Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on June 22, 2006 at 18:01:34

In Reply to: First step to get out of a hole: posted by DWPCAPACHE on June 22, 2006 at 16:50:52:

The purpose of the The Bataan death march was to take the prisoners to other camps. That is a fact, not subject to conjecture. It was not called the Bataan Death March before the trek began. It became known as The Bataan Death march because of the murders which took place along the way. The same logic applies to the "Trail of Tears" that took Native Americans out west. I doubt the U.S. military announced to the Native Americans that "hey, get ready, we are leaving on the trail of tears." These events or places were given names because of what happened on them.

You write: "In your review post you say "...the Bataan Death March, which was really marching the prisoners of war to various camps". I disagree and believe it was really an act of monumental barbarity."

That the Death March was a march of the prisoners to various P.O.W. camps is beyond dispute. That it became a monumental barbarity is also beyond dispute. Your posts assumes that the march and the subsequently barbarity are mutually exclusive, as though me calling it a march, which it was in that men walked in a regimented line, and they themselves calling it a march, assumes that is was not barbarity, or that I did not think it was a barbarity because I called it a march. Your interpretation is a mistake. Your ascribing such a thought to me is an insult.

You quote me as follows: "The Japanese military culture indoctrinated their soldiers to believe that surrender was cowardly, and so the prisoners were viewed as cowards, not deserving to live."

I stand by that statement. Were these men born soldiers? Were they born with such evil in their hearts? Are rascists born rascists? Or do they learn those believes, which then lead to evil deeds? If you agree they are not born that way, then something entered their brains and warped their mental process. If it was not the Japanese military culture, then pray tell, what was it? Do Japanese believe the same things today? If not, then why not? Perhaps it is because the Japanese Military was dismantled following WWII, and it's culture eradicated, along with the Emperor.

"Your original explanation of the deaths of 10,000 is not only nonjudgemental, but goes some distance in rationalizing the Japaneses command's decision as a logical solution to a distribution problem. And you proceed to do it a second time in your response."

Again, you miss the point. I never wrote that the deaths of 10,000 men was a logical solution to a distribution problem. This is what I wrote: "The logic was that it was easier to smaller groups of prisoners." I left out a word, 'watch', but I did not correct the sentence because a rational person would know the missing word. Nothing in that sentence in any way, shape, or form states or implies that the reason the Japanese executed 10,000 men was because of a "distribution problem." It is clearly easier to watch 10 groups of 5000 rather than one group of 50,000. Or so the Japenese thought.

This sentence is then followed by: "Along the way, any men that left formation were summarily executed." The reason I stated they were executed was because they left formation, not because the Japanese need to weed out men in order to make it easier to watch them. If that was their goal, then why not simply execute them, rather than march through a jungle? I would think it patently obvious for most, though apparently not all, the reason those men were killed is because they could not keep up, and the Japanese were not about to either halt the line for the sick and feeble, or carry those prisoners. Hence, they killed them. Those are facts. That you apparently need me to state the obvious that these acts are barbaric says more about you than me.