To be or not to be in Singapore, that is the question. Thankfully, when Shakespeare’s Globe decided which countries to visit during their two-year world tour of Globe to Globe Hamlet, it gave a resounding yes to the Lion City!
This September, see Shakespeare’s famous story about the tragic Danish prince (above) on stage at Singapore’s Capitol Theatre. Hamlet will be the first international production to visit the historic theatre, since it reopened in May after extensive renovations.
To be or not to be, that is the question.という有名なハムレットのセリフに絡めてワールドツアーにシンガポールが含まれているのかと、疑問形で書き出していますね。また、it gave a resounding yes to the Lion City!とシンガポールがLion Cityに言い換えられています。背景知識があればSingapore=Lion Cityは分けなくわかりますが、よく知らないトピックを英語で読むと同じことを言い換えて書かれているのかピンと来ずによく理解できないままモヤモヤが残るというのもありがちです。
“I think a really big question the Jewish community needs to ask itself, is how much at the forefront we put Holocaust education. Which is, of course, an important question to remember and to respect, but not over other things,” she was quoted as saying.
She recalled learning about the Rwandan Genocide during a visit to a museum and being shocked that while the Holocaust figured prominently into her education, a contemporary genocide did not.
According to the United Nations, 800,000 people, “perhaps as many as three-quarters of the Tutsi [tribal] population” were killed during the course of the early ’90s genocide.
“I was shocked that that [genocide] was going on while I was in school. We were learning only about the Holocaust and it was never mentioned and it was happening while I was in school. That is exactly the type of problem with the way it’s taught. I think it needs to be taught, and I can’t speak for everyone because this was my personal education,” she told The Independent.
この記事ではなぜユダヤ人のホロコーストが特別なものなのかという反応をいくつか紹介しています。もちろん反対意見の方たちも他の民族の虐殺を軽んじていいと主張している人は一人もいません。 “I both agree and disagree with Natalie Portman,” said Menachem Rosensaft, general counsel of the World Jewish Congress, who teaches about genocide law at Columbia and Cornell universities. “Of course all genocides, as well as all similar atrocities, are tragic and must be acknowledged and commemorated as such. And no one should engage in comparative suffering.
I tell my students that from the point of view of the victims or their families, it really makes no difference if they were murdered in a gas chamber or with machetes. And, as World Jewish Congress president Ronald S. Lauder has emphasized, Jews must not be silent when Yazidis and Christians are persecuted and murdered by ISIS [Islamic State].”
“At the same time, the Holocaust is unique – not worse and certainly not more tragic – because of its enormous, continent-wide scope, because of the complexity and systematic methodology of the annihilation and the willing participation of such an enormously broad-based part of not just German but other societies,” he said to the Post on Sunday. “In this respect, the Holocaust must be acknowledged as the epitomic manifestation of genocide, as the ultimate consequence of bigotry and hatred as official public policy combined with international indifference and inaction. This, too, must be taught and emphasized.”
次はアウシュビッツの生存者の方です。ユダヤ人のホロコーストをしっかり教えることが他の民族の虐殺を防ぐことにもなるという立場のようです。 Auschwitz survivor David Mermelstein said, "I am shocked. The Nazis tried to erase the Jewish people from the face of this earth – 6 million. Before she talks about the Holocaust, she should go to Auschwitz with a survivor, she would never compare the Holocaust to anything else."
"We survivors know better than anyone what hatred can cause, and we were the first ones to raise alarms about Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur. We are the ones who volunteer our time in schools to educate new generations about the horrific results of hatred and prejudice. But to minimize the importance of Holocaust education is dangerous – look at how much anti-Semitism exists today in Europe despite everything that has been documented. And soon, all of us survivors will be gone."
It’s not just a stolen art. The art becomes a symbol of a stolen life, really, and stolen memories. And not to forget that it’s happening as we speak in the Middle East and parts of the world. People are being said, “You don’t live here anymore. Get out. I’m going to take everything in your house.” So I think it becomes the symbol of your family, your memories, your existence as a human being.
今回のタイトルは最後の方のシーンでYou are keeping the memory alive.と語っている部分からです。謝罪するかの前に、何が起きたか思い起こすことは重要なことでしょう。
“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting”（権力に対する闘いは忘却に対する闘いだ） The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera
That means answering the philosophical questions. There are those who will oppose CRISPR because it lets humans play God. But medicine routinely intervenes in the natural order of things—saving people from infections and parasites, say. The opportunities to treat cancer, save children from genetic disease and understand diabetes offer justification to push ahead.
A harder question is whether it is ever right to edit human germ-line cells, to make changes that are inherited. This is banned in 40 countries and restricted in many others. There is no reason for a ban on research or therapeutic use: some countries, rightly, allow research on human embryos, as long as they are left over from in-vitro fertilisation and are not grown beyond 14 days; and Britain has allowed a donor to supply mitochondrial DNA at conception to spare children needless suffering, even though the change will be passed on. And CRISPR deals with the objection that germ-line changes are irrevocable: if genes can be edited out, they can also be edited back in.
If CRISPR can be shown to be safe in humans, mechanisms will also be needed to grapple with consent and equality. Gene editing raises the spectre of parents making choices that are not obviously in the best interests of their children. Deaf parents may prefer their offspring to be deaf too, say; pushy parents might want to boost their children’s intelligence at all costs, even if doing so affects their personalities in other ways. And if it becomes possible to tweak genes to make children smarter, should that option really be limited to the rich?
Thinking through such issues is right. But these dilemmas should not obscure CRISPR’s benefits or obstruct its progress. The world has within its reach a tool to give people healthier, longer and better-quality lives. It should be embraced.
最後のThe world has within its reach a tool to give people healthier, longer and better-quality lives. It should be embraced.の部分はRadioheadのOK Computerを好んで聞いいていたものとしては皮肉的に響いてしまいますが。。。いやあ、本当に音楽に関しては90年代で止まっています（滝汗）
Ragtimeで有名なE. L. Doctorowが先月亡くなった時に、Esquireが小説の重要性という彼が1986年に書いたエッセイを紹介していました。抜粋してYutaのざっくり訳と一緒に紹介します。
The Importance of Fiction E. L. Doctorow 1986 （前略） I know now that everyone in the world tells stories. Relatively few people are given to mathematics or physics, but narrative seems to be within everyone’s grasp, perhaps because it comes of the nature of language itself. 世界の誰もが話をすることができるが、数学や物理の能力は比較的少数の人にしか与えられていない。物語は誰もが理解できるようなのは、きっと言語自体の性質からくるものだろう。
The moment you have nouns and verbs and prepositions, the moment you have subjects and objects, you have stories. 名詞と動詞、前置詞があれば、主語と目的語があれば、物語ができる
（中略） But nothing is as good at fiction as fiction. しかし、物語をうまく語れるのは物語だけだ。
It is the most ancient way of knowing but also the most modern, managing when it’s done right to burn all the functions of language back together into powerful fused revelation. Because it is total discourse it is ultimate discourse. It excludes nothing. It will express from the depth and range of its sources truths that no sermon or experiment or news report can begin to apprehend. It will tell you without shame what people do with their bodies and think with their minds. It will deal evenhandedly with their microbes or their intuitions. It will know their nightmares and blinding moments of moral crisis. You will experience love, if it so chooses, or starvation or drowning or dropping through space or holding a hot pistol in your hand with the police pounding on the door. This is the way it is, it will say, this is what it feels like. 物語は、最も古来の知のあり方だが、最も現代的なものにもなる。あらゆる言語機能が結集して力強い発見が生み出すことができさえすれば。全体を語ることができれば、究極の語りとなる。何も除外しておらず、元となる真実の深さと幅から表現されることになろう。説教や実験、ニュースでは感知すらできないものなのだ。恥じることなく、体で行うことと頭で考えることを伝えるだろう。細菌や直感なども同じように扱うだろう。悪夢や分別が危機に陥る瞬間を知るだろう。愛を経験するだろう、物語が望めば、飢えたり、溺れたり、真っ逆さまに落ちたり、警察が乗り込んだ時には撃ったばかりの銃を手に持っていることもあるだろう。これが物語のあり方だ。物語からすれば、これが物語で感じることだとなるだろう。
Fiction is democratic, it reasserts the authority of the single mind to make and remake the world. By its independence from all institutions, from the family to the government, and with no responsibility to defend their hypocrisy or murderousness, it is a valuable resource and instrument of survival. 小説は民主的だ。偏狭な心の権力に世界を作り、さらに作り直すことを再度主張する。すべての組織からも家族や政府からも独立しており、それらの偽善や残虐性を弁護する必要もないので、小説は生き延びていくにはなくてはならない手段・道具なのだ。
Fiction gives counsel. It connects the present with the past, and the visible with the invisible. It distributes the suffering. It says we must compose ourselves in our stories in order to exist. It says if we don’t do it, someone else will do it for us. 小説は忠告を与える。現在と過去や、見えるものと見えないものを結びつける。苦痛を分かちあう。小説は、生きていくためにも自分たちの物語を自分で作り出さないといけないと伝える。もし自分でしなければ、他の誰かがしてしまうだろう。
特に最後の部分It says if we don’t do it, someone else will do it for us.が自分には重要です。結局、自分でやらないと、他の誰かの借り物に頼らなくてはいけないのですから。ただ、自分のものを作り上げるには大変な思いも必要でしょう。彼はyou're writing to find out what you're writingとも語っています。
REHM: Now, is there a new novel already in the works? DOCTOROW: There is one. It's sort of at the beginning of things, yeah. It's at that stage where something is calling to you, but you don't quite know what it is. And so you're writing to find out what you're writing, actually. That's the way it is. REHM: That must create a lot of insecurity on the part of a writer. DOCTOROW: Well, I don't know if it's insecurity. At this point I'm really so used to it. It's quite an irrational way to live, actually. But it's the way I've been going along for many, many years.
授業で悪ぶれずに「教えてもらってないのでできません」と口をとがらせて答える生徒のような印象をどうしても彼にはもってしまいます。Agree to disagreeという言葉は語るにはかっこいいですけど、実際に信条に合わないような人についていくのは苦痛ですね（汗）もちろん、自分と意見が違うものも尊重しなければいけないという大原則を否定するつもりはありません。この不快さを受け止めることがAgree to disagreeの真髄なのでしょう。じゃないと、話せばわかるといういいながら、自分の意見を押し付けるだけの人になってしまいますから。。。
戦後七十年にあたり、国内外に斃れたすべての人々の命の前に、深く頭を垂れ、痛惜の念を表すとともに、永劫の、哀悼の誠を捧げます。 On the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, I bow my head deeply before the souls of all those who perished both at home and abroad. I express my feelings of profound grief and my eternal, sincere condolences.
先の大戦では、三百万余の同胞の命が失われました。祖国の行く末を案じ、家族の幸せを願いながら、戦陣に散った方々。終戦後、酷寒の、あるいは灼熱の、遠い異郷の地にあって、飢えや病に苦しみ、亡くなられた方々。広島や長崎での原爆投下、東京をはじめ各都市での爆撃、沖縄における地上戦などによって、たくさんの市井の人々が、無残にも犠牲となりました。 More than three million of our compatriots lost their lives during the war: on the battlefields worrying about the future of their homeland and wishing for the happiness of their families; in remote foreign countries after the war, in extreme cold or heat, suffering from starvation and disease. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the air raids on Tokyo and other cities, and the ground battles in Okinawa, among others, took a heavy toll among ordinary citizens without mercy.
戦火を交えた国々でも、将来ある若者たちの命が、数知れず失われました。中国、東南アジア、太平洋の島々など、戦場となった地域では、戦闘のみならず、食糧難などにより、多くの無辜の民が苦しみ、犠牲となりました。戦場の陰には、深く名誉と尊厳を傷つけられた女性たちがいたことも、忘れてはなりません。 Also in countries that fought against Japan, countless lives were lost among young people with promising futures. In China, Southeast Asia, the Pacific islands and elsewhere that became the battlefields, numerous innocent citizens suffered and fell victim to battles as well as hardships such as severe deprivation of food. We must never forget that there were women behind the battlefields whose honour and dignity were severely injured.
何の罪もない人々に、計り知れない損害と苦痛を、我が国が与えた事実。歴史とは実に取り返しのつかない、苛烈なものです。一人ひとりに、それぞれの人生があり、夢があり、愛する家族があった。この当然の事実をかみしめる時、今なお、言葉を失い、ただただ、断腸の念を禁じ得ません。 Upon the innocent people did our country inflict immeasurable damage and suffering. History is harsh. What is done cannot be undone. Each and every one of them had his or her life, dream, and beloved family. When I squarely contemplate this obvious fact, even now, I find myself speechless and my heart is rent with the utmost grief.
これほどまでの尊い犠牲の上に、現在の平和がある。これが、戦後日本の原点であります。 The peace we enjoy today exists only upon such precious sacrifices. And therein lies the origin of postwar Japan.
二度と戦争の惨禍を繰り返してはならない。 We must never again repeat the devastation of war.
Government by Mourning: Death and Political Integration in Japan, 1603-1912 (Harvard East Asian Monographs)– 2014/8/18 Atsuko Hirai From the early seventeenth to the mid-nineteenth century, the Tokugawa shogunate enacted and enforced myriad laws and ordinances to control nearly every aspect of Japanese life, including observance of a person’s death. In particular, the shoguns Tsunayoshi and Yoshimune issued strict decrees on mourning and abstention that dictated compliance throughout the land and survived the political upheaval of the Meiji Restoration to persist well into the twentieth century.
Atsuko Hirai reveals the pivotal relationship between these shogunal edicts and the legitimacy of Tokugawa rule. By highlighting the role of narimono chojirei (injunctions against playing musical instruments) within their broader context, she shows how this class of legislation played an important integrative part in Japanese society not only through its comprehensive implementation, especially for national mourning of major political figures, but also by its codification of the religious beliefs and customs that the Japanese people had cherished for innumerable generations.
Are you currently working with the CRISPR technology and encountering issues with specificity, efficiency or delivery challenges?
If so this is a MUST attend event for you!
For the first time in Europe, Pharma IQ is bringing together key industry leaders to address the challenges preventing you from making the most of the CRISPR technology.
At this event you will have the opportunity to: Troubleshoot your experiments with other scientists Learn about the latest tools, technologies and techniques to optimise your CRISPR application Network with other industry professionals Find answers to you CRISPR questions from leading industry experts Hear about the most exciting cutting edge experiments being conducted with CRISPR Find out more about navigating CRISPR’s complex ethical and safety landscape
In preparation for the event, we are conducting a short survey, the contents of which will feature in our 2015 CRISPR Research Report, to be released later this year. The survey consists of 11 questions, and all participants who complete the survey by the 12th August 2015 are automatically entered in a prize draw for a free place at the event. Please complete the survey here.
Words checked = [198] Words in Oxford 3000™ = [88%]
all participants who complete the survey by the 12th August 2015 are automatically entered in a prize draw for a free place at the event. （どの参加者も2015年8月12日までにアンケートを回答すれば自動的に賞品の抽選の資格があり、賞品はイベントの無料参加です。）
気になった語を確認しておきます。
Unlocking the True Potential of CRISPR Cas9 Gene Editing! （CRISPR Cas9遺伝子編集の真の潜在力を解放する！）
TOEICで出るのはThe man is unlocking a door.のように文字通りの意味ですが、今回のような使われ方は特に広告でよく見られるので、TOEICにいつでてもおかしくないものです。
（オックスフォード） unlock something to discover something and let it be known The divers hoped to unlock some of the secrets of the seabed. Drama helps to unlock young people’s creative talents. the key to unlock the mystery
At this event you will have the opportunity to: Troubleshoot your experiments with other scientists （このイベントでできること 他の科学者と一緒に実験の問題解決）
例えば４月号のテーマは「ネットワークを広げる」で、英語だとNetworking in an Effective Wayでした。TOEICでもnetworking skillsが登場しています。
Mr. Vance concluded that more emphasis should be placed on networking skills.
Networkという動詞は英語でもパーソナルではなく、仕事上の関係作りのニュアンスのようです。
（オックスフォード） network verb [intransitive] to try to meet and talk to people who may be useful to you in your work Conferences are a good place to network.
（ケンブリッジビジネス） network verb (MEET PEOPLE) › [I] to meet people who might be useful to know, especially in your job: I don't really enjoy these conferences, but they're a good opportunity to network.
No one, not even a bacterium, likes being infected by a virus, and early in evolution, bacteria developed a way to destroy viruses with exquisitely precise attacks. Very recently, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna figured out the inner workings of this bacterial self-protection, and then, in a tour de force of elegant deduction and experiment, they developed a plug-and-play version of that approach. Their technique, CRISPR-Cas9, gives scientists the power to remove or add genetic material at will. Working with cells in a lab, geneticists have used this technology to cut out HIV, to correct sickle-cell anemia and to alter cancer cells to make them more susceptible to chemotherapy. With CRISPR-Cas9, a scientist could, in theory, alter any human gene. This is a true breakthrough, the implications of which we are just beginning to imagine.
King is a geneticist and the discoverer of the BRCA1 cancer gene
IN A WAY, humans were genetic engineers long before anyone knew what a gene was. They could give living things new traits—sweeter kernels of corn, flatter bulldog faces—through selective breeding. But it took time, and it didn't always pan out. By the 1930s refining nature got faster. Scientists bombarded seeds and insect eggs with x-rays, causing mutations to scatter through genomes like shrapnel. If one of hundreds of irradiated plants or insects grew up with the traits scientists desired, they bred it and tossed the rest. That's where red grapefruits came from, and most barley for modern beer.
Genome modification has become less of a crapshoot. In 2002, molecular biologists learned to delete or replace specific genes using enzymes called zinc-finger nucleases; the next-generation technique used enzymes named TALENs. Yet the procedures were expensive and complicated. They only worked on organisms whose molecular innards had been thoroughly dissected—like mice or fruit flies. Genome engineers went on the hunt for something better.
The China Earthquake Networks Centre said the magnitude of the first explosion was the equivalent of detonating three tons of TNT, while the second was the equivalent of 21 tonnes of the explosive.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki In Hiroshima, the bomb exploded over the center of the city, destroying everything in a one-mile radius. In Nagasaki, the bomb was detonated in an industrial valley flanked by a mountain spur so that the total destruction took place within a half a mile that shielded the major business and residential districts. Yet the more powerful Nagasaki bomb of 20 kiloton (TNT equivalent) compared to the 15 kiloton Hiroshima bomb caused a far greater radius of damage than in Hiroshima.
According to John Dower, there were over 6m Japanese stranded overseas when the war ended. Their story is strangely little told, even in Japan. Something over half of the stranded were servicemen, many wounded, malnourished or diseased. The rest were administrators, bank clerks, railwaymen, farmers, industrialists, prostitutes, spies, photographers, barbers, children. For them and for their families and friends back home, just as for conscripted and exiled Chinese and Koreans in similar situations, August 15th was far from a definitive end. A year after its defeat 2m Japanese had still not made it home. Many never did. A national radio programme, “Missing Persons”, was launched in 1946. It went off-air only in 1962. 終戦時外地にいた日本人600万人が難民となった。彼らの物語は不思議なくらい日本でもあまり語られてはいない。半分以上が帰る場所がなくなった兵士たちでその多くが負傷したことが原因でまたは栄養失調で亡くなっていった。ほかに残されたのは事務員、銀行員、鉄道職員、農民、工業関係者、売春婦、スパイ、写真家、理髪師、そして子供たちだった。彼らとその家族、故郷の友人たちにとって、そして徴兵された、あるいは亡命した中国人や朝鮮人にとっても状況は似たりよったりだった。彼らにとって、8月15日は本当の意味の終戦ではなかった。敗戦から一年後、日本に帰国できなかった人々は200万人。彼らの多くが二度と故郷の土を踏むことができなかった。公共ラジオ放送は、｢尋ね人｣という番組を1946年にスタート。番組は1962年まで放送された。
The Allies took advantage of surrendered servicemen. The Americans used 70,000 as labourers on Pacific bases. The British, in a supreme irony, made use of over 100,000 Japanese to reassert colonial authority over parts of South-East Asia that had just been “liberated”. In China tens of thousands of Japanese fought on both sides of the civil war. 連合軍は、降伏した兵士たちを有効に利用することを考えた。アメリカ軍は、太平洋の米軍基地で7万人の元日本人兵士たちを労働させた。この上なく皮肉なことだが、イギリスは｢解放された｣ばかりのはずの東南アジアの元植民地の統治を復権しようと10万人の日本人元兵士にを現地で働かせた。中国では数万人の日本人兵士が、内戦の敵味方の両側で従軍させられた。
The worst fate was to be under Russian “protection”. The Soviet Union, which entered the war in its last week, accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in Manchuria and northern Korea. Perhaps 1.6m Japanese soldiers fell into its hands. About 625,000 were repatriated at the end of 1947, many having been sent to labour camps in Siberia and submitted to intense ideological indoctrination. Others were able to make their way south to the American-controlled sector of the Korean Peninsula. In early 1949 the Soviets claimed that only 95,000 Japanese remained to be repatriated—leaving, by Japanese and American calculations, over 300,000 unaccounted for. 元日本兵にとって最大の不運は、ロシアに｢保護｣されることだった。終戦の１週間前になって宣戦布告したソビエト連邦は満州と北朝鮮で日本軍の降伏を受け入れた。おそらく約160万人の日本人兵士がロシア軍の捕虜になった。1947年末までに62万5千人が本国に移送されてその多くがシベリアの強制労働収容所に送られ、過酷な環境のもとでイデオロギーを叩き込まれた。なかには朝鮮半島を南へ下り、アメリカ軍が管理する区域へたどり着くことができた者もいた。1949年はじめ、ソ連は9万5千人の日本人が残留していると公表した。日本とアメリカのは30万人が行方不明という数字を計算していたのだが。
History with Chinese characteristics Under Mr Xi, the logic of history goes something like this. China played such an important role in vanquishing Japanese imperialism that not only does it deserve belated recognition for past valour and suffering, but also a greater say in how Asia is run today. Also, Japan is still dangerous. Chinese schools, museums and TV programmes constantly warn that the spirit of aggression still lurks across the water. A Chinese diplomat has implied that Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is a new Voldemort, the epitome of evil in the “Harry Potter” series. At any moment Japan could menace Asia once more, party newspapers intone. China, again, is standing up to the threat. 習主席の元では、歴史の論理は次のようになっている。中国は日本の帝国主義を打倒するのに重要な役割を果たした。このため、時間が経たとしても過去の勇敢な行為や苦しみを認識してもらう必要があるだけでなく、今日のアジアの治め方についても大きな発言権がある。それに、日本は今でも危険である。中国の学校や博物館、テレビ番組は、侵略の意向が海の向こうでくすぶっていることを絶えず警告している。中国の外交官は安倍晋三首相が、映画ハリーポッターシリーズの悪の化身であったヴォルデモートだとにおわしている。いつ日本がアジアの脅威となってもおかしくないと、党の機関紙は調子を強めている。中国は再びこの脅威に立ち向かっているのだ。
As our essay on the ghosts of the war that ended 70 years ago this week explains, this narrative requires exquisite contortions. For one thing, it was not the Chinese communists who bore the brunt of the fighting against Japan, but their sworn enemies, the nationalists (or Kuomintang) under Chiang Kai-shek. For another, today’s Japan is nothing like the country that slaughtered the inhabitants of Nanjing, forced Korean and Chinese women into military brothels or tested biological weapons on civilians. 70周年を迎えた戦争の亡霊についての今週号のエッセイで説明している通り、この歴史物語には見事な歪曲がある。まず、日本と戦う重責を担ったのは中国共産党ではなく、蒋介石率いる、宿敵、国民党だ。もう一つは、今日の日本は、もはや、南京の住民を虐殺したり、韓国や中国の女性を慰安婦にしたり、国民に生物兵器を実験したりした国ではない。
Granted, Japan never repented of its war record as full-throatedly as Germany did. Even today a small but vocal group of Japanese ultra-nationalists deny their country’s war crimes, and Mr Abe, shamefully, sometimes panders to them. Yet the idea that Japan remains an aggressive power is absurd. Its soldiers have not fired a shot in anger since 1945. Its democracy is deeply entrenched; its respect for human rights profound. Most Japanese acknowledge their country’s war guilt. Successive governments have apologised, and Mr Abe is expected to do the same (see article). Today Japan is ageing, shrinking, largely pacifist and, because of the trauma of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unlikely ever to possess nuclear weapons. Some threat. 確かに、日本は自国の戦争行為をドイツのようにきっぱりと反省してこなかった。今日でも、小規模ながら主張の強い、日本の極右団体が日本の戦争犯罪を否定しており、安倍首相は恥ずかしいことに彼らに合わせている。そうはいっても、日本が侵略国のままであると考えるのはおかしなことだ。日本の兵士は1945年以後、攻撃のために銃を放ったことはないし、民主主義は深く根付いている。人権尊重もされている。大半の日本人は自国の戦争犯罪を認めている。歴代の政府は謝罪をしているし、安倍首相も同様のことが期待されている。（記事参照）今日の日本は高齢化が進み、人口減で、平和主義が広く行き渡っている。また、広島と長崎のトラウマから、核兵器を所有することもないだろう。脅威といってもこの程度だ。
We've been pre-booking tickets for months. The park needs a new attraction every few years... in order to reinvigorate the public's interest. Kind of like the space program. Corporate felt genetic modification would up the wow factor. They're dinosaurs. Wow enough. Not according to our focus groups. The Indominus rex makes us relevant again. The Indominus rex? We needed something scary and easy to pronounce. You should hear a four-year-old try to say "Archaeornithomimus." You should hear you try to say it.
（オックスフォード） up [transitive] up something to increase the price or amount of something synonym raise The buyers upped their offer by £1 000.
focus group a small group of people, specially chosen to represent different social classes, etc., who are asked to discuss and give their opinions about a particular subject. The information obtained is used by people doing market research, for example about new products or for a political party. Check pronunciation: focus group
wow factor the quality something has of being very impressive or surprising to people If you want to sell your house quickly, it needs a wow factor.
Good morning. I'm here from Marley's Flowers with a delivery for Donna Goodrich. — Wow, these roses are really beautiful!
*******
I’m sorry. I should have mentioned it before, but we’re the only location in our chain that still charges for wireless Internet. It’s $3 a day, and the wing you’re staying in does get a good signal. -Wow, that’s surprising. I thought Internet access was free everywhere these days. OK, I’ll pay for two days of service
It's not about control. Stand down. It's a relationship based on respect. These animals are thinking: "I gotta eat, I gotta hunt, I gotta..." You gotta be able to relate to at least one of those things.
You don’t approach a role like thinking he’s a villain. I love my character. I think my character is right. And everybody else is wrong. So it’s tough to talk about, like he’s a villain. But I guess from the audience prospective, he would be the nastiest human in the movie. Yeah. （役に取り組む時には悪役だと考えたりしません。自分の役を気に入っていますし、自分の役が正しく、他の皆が間違っていると考えます。ですから、悪役として話すのは難しいのです。でも観客の方からすれば映画の中で一番嫌な奴になるかもしれません）
Hoskins: These animals can replace thousands of boots on the ground. How many lives would that save? War is part of nature. Look around, Owen. Every living thing in this jungle is trying to murder the other. Mother Nature's way of testing her creations. Refining the pecking order. War is a struggle. Struggle breeds greatness. Without that, we end up with places like this, charge seven bucks a soda. Owen: Do you hear yourself when you talk? Hoskins: This is gonna happen. With or without you boys. Progress always wins, man. Owen: Maybe progress should lose for once.
Robotics: Ethics of artificial intelligence 27 May 2015 Four leading researchers share their concerns and solutions for reducing societal risks from intelligent machines. Stuart Russell: Take a stand on AI weapons Professor of computer science, University of California, Berkeley
The artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics communities face an important ethical decision: whether to support or oppose the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS).
Technologies have reached a point at which the deployment of such systems is — practically if not legally — feasible within years, not decades. The stakes are high: LAWS have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.
G is for Google As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 years ago, “Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one.” As part of that, we also said that you could expect us to make “smaller bets in areas that might seem very speculative or even strange when compared to our current businesses.” From the start, we’ve always strived to do more, and to do important and meaningful things with the resources we have.
We did a lot of things that seemed crazy at the time. Many of those crazy things now have over a billion users, like Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome, and Android. And we haven’t stopped there. We are still trying to do things other people think are crazy but we are super excited about.
We’ve long believed that over time companies tend to get comfortable doing the same thing, just making incremental changes. But in the technology industry, where revolutionary ideas drive the next big growth areas, you need to be a bit uncomfortable to stay relevant.
Our company is operating well today, but we think we can make it cleaner and more accountable. So we are creating a new company, called Alphabet. I am really excited to be running Alphabet as CEO with help from my capable partner, Sergey, as President.
最後の方にAlphabetという会社名を選らんだ理由を二つあげています。
For Sergey and me this is a very exciting new chapter in the life of Google—the birth of Alphabet. We liked the name Alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity’s most important innovations, and is the core of how we index with Google search! We also like that it means alpha‑bet (Alpha is investment return above benchmark), which we strive for! I should add that we are not intending for this to be a big consumer brand with related products—the whole point is that Alphabet companies should have independence and develop their own brands.
言語を学んでいる者としては、投資家向けのAlpha-bet というリップサービスよりも、We liked the name Alphabet because it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity’s most important innovations, and is the core of how we index with Google search!（Alphabetという名前を気に入ったのは、文字の集まりを意味し、言語を象徴しているからです。言語は人類の発明で最も重要なものの一つです。それに、Google検索での結果表示の核となるものです。）という主張が気になります。
アルファベットを学ぶ時に G is for Gorillaのように学んでいくことは以前ブログで紹介しました。だからこそ、プレスリリースのタイトルがG is for Googleとなっているんでしょうね。下記に紹介している動画Learning ABC AlphabetやAlphabet Songでは、G is for Gorilla / G is for Girl / G is for GrapeのようにGを紹介していますが。。。
Google's new parent company has a clever name: Alphabet. It's a term designed to evoke the ingenuity of the human spirit. And it makes no secret of Alphabet's expansive ambitions: It wants to guide humanity forward, to connect everything and everyone, to wrap its arms around the world's people and bring them all into the future. All of them, it seems, except for the more than 1.3 billion people on earth who don't actually use an alphabet as their primary writing system.
この記事ではアルファベットを使っていない国もあり、その最大の国が中国だと指摘します。
Some cultures employ alternatives to fully fledged alphabets, such as the syllabary-using Cherokee. Others, such as the Japanese, mix syllabaries with complex logographic characters. But the biggest country to use something other than an alphabet that you or I might recognize is China.
Intentionally or not, Larry Page and Sergey Brin effectively wound up glossing over China when they rolled out their new corporate brand and said "it means a collection of letters that represent language, one of humanity's most important innovations."
The Chinese might object by saying their writing system represents language, too, even if it doesn't use letters. You see, China's use of a logographic script is pretty much the complete opposite of an alphabet. You can think of an alphabet as a set of individually meaningless building blocks that, when you put them together, create sounds, words and meaning. In Chinese, every character, every building block, already has its own self-contained sound and meaning. Imagine if the letter "b" referred to the sun.
The idea that there is a "best" writing system naturally implies that others are inferior, and critics of this theory have argued that this is an unhelpfully Western-centric bias.
"The alphabetic literacy theory has asserted the West's permanent superiority over the East due to the psychological and cultural effects of the alphabet," wrote Paul Grossweiler, a professor of communication at the University of Maine, in 2004. "Science, philosophy, logic, rationality, democracy, and monotheism are said to be inextricably linked to the alphabet in this theory."
個人的にはこういった「西洋VS東洋」の対立を煽るような内容よりも、記事冒頭にあったようなGoogleの並々ならぬ野心の方を解明してもらいたいです。Alphabetが言語を表すなら、世界中の全員が言語を使っているように、世界中の人にAlphabet社を浸透させたいということかもしれないのですから。英語にはfrom A to Zというイディオムもありますからねえ。
（オックスフォード） from A to Z including everything there is to know about something He knew his subject from A to Z.
（コリンズ） unbirithday noun(British, humorous) 1 any day other than one's birthday 2 (as modifier) ⇒ “an unbirthday present” Word Origin C19: coined by Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking-Glass
(Wikipedia) An unbirthday (originally written un-birthday) is an event that is typically celebrated on any or all of the 364 (365 on leap years) days in which it is not the person's birthday. It is a neologism coined by Lewis Carroll in his Through the Looking-Glass, giving rise to "The Unbirthday Song" in the 1951 Disney animated feature film Alice in Wonderland.
豆知識としては、Through the Looking-Glassがソースで、ディズニーの映画は不思議の国のアリスと鏡の国のアリスの二つをまとめたものなんですよね。
この本でも紹介されているAmericansという中学生向けの歴史教科書がネットで公開されていまいした。太平洋戦争も詳しく書いてくれていますが、原爆投下の部分を抜粋します。やはりThe Atomic Bomb Ends the Warと原爆が戦争を終わらせたという立場です。
The Atomic Bomb Ends the War The taking of Iwo Jima and Okinawa opened the way for an invasion of Japan. However, Allied leaders knew that such an invasion would become a desperate struggle. Japan still had a huge army that would defend every inch of homeland. President Truman saw only one way to avoid an invasion of Japan. He decided to use a powerful new weapon that had been developed by scientists working on the Manhattan Project—the atomic bomb. THE MANHATTAN PROJECT Led by General Leslie Groves with research direct- ed by American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the development of the atomic bomb was not only the most ambitious scientific enterprise in history, it was also the best-kept secret of the war. At its peak, more than 600,000 Americans were involved in the project, although few knew its purpose. Even Truman did not learn about it until he became president. The first test of the new bomb took place on the morning of July 16, 1945, in an empty expanse of desert near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A blinding flash, which was visible 180 miles away, was followed by a deafening roar as a tremendous shock wave rolled across the trembling desert. Otto Frisch, a scientist on the project, described the huge mushroom cloud that rose over the desert as “a red- hot elephant standing balanced on its trunk.” The bomb worked! President Truman now faced a difficult decision. Should the Allies use the bomb to bring an end to the war? Truman did not hesitate. On July 25, 1945, he ordered the military to make final plans for dropping two atomic bombs on Japanese targets. A day later, the United States warned Japan that it faced “prompt and utter destruction” unless it surrendered at once. Japan refused. Truman later wrote, “The final decision of where and when to use the atomic bomb was up to me. Let there be no mistake about it. I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used.”
HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI On August 6, a B-29 bomber named Enola Gay released an atomic bomb, code- named Little Boy, over Hiroshima, an important Japanese military center. Forty-three seconds later, almost every building in the city collapsed into dust from the force of the blast. Hiroshima had ceased to exist. Still, Japan’s leaders hesitated to surrender. Three days later, a second bomb, code-named Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki, leveling half the city. By the end of the year, an estimated 200,000 people had died as a result of injuries and radiation poisoning caused by the atomic blasts. Yamaoka Michiko was 15 years old and living near the center of Hiroshima when the first bomb hit.
A PERSONAL VOICE YAMAOKA MICHIKO “ They say temperatures of 7,000 degrees centigrade hit me. . . . Nobody there looked like human beings. . . . Humans had lost the ability to speak. People couldn’t scream, ‘It hurts!’ even when they were on fire. . . . People with their legs wrenched off. Without heads. Or with faces burned and swollen out of shape. The scene I saw was a living hell.” —quoted in Japan at War: An Oral History
Emperor Hirohito was horrified by the destruction wrought by the bomb. “I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer,” he told Japan’s leaders tearfully. Then he ordered them to draw up papers “to end the war.” On September 2, formal surrender ceremonies took place on the U.S. battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay. “Today the guns are silent,” said General MacArthur in a speech marking this historic moment. “The skies no longer rain death—the seas bear only commerce—men everywhere walk upright in the sunlight. The entire world is quietly at peace.”
ただ、この教科書では原爆投下に対して賛成と反対の立場を併記して、原爆投下を正当化できるか、当時の視点と現在の視点で生徒に考えるように促しています。アイゼンハワー司令官（後に大統領）は原爆使用に反対だったのですね。 POINT “The only way to end the war against Japan was to bomb the Japanese mainland.” Many advisors to President Truman, including Secretary of War Henry Stimson, had this point of view. They felt the bomb would end the war and save American lives. Stimson said, “The face of war is the face of death.” Some scientists working on the bomb agreed— even more so as the casualty figures from Iwo Jima and Okinawa sank in. “Are we to go on shedding American blood when we have available a means to a steady victory?” they petitioned. “No! If we can save even a handful of American lives, then let us use this weapon—now!” Two other concerns pushed Americans to use the bomb. Some people feared that if the bomb were not dropped, the project might be viewed as a gigantic waste of money. The second consideration involved the Soviet Union. Tension and distrust were already developing between the Western Allies and the Soviets. Some American officials believed that a successful use of the atomic bomb would give the United States a powerful advantage over the Soviets in shaping the postwar world.
COUNTERPOINT “Japan’s staggering losses were enough to force Japan’s surrender.” Many of the scientists who had worked on the bomb, as well as military leaders and civilian policymakers, had doubts about using it. Dr. Leo Szilard, a Hungarian- born physicist who had helped President Roosevelt launch the project and who had a major role in develop- ing the bomb, was a key figure opposing its use. A petition drawn up by Szilard and signed by 70 other scientists argued that it would be immoral to drop an atomic bomb on Japan without fair warning. Many supported staging a demonstration of the bomb for Japanese leaders, perhaps by exploding one on a deserted island near Japan, to convince the Japanese to surrender. Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed. He maintained that “dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary” to save American lives and that Japan was already defeated. Ike told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, “I was against it [the bomb] on two counts. First the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”
THINKING CRITICALLY 1. CONNECT TO HISTORY Summarizing What were the main arguments for and against dropping the atomic bomb on Japan? SEE SKILLBUILDER HANDBOOK, PAGE R4. 2. CONNECT TO TODAY Evaluating Decisions Do you think the United States was justified in using the bomb against the Japanese? In a paragraph, explain why or why not.
ワシントンポストの記事によると、このように賛否があったことを紹介しだしたのは2000年後半からのようです。 By the latter half of the 2000s, though, American textbooks were taking on a more nuanced approach, offering perspectives from Japanese victims and even dissension by U.S. officials. The change is attributable partly to the passage of time and partly to the evolution in the way students are taught, says Christopher Hamner, who teaches history at George Mason University. "The textbook has walked away from this idea that it speaks with this omniscient voice and it tells you facts. Textbooks will have documents from both sides, they acknowledge that there are multiple perspectives." He added that students today "are just a little more skeptical, and I mean that in the best possible sense."
English subtitles are available at Shibuya Eurospace’s 7-pm screenings and at Tachikawa Cinema City through Aug 1-4. For other theatres offering English subtitles, visit http://nobi-movie.com
gore and nauseating shots と生々しい描写が多々あるので、メトロポリスの言うようにOnly for those with a strong stomach.で、万人に勧められるものではないです。ただ、理屈で戦争はよくないということよりも、もっと生理的に戦争は嫌なものだと思い知ることが大切だと自分は信じているのであえて紹介させていただきました。
Why then would iconoclast filmmaker Shinya Tsukamoto choose to do a remake? Well, the fiercely independent Tsukamoto (known for Tetsuo: The Iron Man, 1989) has always taken an unusual route, and it’s fairly easy to argue Japan is in need of anti-war statements now more than ever. （中略） Tsukamoto alternates gore and nauseating shots with beautiful landscapes and lighting to highlight the soldiers’ misery. Though brutal and at times hard to watch, Tsukamoto admirably communicates the anti-war content of the originals. Only for those with a strong stomach. English title: Fires on the Plain. (87 min)
The film has been criticized for excessive gore, but from the accounts of combat I have read, Tsukamoto is simply portraying the grisly truth. And given his tiny production budget, he has done a far-better-than-expected job of conveying the incongruous mix of lush natural beauty and disturbing human degradation the film’s real-life models experienced in their jungle war. The widening distance between that war and the present, with its instant amnesia toward anything not trending on social media, has given Tsukamoto a sense of urgency. For him “Fires on the Plain” represents a last chance to make the reality of war undeniable and unforgettable. More than nearly any other Japanese war film, this is not only a testimony but a warning.
- The package is on the plane! - Shut down the fuel pump. - Uh. Mechanical are lockdown. - What about the electrical system? - Oh, that might work. - No. - No. - Hydraulics. - Okay, standby. - No, they're encrypted. - Benji, the plane. - Yes! The package is on the plane! We get it! - Can you open the door? I'm by the plane. Benji, can you open the door? - Uh. Maybe. - Open the door when I tell you. - I'm on the plane. Open the door. - How did you get in the plane? - Not in the plane, I'm on the plane! Open the door! Benji. Open the door! - Yeah-yeah-yeah... Okay, okay.
日本語にするのは難しいのですが、planeの前置詞は以下のように動画で登場していました。
The package is on the plane! （荷物は飛行機に積まれている） I'm by the plane. （飛行機のそばにいる） I'm on the plane. （飛行機に乗っている） How did you get in the plane? （どうやって飛行機に乗り込んだんだ） Not in the plane, I'm on the plane!（乗り込んでいない、外にいるんだ）
オックスフォードのコロケーション辞典でplaneの前置詞コロケーションを確認しておきます。
（オックスフォードコロケーション） by ~ We left by plane for Peking. in a/the ~ I've never flown in a plane. on a/the ~ The president was never on the plane at all.
I'm by the plane. （飛行機のそばにいる） byがあると、It's much quicker to go by plane.（飛行機で行くほうがずっと早い）のように手段としてのbyが思いつきますが、今回は「〜のそばで」という位置を示す意味で使われています。あの名曲Stand by meと一緒に慣れておきたいですね。
I'm on the plane. （飛行機に乗っている） -How did you get in the plane? （どうやって飛行機に乗り込んだんだ） Not in the plane, I'm on the plane!（乗り込んでいない、外にいるんだ）
on the planeが文字通りの意味「飛行機の上に」で使われている珍しい例です。映画のように飛行機の上にあがることはめったにないので、on the planeと言えば「飛行機の中に乗っている＝搭乗している」ことを指すのが普通でしょう。現に冒頭のThe package is on the plane! （荷物は飛行機に積まれている）は荷物が機内にあることを示しています。
だからこそ、I'm on the plane. （飛行機に乗っている）とトムクルーズが言った時にHow did you get in the plane?とてっきり乗り込んだのかと思ってしまうのも無理はないです。まあ、TOEICでも以下のようにもちろん「機内に」の意味で使われています。
Not in the plane, I'm on the plane!（乗り込んでいない、外にいるんだ）の部分はonという一番伝えたい大事なところなのではっきり伝えていますよね。普通前置詞がはっきり発音されることはありませんが、今回のような文脈によってはありうることを知っておきたいです。発音というのもあくまで、伝えたい内容があってのことですから。
Are you bringing any luggage with you on the plane? （機内に荷物を持ち込みますか）
「on the plane=機内に」でいいと思いますが、Not in the plane, I'm on the plane!のような使い方は前置詞の本来のイメージを気づかせてくれますね。
（ロングマン） The plane will take off in twenty minutes. Our plane landed at O'Hare airport in Chicago. It's much quicker to go by plane. The plane taxied along the runway. Matt boarded a plane for San Diego. She slept on the plane. Over 40 people died in the plane crash.
History: From blackboards to bombs David Kaiser 28 July 2015 Seventy years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by nuclear weapons, David Kaiser investigates the legacy of 'the physicists' war'.
Catchy phrase In late November 1941, just weeks before the United States entered the global conflict, James Conant explained in a newsletter of the American Chemical Society that “this is a physicist's war rather than a chemist's”1. Conant was well-placed to know: he was president of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, chair of the US National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), and a veteran of earlier chemical-weapons projects.
The phrase had instant appeal; others quickly began to quote it. In 1949, for example, Life magazine profiled2 physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had served as scientific director of the wartime Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico, a central node of the Manhattan Project. Referring to massive military projects such as the bomb and radar, the reporter invoked “the popular notion” that the Second World War had been “a physicists' war”.
By that time, the meaning of Conant's formulation seemed self-evident. The First World War, with its notorious battlefield uses of poison gases such as phosgene and chlorine, had been dubbed the chemists' war. The bomb and radar presented a logical counterpoint.
Classroom mobilization To most scientists and policy-makers in the early 1940s, the physicists' war referred to a massive educational mission.
In January 1942, the director of the American Institute of Physics (AIP), Henry Barton, citing Conant, began issuing bulletins entitled 'A Physicist's War'. Barton reasoned that “the conditions under which physicists can render services to their country are changing so rapidly” that department chairs and heads of laboratories needed some means of keeping abreast of evolving policies and priorities. The monthly bulletins focused on two main topics: how to secure draft deferments for physics students and personnel, and how academic departments could meet the sudden demand for more physics instruction.
Modern warfare, it seemed, required rudimentary knowledge of optics and acoustics, radio and circuits. Before the war, the US Army and Navy had trained technical specialists from within their own ranks, at their own facilities. The sudden entry of the United States into the war required new tactics. University physicists, consulting with army and navy officials, reported early in the conflict that enrolments in high-school physics classes would need to jump by 250%. Their goal: half of all high-school boys in the country should spend at least one class per day focusing on electricity, circuits and radio4.
Meanwhile, the two meanings of the physicists' war blurred together as the cold war intensified. More and more universities became contracting sites for military and defence agencies, continuing the model that Conant and others had forged during the war. Physicists' research budgets ballooned, and enrolments grew faster than in any other field, doubling every few years.
More physicists were trained in the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union in the quarter-century after the war than had been trained throughout all of previous history. Yet the aims of the training shifted in the 1950s and 1960s. Rather than teaching soldiers some elementary physics to prepare them for the battlefield, US officials spoke of creating a 'standing army' of physicists, who could work on nuclear-weapons projects without delay should the cold war ever turn hot.
Three decades after 1945, years into the slog of the Vietnam War, many critics grew uneasy with the close association between physics and war. Campus protesters demanded that the defence department get out of the higher-education business. At universities across the United States, physicists' laboratories became frequent targets for sit-ins and even Molotov cocktails.
Seventy years ago, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan: Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945; Nagasaki on Aug. 9. With searing heat and annihilating force, the nuclear blasts tore through factories, shops and homes in both cities. Huge portions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki vanished. Weighing many factors — including the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan 11 hours before the Nagasaki bombing — Japan surrendered. By Aug. 15, World War II was over. In the United States, the necessity of the bombings to end the war has been studied and argued for decades, but the acute and long-term effects of whole-body radiation exposure on the men, women and children beneath the mushroom clouds are little known and seldom mentioned. Without also accounting for this critical aspect of the bombings, discussions of the military, moral and existential issues surrounding Hiroshima and Nagasaki are incomplete. If we choose to take and defend actions that cause great harm to civilians during war, we must also scrutinize and wholly understand the impact of those actions.
原爆投下の後に原爆使用の非難が米国国内でもあったことをこのブログでも取り上げましたが、Southardさんも触れています。Henry L. Stimson以外にもKarl T. Comptonという物理学者が原爆投下の正当性を訴えた記事を書いていたんですね。
In 1946 and 1947, opposition to the bombings began appearing in U.S. media — including John Hersey's "Hiroshima," first published in the New Yorker, and a scathing essay by journalist Norman Cousins in the Saturday Review. U.S. government and military officials hurriedly strategized how to prevent what they considered "a distortion of history" that could damage postwar international relations and threaten U.S. nuclear development. Two articles by prominent government officials — the first by Karl T. Compton, a respected physicist who had helped develop the atomic bombs, and the second by former Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson — offered intelligent and persuasive "behind the scenes" perspectives on the U.S. decision to use the bombs. These powerful justifications effectively quelled civic dissent and directed focus away from the ongoing suffering of the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
By the early 1950s, hibakusha cancer rates for adults and children soared, and many more hibakusha developed liver, endocrine, blood and skin diseases, and impairments of the central nervous system. Mortality rates remained high. Most commonly, survivors experienced violent dizzy spells and a profound depletion of energy. Fears about genetic effects of radiation exposure on their children haunted them for decades. Thirty years after the war, high rates of leukemia as well as stomach and colon cancer persisted. From the survivors' perspective, the atomic bomb had burned their bodies from the inside out.
As Japanese and U.S. scientists continue studying hibakusha, their children and grandchildren to try to comprehend the full impact of radiation exposure, can we come face to face with the terrorizing realities of nuclear weapons? We don't have to suppress our condemnation of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, mistreatment and killings of Allied POWs, and slaughter of civilians across Asia to do so. An expanded understanding of atomic bomb history that includes the human consequences of nuclear war will deepen our integrity as a nation and, one hopes, influence our nuclear weapons policies across the world.
ちなみに同時に取り上げているTo Hell and Back: The Last Train from Hiroshimaという本は、数年前に出た本の改訂版といえるものです。広島と長崎で二重被爆にあった山口さんを取り上げ、タイタニックのキャメロン監督が映画化するとも言われていたものですが、ある人物の証言の信憑性が問題になったためリコールされていました。その問題を解決して再刊の運びとなったようです。
“To Hell and Back,” one may remember, appeared in an earlier form, in 2010, as “The Last Train From Hiroshima.” The publication of that book was suspended when the authenticity of one of Mr. Pellegrino’s sources—a man who claimed to have been on a plane accompanying the Enola Gay bomber on its Hiroshima mission—was called into question. That source and his assertions are gone from the new book. A foreword notes that he had indeed “tricked” the author, who later admitted his mistake.
この評者はどちらの本も原爆使用がやむを得なかった状況を考慮しないで描かれていると批判しています。
What is missing from both books is context. Neither author properly discusses the factors that went into the American decision to use the bomb. Nor do they venture an opinion on whether the bomb shortened the war. They focus on the ways the bomb affected civilians who had to cope with a catastrophe.
その後に続くのが、WSJが繰り返し論者を替えながら発表しているおなじみの内容です。
Were the bombs necessary to compel surrender? U.S. policy—laid down by Franklin Roosevelt, followed by Harry Truman and supported by most Americans—was uncompromising. The U.S. would accept only unconditional surrender, to be followed by military occupation.
In Japan, advocates of a last-ditch resistance could not promise victory but could guarantee heavy casualties for the invaders. The last battle of the war—Okinawa—made the point. Okinawa was a small island, and the U.S. possessed overwhelming ground, naval and air superiority. Even so, the battle raged from April 1 to June 21, 1945, with 92,000 Japanese troops fighting to the death and kamikaze planes inflicting significant damage on the offshore American fleet. U.S. casualties (killed and wounded) were approximately 45,000.
The experience made an impression in Washington. The Japanese home islands were next. Japan’s leaders made no secret of their plans to wage a dogged resistance that would mobilize the civilian population, right down to teenagers armed only with clubs and sticks; and the leaders clung to the fantasy of a negotiated peace brokered by the still-neutral Soviet Union. They rebuked their ambassador in Moscow for telling them that the Russians, who were moving troops to attack Japan in East Asia, would be of no help. American military planners focused on the southernmost Japanese home island of Kyushu as a first target, to be followed by an invasion of the island of Honshu and a final campaign across the Tokyo plain in 1946. Meeting with his military chiefs in Washington on June 18, 1945, President Truman expressed his hope of “preventing an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other.” A month later, the first atomic bomb was tested in the New Mexico desert. Hiroshima and Nagasaki quickly followed.
Critics of the atomic bombings often assert that Japan was “ready to surrender.” Clearly this was not the case. Japan could still muster formidable military resources. It is unlikely that resistance would have ever gotten down to teenagers armed with clubs and sticks but probable that an amphibious invasion of Kyushu would have exacted a price reminiscent of Okinawa. That possibility was unthinkable to most Americans.
最後の最後で、現代の核兵器は当時と比べて一層強力になっているので、核兵器の恐ろしさを知るにはいい本だろうと締めていますが、半分以上は原爆投下の必要性を述べていました（汗） The nuclear weapons of today make the ones detonated in 1945 look like firecrackers, and more and more countries possess them or threaten to do so. The editors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists picture a doomsday clock at three minutes to midnight. The virtue of these books is their reminder of just how horrible nuclear weapons are.
Nuke Mapで現在の核兵器が首都圏を丸ごと破壊できる威力があることを知って、The nuclear weapons of today make the ones detonated in 1945 look like firecrackers（今日の核兵器は1945年に投下されたものを線香花火のようにしてしまっている）という表現に妙に納得してしまいました。日本でも戦争の立場は二極化しやすですが、米国でも同じような状況なんですね。
広島被爆70年、日米学生に悲惨さ語り継ぐ By YUKA HAYASHI 2015 年 8 月 5 日 11:33 JST Ms. Kondo’s brief appearance in the book “Hiroshima,” by journalist John Hersey, set her on a path to become a messenger from ground zero. 米国のジャーナリスト、ジョン・ハーシー氏が原爆投下直後の広島の様子を描いた著作「ヒロシマ」に近藤さんは短く登場している。この本に採り上げられたことで、近藤さんは広島の使者としての道を歩むことになった。
Ms. Kondo’s father, Kiyoshi Tanimoto, was a U.S.-educated minister at a church in Japan. When Mr. Hersey visited Hiroshima in the spring of 1946, Mr. Tanimoto shared with him a detailed account of the horror and chaos he witnessed. In the book, Mr. Tanimoto is described as passing by “rank on rank of the burned and bleeding,” scurrying to find water for dying victims, and removing a dead body from a rowboat to carry those who were still alive, after apologizing to the dead man for doing so. 近藤さんの父親、谷本清氏は米国で教育を受け、日本の教会で牧師をしていた。ハーシー氏が1946年春に広島を訪れたとき、谷本氏は原爆投下直後の恐怖と混乱を詳しく語ってくれた。ハーシー氏の「ヒロシマ」には、「やけどをした人、血の流れる人の列また列」の脇を通ったり、死にそうな人たちのために水を探し回ったり、舟の上で死んでいる男性にわびてから遺体を移動させて生存者を運んだりした谷本氏の姿が描かれている。
Ms. Kondo and her mother were buried under the parsonage of her father’s church. Her mother managed to hoist her out of the rubble after chipping away at “a chink of light” that they could eventually fit through. When Rev. Tanimoto was reunited with his wife and baby, he was “so tired that nothing could surprise him.” Mr. Hersey wrote in his account, which first appeared in the New Yorker magazine in August 1946, a year after Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the first and only cities in history to experience a nuclear bombing. 近藤さんは母親と共に牧師館の下敷きになった。隙間から差し込む「一筋の光」を見つけた母親が30分ほどかけて穴を開け、近藤さんは外に押し出された。ハーシー氏の記述によると、谷本氏は妻子と再会しても、「気分的に疲れきっていたので、もう何事にも驚かない。夫人を抱きよせもせず『ああ、無事だったか』といっただけである」。「ヒロシマ」は1946年8月にニューヨーカー誌に初掲載された。広島と長崎が世界で唯一の被爆都市となった翌年のことだ。
イギリスでもこのHiroshimaという本が再刊されるようです。
AUTHORS Hiroshima: the true account of hell on earth Martin Chilton 5 AUGUST 2015 • 2:09PM "Every positive value has its price in negative terms; the genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshima," said Pablo Picasso. On August 6 – at 8.15am local time, to be precise – It will be exactly 70 years since a uranium gun-type atomic bomb (nicknamed Little Boy by the American bombers) was dropped on Hiroshoma, killing more than 100,000 Japanese men, women and children instantly. To mark the anniversary, Penguin has republished an account written in the immediate aftermath and first published in the New Yorker in 1946. What a grimly fascinating and moving read this 98-page account from John Hersey is; it's easy to see why it was adjudged the finest piece of American journalism of the 20th century by a panel from New York University. Hersey, who was 32 at the time, has an eye for detail and a novelist's sensibilities. This son of a pair of missionaries was the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the novel A Bell for Adano and served as secretary to the Nobel winner Sinclair Lewis. He talked to survivors of the bomb: six for whom fate, chance, whatever you wish to call it, was on their side.
Aug. 2, 2015 This week, Arthur C. Brooks discusses “The Conservative Heart”; Alexandra Alter has news from the publishing world; Susan Southard talks about “Nagasaki”; readers offer changes to the literary canon; and Gregory Cowles has best-seller news. Pamela Paul is the host.
アメリカ兵を救うために原爆を使用したというアメリカの立場は、今考えると不動のように思えますが、当時はアメリカ国内でも原爆使用の批判は大きかったようです。1947年2月に原爆使用の正当化を訴える必要から元陸軍長官スティムソが“The Decision to Use the Bomb” を雑誌ハーパーズに発表したということです。
（アメリカンヘリテージ） Stimson, Henry Lewis 1867-1950. American public official who served as US secretary of war (1911-1913 and 1940-1945), as governor-general of the Philippines (1927-1929), and as US secretary of state (1929-1933). He was the chief adviser on atomic weaponry to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
(Wikipedia) ヘンリー・ルイス・スティムソン（Henry Lewis Stimson, 1867年9月21日 - 1950年10月20日）は、陸軍長官、フィリピン総督および国務長官を務めたアメリカの政治家である。保守的な共和党員であり、ニューヨーク市の弁護士でもあった。 スティムソンは、ナチス党政権下のドイツに対する攻撃的な姿勢のために、陸軍とその一部である陸軍航空軍の責任者に選ばれ、第二次世界大戦期における民間人出身の陸軍長官として最もよく知られている。1,200万人の陸軍兵と航空兵の動員と訓練、国家工業生産の30％の物資の購買と戦場への輸送、日系人の強制収容の推進、また原子爆弾の製造と使用の決断を管理した。
In view of the exceptional public importance of this article, permission is given to any newspaper or magazine to reprint it, in part or (preferably, since its effect is cumulative) in full, with credit to Harper’s Magazine but without charge. — The Editors
当時の記事を載せる前にIntroductionがあるのですが、そこにThe piece was intended as a response to mounting public criticism of the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan, including from highly respected public figures such as Albert Einstein.（この論考は日本に核兵器を使用した決定に対する国民の批判が高まっていることに対処する目的で書かれた。批判する中にはアインシュタインなどの著名人も含まれていた）とあることからも当時は原爆使用に大きな非難があったことがわかります。
Introduction The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) remains among the most controversial events in modern history. Historians have actively debated whether the bombings were necessary, what effect they had on bringing the war in the Pacific to an expeditious end, and what other options were available to the United States. These very same questions were also contentious at the time, as American policymakers struggled with how to use a phenomenally powerful new technology and what the long-term impact of atomic weaponry might be, not just on the Japanese, but on domestic politics, America’s international relations, and the budding Cold War with the Soviet Union. In retrospect, it is clear that the reasons for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, just like the later impact of nuclear technology on world politics, were complex and intertwined with a variety of issues that went far beyond the simple goal of bringing World War II to a rapid close. Former Secretary of War Henry Lewis Stimson’s article “The Decision to Use the Bomb” appeared in Harper’s Magazine in February 1947. The piece was intended as a response to mounting public criticism of the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan, including from highly respected public figures such as Albert Einstein.
10ページに及ぶTIMEのカバーストーリーよりも少し長めの記事です。原爆の開発から日本への作戦など丁寧に説明しています。以下の抜粋は、日本の本土上陸作戦について述べているところで、I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone.ともし上陸したら米軍だけで百万人の戦死者が出ただろうと見積もっています。 The strategic plans of our armed forces for the defeat of Japan, as they stood in July, had been prepared without reliance upon the atomic bomb, which had not yet been tested in New Mexico. We were planning an intensified sea and air blockade, and greatly intensified strategic air bombing, through the summer and early fall, to be followed on November 1 by an invasion of the southern island of Kyushu. This would be followed in turn by an invasion of the main island of Honshu in the spring of 1946. The total U.S. military and naval force involved in this grand design was of the order of 5,000,000 men; if all those indirectly concerned are included, it was larger still. We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest. I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone. Additional large losses might be expected among our allies, and, of course, if our campaign were successful and if we could judge by previous experience, enemy casualties would be much larger than our own. It was already clear in July that even before the invasion we should be able to inflict enormously severe damage on the Japanese homeland by the combined application of “conventional” sea and air power. The critical question was whether this kind of action would induce surrender. It therefore became necessary to consider very carefully the probable state of mind of the enemy, and to asses the accuracy the line of conduct which might end his will to resist.
Because of the importance of the atomic mission against Japan, the detailed plans were brought to me by the military staff for approval. With President Truman’s warm support I struck off the list of suggested target mine. We determined the city of Kyoto. Although it was a target of considerable military importance, it had been the ancient capital of Japan and was a shrine of Japanese art and culture. We determined that it should be spared. I approved four other targets including the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9. These two cities were active working parts of the Japanese war effort. One was an army center; the other was naval and industrial. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese Army defending southern Japan and was a major military storage and assembly point. Nagasaki was a major seaport and it contained several large industrial plants of great wartime importance. We believed that our attacks had struck cities which must certainly be important to the Japanese military leaders, both Army and Navy, and we waited for a result. We waited one day.
長い記事なので全部読むのは大変ですので、主張全体をコンパクトにまとめたA Personal Summary だけを読むのがいいかもしれません。最後の部分だけを抜粋します。素早く、被害を最小に抑えるための選択肢が原爆使用であったことを訴えかけています。
In order to end the war in the shortest possible time and to avoid the enormous losses of human life which otherwise confronted us, I felt that we must use the Emperor as our instrument to command and compel his people to cease fighting and subject themselves to our authority through him, and that to accomplish this we must give him and his controlling advisers a compelling reason to accede to our demands. This reason furthermore must be of such a nature that his people could understand his decision. The bomb seemed to me to furnish a unique instrument for that purpose. My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.
As I read over what I have written I am aware that much of it, in this year of peace, may have a harsh and unfeeling sound. It would perhaps be possible to say the same things and say them more gently. But I do not think it would be wise. As I look back over the five years of my service as Secretary of War, I see too many stern and heartrending decision to be willing to pretend that war is anything else than what it is. The face of war is the face of death; death is an inevitable part of every order that a wartime leader gives. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a decision that brought death to over a hundred thousand Japanese. No explanation can change that fact and I do not wish to gloss over it. But this deliberate, premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent choice. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the Japanese war. It stopped the fire raids, and the strangling blockade; it ended the ghastly specter of a clash of great land armies. In this last great action of the Second World War we were given final proof that war is death. War in the twentieth century has grown steadily more barbarous, more destructive, more debased in all its aspects. Now, with the release of atomic energy, man’s ability to destroy himself is nearly complete. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war. They also made it wholly clear that we must never have another war. This is the lesson man and leaders everywhere must learn, and I believe that when they learn it they will find a way to lasting peace. There is no other choice.
The end of the Japanese Illusion The moment the sky over Nagasaki lighted up, I made a bet with my fellow POW that we would soon be set free. I was right.
What does it mean to fight to the end? In April 1942, it meant fighting until my tank battalion and I were forced to surrender at the Battle of Bataan. For everything else that followed I only fought to survive: the Bataan Death March, brutal transport aboard a “hell ship” to Japan and slave labor in a Mitsui coal mine. 最後まで戦うとはどういう意味だろうか。それは1942年4月、私が所属していた戦車大隊がフィリピン・バターン半島での戦闘で降伏を余儀なくされるまで戦うという意味だった。その後は、生き残るための戦いがすべてだった。「バターンの死の行進」や日本へ向かう「地獄の船」で受けた非人道的な扱い、そして三井炭鉱での強制労働のすべてがである。
For my imperial Japanese enemy, in contrast, to fight to the end meant to give his life in a presumably noble and glorious fashion. He would die for the emperor—who ruled by divine right—confident that he would be enshrined with his ancestors for his efforts in defense of a mythic civilization. There could be no surrender and no negotiated peace. Death itself was beautiful, and death alone was honorable. それとは対照的に、敵である「大日本帝国」の国民にとって、最後まで戦うという意味は気高く、かつ立派と思われる方法で己の命を投げ出すことだった。彼らは天皇のために死んだ。神話の国を守るための努力が認められ、先祖と共に祀（まつ）られることを信じていた。降伏や平和交渉はあり得なかった。死はそれ自体が美しく、名誉なことだった。
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, upended this belief. The bombs showed the Japanese the devastating and ultimately inglorious outcome of their fight. The bombs offered no true opportunity for confrontation and no chance of death with honor; they promised only obliteration. だが、1945年8月6日に広島、9日には長崎に投下された原子爆弾がこの考え方をひっくり返した。原爆は日本人に対し、戦争の破滅的で不名誉な結果を見せつけた。原爆は最後まで対決する機会を与えず、名誉の死を遂げる機会も与えず、ただ破壊をもたらしただけだった。
In all the cant that will pour forth this week to mark the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the bombs—that the U.S. owes the victims of the bombings an apology; that nuclear weapons ought to be abolished; that Hiroshima is a monument to man’s inhumanity to man; that Japan could have been defeated in a slightly nicer way—I doubt much will be made of Fussell’s fundamental point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t just terrible war-ending events. They were also lifesaving. The bomb turned the empire of the sun into a nation of peace activists.
Human-rights activists, antiwar campaigners, left-wing politicians and others argue that Japan was about to surrender and that therefore it was morally wrong to deploy this most destructive of weapons against unarmed civilians. Some even deny that many American lives would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Yet in his memoirs, “Year of Decisions,” Truman wrote that he believed an invasion of Japan would have cost half a million American lives. This estimate was considered too conservative by both Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and Secretary of State James Byrnes, who in their own memoirs estimated one million casualties overall. These high figures are backed up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff study of August 1944, which projected that an invasion would “cost half a million American lives and many more that number in wounded.”
Japan’s surrender saved us. The dropping of the bombs, as Emperor Hirohito himself acknowledged, was the only thing that made that surrender possible. As he explained to his subjects, “Should we continue to fight, it would only result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation.” The bombs’ indiscriminate, total devastation, as no battle or bombing before it, showed the consequences of trying to fight to the end. The bombings destroyed hope and glory, past and future.
One event during WWII – the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 – has long divided Americans and Japanese. Americans, in surveys with similar wording, have consistently approved of this first and only use of nuclear weapons in war and have thought it was justified. The Japanese have not.
In 1945, a Gallup poll immediately after the bombing found that 85% of Americans approved of using the new atomic weapon on Japanese cities. In 1991, according to a Detroit Free Press survey conducted in both Japan and the U.S., 63% of Americans voiced the view that the atomic bomb attacks on Japan were a justified means of ending the war; only 29% thought the action was unjustified. At the same time, only 29% of Japanese said the atom bombing was justified, while 64% thought it was unwarranted.
In the current Pew Research Center survey, 56% of Americans still believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified; 34% say it was not. In Japan, only 14% say the bombing was justified, versus 79% who say it was not.
Not surprisingly, there is a large generation gap among Americans in attitudes toward the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seven-in-ten (70%) Americans 65 years of age and older say the use of atomic weapons was justified, but only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree. There is a similar partisan divide: 74% of Republicans but only 52% of Democrats see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII as warranted. Men (62%) more than women (50%), and whites (65%) more than non-whites (40%), including Hispanics, say dropping the atomic bombs was justified.
Despite this lingering disagreement over the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, few Americans or Japanese believe Japan owes an apology for its actions during WWII.
Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology, created a NukeMap that allows you to visualize what the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions would look like in your hometown. Kuang Keng Kuek Ser at Public Radio International has also developed a version, using slightly different estimates.
Here is what Little Boy, the Hiroshima bomb, would look like on Wellerstein's map if detonated in Washington, D.C. An explanation of what the colors mean is below.
The effects of a nuclear bomb depend a lot on the height of the detonation. Little Boy, a 15 kiloton bomb, was detonated higher in the air, increasing the size of its effects.
As the key below shows, the area within the central yellow ring would be the maximum size of the nuclear fireball. The red ring shows the air blast radius, in which the pressure from the bomb is intense enough to severely damage or demolish heavily built concrete buildings, and fatalities approach 100 percent.
The green ring shows the radiation radius. Without medical treatment, 50 to 90 percent of people within that circle will die from the acute affects of radiationalone, either within several hours or several weeks. The gray circle shows the air blast radius, in which pressure is high enough to knock over most residential buildings. Injuries are universal and fatalities are widespread, says Wellerstein.
Finally, the yellow circle shows the thermal radiation radius. People within this circle would sustain third degree burns, which can cause severe scarring or disablement, and can require amputation.
Wellerstein says those who are out in the open would fare far worse than those inside buildings. But either way, the resulting scene would be absolutely horrific.
We Will Be Lucky to Go Seventy Years Without Another Hiroshima Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations August 6, 2015 Financial Times Less commented on, though, is a question not of history but of the future: is the world likely to go another 70 years without nuclear weapons being used? The short and troubling answer is no. Even worse, the potential for such use has increased in recent years and seems likely to rise further.
国連常任理事国である国が使用する可能性は低いのですが、The greatest potential for nuclear use, though, comes from those countries that have acquired these weapons more recently.とパキスタンや北朝鮮などの最近核保有国になった国を心配しています。一番心配なのは中東だそうです。
What might be the fastest growing threat to extending the nuclear peace for another 70 years, though, comes from the Middle East.
Israel already has a substantial nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, the just-negotiated agreement with Iran allows the Islamic Republic to keep most of the prerequisites of a large nuclear weapons programme, and to add to its inventory of centrifuges and supplies of enriched uranium in 10 or 15 years respectively. Other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt, may well follow suit.
We could witness a race to establish a nuclear identity. Several governments could see value in striking first, be it to prevent an adversary developing such a capability or, amid a crisis, from actually using it. Brittle governments could lose control of weapons or materials to groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or al-Qaeda. And terrorists could marry nuclear materials to conventional explosives and cause widespread panic and harm, even without detonating a nuclear explosion.
An advisory panel on Thursday submitted to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe a report compiled after its discussions on a planned statement to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. The Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century and on Japan’s Role and World Order in the 21st Century stipulated in the report that “Japan expanded its aggression” and waged “a reckless war.”
(Wikipedia) The Murayama Statement (村山談話 Murayama Danwa?), officially titled On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end (戦後50周年の終戦記念日にあたっての村山内閣総理大臣談話 Sengo 50 Shūnen no Shūsen Kinenbi Niatatte no Murayama Naikaku-sōri-daijin Danwa?), was released by then Prime Minister of Japan Tomiichi Murayama on August 15, 1995. In it, he apologized for the damage and suffering caused by Japan to its Asian neighbors. The statement was based on a Cabinet decision, requiring unanimous approval from the Cabinet members. It is often quoted as the official position of the Government of Japan on the issue of Japan's wartime aggression in the early 20th century.
「戦後50周年の終戦記念日にあたって」（いわゆる村山談話） 英語版 いま、戦後50周年の節目に当たり、われわれが銘記すべきことは、来し方を訪ねて歴史の教訓に学び、未来を望んで、人類社会の平和と繁栄への道を誤らないことであります。 Now, upon this historic occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end, we should bear in mind that we must look into the past to learn from the lessons of history, and ensure that we do not stray from the path to the peace and prosperity of human society in the future.
わが国は、遠くない過去の一時期、国策を誤り、戦争への道を歩んで国民を存亡の危機に陥れ、植民地支配と侵略によって、多くの国々、とりわけアジア諸国の人々に対して多大の損害と苦痛を与えました。私は、未来に誤ち無からしめんとするが故に、疑うべくもないこの歴史の事実を謙虚に受け止め、ここにあらためて痛切な反省の意を表し、心からのお詫びの気持ちを表明いたします。また、この歴史がもたらした内外すべての犠牲者に深い哀悼の念を捧げます。 During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology. Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, of that history.
敗戦の日から50周年を迎えた今日、わが国は、深い反省に立ち、独善的なナショナリズムを排し、責任ある国際社会の一員として国際協調を促進し、それを通じて、平和の理念と民主主義とを押し広めていかなければなりません。同時に、わが国は、唯一の被爆国としての体験を踏まえて、核兵器の究極の廃絶を目指し、核不拡散体制の強化など、国際的な軍縮を積極的に推進していくことが肝要であります。これこそ、過去に対するつぐないとなり、犠牲となられた方々の御霊を鎮めるゆえんとなると、私は信じております。 Building from our deep remorse on this occasion of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, Japan must eliminate self-righteous nationalism, promote international coordination as a responsible member of the international community and, thereby, advance the principles of peace and democracy. At the same time, as the only country to have experienced the devastation of atomic bombing, Japan, with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, must actively strive to further global disarmament in areas such as the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is my conviction that in this way alone can Japan atone for its past and lay to rest the spirits of those who perished.
「杖るは信に如くは莫し」と申します。この記念すべき時に当たり、信義を施政の根幹とすることを内外に表明し、私の誓いの言葉といたします。 It is said that one can rely on good faith. And so, at this time of remembrance, I declare to the people of Japan and abroad my intention to make good faith the foundation of our Government policy, and this is my vow.
私は、終戦六十年を迎えるに当たり、改めて今私たちが享受している平和と繁栄は、戦争によって心ならずも命を落とされた多くの方々の尊い犠牲の上にあることに思いを致し、二度と我が国が戦争への道を歩んではならないとの決意を新たにするものであります。 On the 60th anniversary of the end of the war, I reaffirm my determination that Japan must never again take the path to war, reflecting that the peace and prosperity we enjoy today are founded on the ultimate sacrifices of those who lost their lives for the war against their will.
先の大戦では、三百万余の同胞が、祖国を思い、家族を案じつつ戦場に散り、戦禍に倒れ、あるいは、戦後遠い異郷の地に亡くなられています。 More than three million compatriots died in the war -- in the battle field thinking about their homeland and worrying about their families, while others perished amidst the destruction of war, or after the war in remote foreign countries.
また、我が国は、かつて植民地支配と侵略によって、多くの国々、とりわけアジア諸国の人々に対して多大の損害と苦痛を与えました。こうした歴史の事実を謙虚に受け止め、改めて痛切な反省と心からのお詫びの気持ちを表明するとともに、先の大戦における内外のすべての犠牲者に謹んで哀悼の意を表します。悲惨な戦争の教訓を風化させず、二度と戦火を交えることなく世界の平和と繁栄に貢献していく決意です。 In the past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. Sincerely facing these facts of history, I once again express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology, and also express the feelings of mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, in the war. I am determined not to allow the lessons of that horrible war to erode, and to contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world without ever again waging a war.
第２次大戦とどのように向き合っていくのか、日本だけでなく中国、韓国、米国の立場をまとめてくれている記事がありました。日本専門家のSheila A. Smithさんによるものです。
Rethinking Asia’s Postwar Settlement Author: Sheila A. Smith, Senior Fellow for Japan Studies August 5, 2015 Battling for Moral Authority in Asia? In the next several weeks, two commemorations of the end of World War II will draw particular attention. The first is the much-anticipated statement by Prime Minister Abe on August 15, the day commemorating the end of the war in Japan. The Murayama Statement, based on a Cabinet decision and issued on the fiftieth anniversary, is the most comprehensive statement of Japan’s remorse for its imperial conquest of Asia. Sitting prime ministers have chosen to issue their own statements every ten years and in 2005, former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi issued his personal statement on the sixtieth anniversary. Abe, who has argued that his country must move beyond a postwar mentality and define a new proud future for its youth, has raised concerns across the region that his seventieth anniversary statement will abandon Murayama’s explicit acknowledgement of Japan’s misdeeds in favor of a more unapologetic expression of Japanese ambitions. Even within Japan, there have been concerns over the direction the prime minister might set and the potential damage that might result in Japanese regional diplomacy.
The second commemoration of note will be in Beijing on September 3, the first national celebration of China’s V-J (Victory over Japan) Day. President Xi Jinping has invited leaders from around the globe, including Japan’s prime minister, and his military has been practicing for a massive display of China’s newfound national power. Like the World War II celebration hosted in May by President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, however, there is considerable caution about endorsing this celebration of China’s liberation from Japan’s imperial forces. For much of the past several years, Chinese government officials have waged a global effort to condemn Japanese wartime behavior in China, and regional and global leaders are wary of appearing to condone the denigration of Japan by its neighbor.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. わたしの言う平和とはどのようなことでしょう。わたしたちの求める平和とはどのようなものでしょう。それは、アメリカの軍事力によって世界に強制的にもたらされるパクス・アメリカーナではありません。それは、墓場の平安でも、奴隷の安全でもありません。わたしは、真の平和、すなわち、この地球上での生活を生きる価値のあるものにする平和、人と国が成長し、希望を持ち、子孫のためにより良い生活を作り上げることのできる平和、アメリカ人のためだけではなく、世界中の人々のための平和、今の時代だけではなく、あらゆる時代での平和について話したいと思います。
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. したがって、わたしは、合理的な人々にとっての、必然的、合理的な目標である平和についてお話しします。平和の追求は戦争の追求ほど劇的なものではなく、平和の追求者の言葉はしばしば人々に無視されます。しかし、これほど緊急を要する仕事はほかにないのです。
Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. われわれの問題は、人間が作り出したものです。ならば、人間の手で解決できるはずです。人は自分が望むだけ大きくなることができます。人間の運命の問題で、人間の力の及ばない場所にあるものなどありません。人間は、その理性と精神によって、解決不可能に思われた問題をも解決してきました。今、同じことをできるはずだとわれわれは信じます。
And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. しかし、相違があっても世界が平穏であり続けるように力を注ぐことはできます。究極のところ、われわれを結びつけるもっとも根本的な絆は、小さな地球の上でともに生きている、という事実です。われわれはみな同じ空気を吸い、子どもたちの将来を同じように大切に思います。われわれはみな命に限りのある人間です。
Library Fines and Fees The New York Public Library assesses a fine to the record of any borrower who fails to return library materials on or before their due date. Accumulated fines will result in the suspension of borrowing privileges.
横道にそれましたが、library patronについてでした。まあ下の記事をみてもらうとわかるようにlibrary patrons= library-card holders= anyone with a Seattle Public Library card「図書館利用カードがある利用者のこと」と理解してよさそうです。
The Seattle Public Library now lends Wi-Fi hotspot devices to library-card holders.
As of Monday, anyone with a Seattle Public Library card could check out a Wi-Fi hotspot device to use on the go or at home.
The initial 150 devices were funded with a $225,000 grant from Google and Google.org to the Seattle Public Library, according to a library news release.
Throughout my entire library career since early 2000s, the term that refers to library users which I heard most from the library staff was “patron.” I don’t recall any library staff calling a library user “customer” or even “user” back then. As a very new part-time library assistant, I took it that this term “patron” meant pretty much “customer” in the sense that it is the customer (=patron in the library) that is the king. At that time, I found the term “patron” odd and was curious about the fact that libraries were so patron-oriented. As a total library novice, I found the term ‘patron’ antiquated. (Could be just me, I admit.) Secondly, I just had no idea that libraries I frequented had such a patron-oriented culture even though I was a good library user/grad student. I was greatly impressed and amazed at how seriously the library staff take each and every small comment they receive from their “patrons.” Now of course, I no longer feel the same curiosity about the term ‘patron,’ as I was brainwashed through my formal LIS education. (Kidding, kidding… ) But I still feel odd calling a library user “library patron.” When I hear the term “patron,” I automatically think of patrons of the arts and culture, like the Medici who were the patrons of Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. Now, certainly library users don’t consider themselves as playing the role of that kind of “patron.” Do they? If patronage means just some support, probably a term for this type of patronage that library users can better relate to would be rather “friends of the library.”
どうしてpatronという言葉を使うのかを説明してくれているサイトがありました。has fully adopted the term patron in an effort to demonstrate the priority of serving our publicと語っています。
Like NYPL, Cuyahoga, Seattle, and Multnomah, the library system I work for, Great River Regional Library (MN), has fully adopted the term patron in an effort to demonstrate the priority of serving our public. Many of our job titles include the term. By incorporating the term patron into our policies, they also reflect this priority. We avoid the term customer in order to differentiate our services from the business world. By using library terminology, we can better demonstrate our unique value as a public service. The term patron is library jargon, but is precise. Traditional library lingo has a place—it helps us describe the value of library as “library.” If, as public libraries, we do not embrace our own identity, who will? As shown in its dictionary definition, the term patron is associated with support of an organization and those who use libraries. What better way to describe those who come through our doors? The benefit of using the term patron is that it a broad term and can describe various aspects of library use, from circulation to reading the newspaper to connecting to our wireless network. Based on the definition, a person could even be considered a patron without setting foot in the door if they are a library supporter. The term allows for broad generalities while being specific to library services.
The terms we use to describe our strongest supporters, the people who use our services, are consequential to communicating their relationship with us. Without the people who walk through our doors and access our services, public libraries would be irrelevant. The public is essential to libraries just as libraries are essential to the public. Using the term patron helps to demonstrate that their role in our libraries is unique, unduplicated, and invaluable. We should thoughtfully consider what we are communicating when using terms like customer, student, or user. While these terms have come into vogue, the term patron continues to resonate. Its timeless quality should be taken into consideration, especially as we move into a new age of redefining the role of public libraries. At the same time, we need to embrace our unduplicated identity as public information service provider and community connector. Moving toward the term member may help us develop a more engaged public and transform the public library identity in the twenty-first century to a more active community environment. It has the potential “to brand the library as a platform for community learning and development”22 by inviting our supporters to actively belong to our libraries.
Those who are gone, cannot come back. Those who are gone, cannot cry. Those who are gone, cannot weep.
My dear Shoji, My dear Yasushi… Shoji, Yasushi…
Dear swallow, dear swallow, dear swallow, in the country of the South, from which you came you might see my children who may have forgotten to come home while playing about. Since they have good memories I am sure they would remember me.
Oh, children, You must learn the meaning Of what we call Justice. Justice is not Drawing sword. Justice is Love.
Water! Please, water! Just a drink of water. Aaaaah ….better off dead….this is worse than death. Aaaaah ….help! Please, help! Water! Water! Somehow…. someone…. aaaaow…. aaaaow….
The heavens split. The city’s gone. The river runs…. aaaaow…. aaaaow….
In the black rain steadily falling, I have been looking for my mother. Terribly thirsty, mom. I want some water, mom. My burned hands and feet smart, mom. Where has the blue sky gone, mom? Mom, mom, mom! Why don’t you answer me, mom? I feel I am becoming something else.
In the flames steadily falling like rain, I have been looking for my mother. It is getting hotter, mom. Where has our home gone, mom? Why don’t you tell more stories, mom? Mom, mom, mom! Please come to hug me. I feel I will soon become something else.
Close your eyes so that you will see a town covered by flames and ash, will hear mothers and children weeping. It is my lost summer, a curse and recollection.
