particular wareki time period (other than maybe making its association with Nazism easier). Creating an article for eugenics (or anything else for that matter) in every period of several decades for every country would be ridiculous. --Saintjust 08:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The book Eugenics and Human Society

Regarding an edit [14] which was being disputed over the use of the book Eugenics and Human Society at User_talk:ZayZayEM#FYI, a webpage [15] (provided by Azukimonaka on ZayZayEM's talk page) writes that the chapter 5 of the book ("日本−戦後の優生保護法という名の断種法" by Yoko Matsubara) overviews National Eugenic Law ("国民優生法," 1940-1947), Eugenic Protection Law ("優生保護法," 1948-1996), and other eugenic thoughts and policies in Japan since the establishment of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1938 up to the present ("本章では1938年の厚生省創設から国民優生法、優生保護法、そして現在までの日本の優性思想・政策を概観した内容"). The webpage itself is a summary of the book and a part of a website maintained by notable Japanese scholars such as Tatsuya Iwasaki among others. Oda Mari's allegation that this book only deals with the 1948 law and so its reference should be removed from the article seems to be false. --Saintjust 08:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to make things difficult or confusing. What I saw was this page and wondered if it was appropriate as citation. Because it's a Japanese Amazon page. I didn't know much about the book then, but I should have said the book mainly deals with the 1948 law. My apology to everybody who read my former comment. Oda Mari (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics and Japanese expansionism

According to Oguma Eiji's Tan'itsu minzoku shinwa no kigen - "Nihonjin"no jigazō no keifu (The Origin of the Myth of Ethnic Homogeneity: The Genealogy of "Japanese" Self-Images), which is the most recent and acclaimed work on the subject, pure-blood theories as represented by some eugenicists were not the dominant paradigm behind the Imperial Japan's expansionism in the early 20th century. It was rather the mixed-blood theorists who vigorously promoted expansionism (Nissen doso-ron (日鮮同祖論, 일선동조론) is a prime example of this):

"In the environment of imperial Japan with its expanding borders and large numbers of ethnic minorities, evidence of a past racial "mixture" was rapidly seized on. After all, if the Japanese were the product of such a mixture, it might be argued that the empire's effort to assimilate non-Japanese subjects would prove successful. Moreover, a self-image of the Japanese as the product of a melting pot of a plurality of ethnic groups lent itself to a discourse that could justify imperialism.....This self-image of the Japanese as a heterogeneous nation could also be used to support colonial policies of assimilation. The effort to turn Koreans into Japanese through intermarriage and other assimilationist policies, for instance, could be justified by arguing that the Japanese had originally come to Japan from Korea and thus the Koreans were in effect already Japanese. Ancient history thus seemed to justify current policies." (From a summary of the book by David Askew, the translator of the English edition)

Major pure-blood theories are mostly the products of post-war Japan:

"[T]he prewar era was dominated by a belief that Japan was a multi-national state and that the Japanese were a multi-national people (a mixed nation), and it was only after the end of the war that a new paradigm, the myth of an homogeneous ethnicity, took root."

"[T]he works of Yanagita Kunio, Tsuda Sōkichi and Watsuji Tetsurō had the most influence in the formation of postwar self-images and descriptions of Japanese culture. The Japanese state was now portrayed as a "peaceful culture state" and Japan as an "island nation". In addition to the "birth" of the theory of an island folk and the revival of interest in the Kiki myths, Oguma also examines the wartime debate between the advocates of "Japanisation" (Kōminka) and the eugenicists (Oguma's distinction between the two main theories about the origin of the Japanese nation helped to shed much light on this debate), the collapse of the empire, and the establishment of the myth of ethnic homogeneity."

"Although racial discrimination did exist in the Great Japanese Empire, it is important, he states, to emphasise the huge differences between it and the racism of the Nazis. The Japanese government promoted intermarriage with the minority Koreans and Taiwanese. And although the culture and language of minority groups were rejected in favour of assimilationist policies that promoted the Japanisation of the peoples of Japan's colonies, the aim was to promote national unity, and the extermination of entire ethnic groups was never contemplated (nor was the extermination of entire social classes). Oguma notes that he believes that Japan was different from the Nazis, but quickly adds that this is not to say that Japan was any better, only that it practised a different sort of evil." (Ibid.)

Pure-blood theorists supported isolationism and exclusionism rather than expansionism and assimilation during the war. --Saintjust 18:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. This source should be included in the article. However, Jennifer Robertson, on p.205 of her essay, cites a source of 1942 which discouraged marriage betwwen Japanese and Koreans immigrants in Japan [16]. So, problably the "pure-blood" was considered important in Japan itself while assimilation was a way to promote the virtues of the "Japanese race" outside the national territory. --Flying tiger 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Intermarriage was discouraged by "the eugenic marriage counseling centers," but encouraged by the Governornment-General of Korea. The latter prevailed (at least in Korea). --Saintjust 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have more info about these Eugenic marriage counseling centers ?--Flying tiger 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's from the article that you linked above: "Center staff also attempted to discourage marriages between Japanese women and Korean men who had been recruited from the peninsula as laborers following its annexation by Japan in 1910," where "Center" is " the “eugenic-marriage counseling centers” ( yűsei kekkon sôdansho)" as stated in the first paragraph of the section. --Saintjust 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I wondered if you add more info about those.--Flying tiger 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen, TransPacific Relation, ISBN 9780275977146: "Whereas the racial intermarriage between Japanese and Taiwanese/Koreans was promoted as an immediately effective policy of assimilation by the colonial governments to further legitimate their rule, it was strongly opposed by the eugenicists, Marxists and anti-assimilation theorists.... [Minoru Togo, a highly ranked bureaucrat in the Government-General of Taiwan and an eugenicist] not only opposed the assimilation policy but also tried to push for racial segregation in Taiwan.... His opposition created so much antagonism in the colonial government that he was forced to resign from his post.... Academic science was also used by the Government-General of Korea to support racial intermarriage, with evidence such as that the Japanese and Koreans belonged to a group with the same origin (Nissen doso ron) and hence the same unity (Naisen ittai), and the racial coefficient of blood types from the serological studies confirmed that the homeland Japanese and the Koreans were racially approximate." --218.222.11.81 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

As the mediation has concluded, I have unprotected the article. Although the mediation wasn't successful, please take time to discuss future reverts to the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal move → Eugenics in Japan

I think it is about time this happened. There appears to be no real reason for focusing the title of this article to Showa Japan, especially when it deals with pre-Showa and post-Showa events.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons given. --MChew (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support as ZayZayEM RomaC (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This topic coud use a rewrite for less personal perspectives, and I have done this. I will do a bit more citation soon. Takashi Ueki (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate lack of knowledge

Its seems that personal agendas get mixed up in these pages all too often. We should all stick to facts and dispassionate discussion and not personal agendas. It never ends well to cite evil of the past for the verification of our own anger today. To this end I "sterilized" (yes a bad pun) this article's opener for the benefit of some neutrality. It seemed as though nobody understood what eugenics are or how they were created or moved as a scientific theory throughout the world. Also there was no talk about the relationship of local "purity" theories and parallel dogma of scientific eugenics in Japan. This was a globally accepted ideal based in "science" and almost all countries adopted it for 50 years without any doubts at all, in the US we continued to use these theories in practice until 1976. In animal and plant husbandry today the same theories are alive and well all over the planet. Also the Japanese never did go down the road of scapegoating one race for the benefit of another. Most Asian societies are very xenophobic, and cannot be simply talked out of their domestic superiority agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated US references to eugenics

It is accepted fact the we in the US created, promulgated, legalized and promoted eugenics as fact in humans. I cited that relationship with 2 articles. Japanese eugenics programs are more based on our ideas of racial superiority that almost any other since we adopted the earliest of all countries as policy and law. Lets not deny facts, just because it is uncomfortable. Takashi Ueki (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

German Orthodox church?

I have never heard of a "German Orthodox church". Where is this "church" attested? Dogface (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to compare Japanese eugenics with Western eugenics

I think there is a great effort and trying to make "Japanese eugenics" worse or same as western eugenics in order to cover up the shocking Western eugenics that people know. I think western eugenics was several thousand light years ahead than Japanese eugenics. "Japanese eugenics" really consist of several documents, proposals and ideas unlike the Western eugenics that actually went into effect including Nazi eugenics. The eugenics thought is mostly a Western thought and there is no real things as "Japanese eugenics." Eugenics is really in practice is remote to Asian cultures since there isn't a lot of thoughts literature, actions and practices concerning race in Asian *compared* with the western racial and eugenics thoughts and practices. I suggest don't try too hard to make "Japanese eugenics" similar with Nazi/western eugenics because they are totally, actually and remotely different from one another. I think "Japanese eugenics" is 1/100000 of the western eugenics. The article appears too trying to a visitor since there is no images, peoples and examples, just bunch of assumptions and rambling without real concrete evidence *compared* with western eugenics, which there are abundant documents, names, etc. 174.51.176.22 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eugenics in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928231836/http://www.southernspaces.org/2011/color-democracy-japanese-public-health-officials-reconnaissance-trip-us-south to http://www.southernspaces.org/2011/color-democracy-japanese-public-health-officials-reconnaissance-trip-us-south

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eugenics in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230100057/http://tateiwa.kir.jp/1990/971100my.htm to http://tateiwa.kir.jp/1990/971100my.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113060946/http://www.clg.niigata-u.ac.jp/~miyasaka/hansen/leprosypolicy.html to http://www.clg.niigata-u.ac.jp/~miyasaka/hansen/leprosypolicy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113060946/http://www.clg.niigata-u.ac.jp/~miyasaka/hansen/leprosypolicy.html to http://www.clg.niigata-u.ac.jp/~miyasaka/hansen/leprosypolicy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)