Drawn! The Illustration and Cartooning Blog

Apropos of the pamphlet here, I meant we had singled out the Japanese in our depictions of them, not that we had singled them out because of their race in the actual conflict. The images of the Japanese in particular during WW2 were the most overtly racist in our propaganda and media because it was easier to demonize non-whites.

Now I don't know what portion of the German population is blond and blue-eyed, but I don't believe it's a majority. That was the Aryan ideal, but it wasn't the norm.

As for mustering up sympathy for the Japanese people--I can muster plenty for all of the patriotic Japanese Americans who were put in internment camps in this country simply because of their race. This was the fallout of the racism that the war spawned--a consequence off all those negative depictions.

And I can muster plenty of sympathy for all the wars victims, civilians and soldiers alike. It's important not to confuse the people that are fighting the war for the policy that motivates it. Most of the soldiers who faught in the war on both sides were too young and too nieve and too driven by the furor of populist sentiment to grasp the ultimate consequences of the conflict.

I think we're all responsible for war, and there are many factors that contribute to war, the principal two being religion and economics. Germany was at a very weak moral moment in it's history after WW1. It was an economically depressed society that found it's scapegoat in the Jews. These conditions were somewhat mirrored in Japan and Italy.

I don't think the war was a product of some sort of comic book malevolence---the Axis was not a faceless villain. Their were molevolent acts committed, and molevolent men were behind it, but what spurred it was something a little more complicated. So no, I don't think the Germans and the Itallians and the Japanese were bad guys. That's too easy.

All points absorbed and well taken. Certainly the US has it's share of dirty laundry as does every other nation on the earth. And yes, it IS true that all wars are bad - but they ain't goin' away. History is replete with civilizations that rise and fall on the sword, and remaining history will be filled with further examples - no justification, just the facts. While we must continue to strive for peace, it's just not gonna happen.

Certainly the Japanese suffered, as did those of German descent - virtually anyone who was perceived as an enemy of the Allies. Is it right? No. Unfortunately a broad brush is applied in times where clear distinctions must be drawn. Much of the public's perception during this time was either black or white - there was little or no grey area. It's difficult to muster up a lot of sympathy for people that are going for a massive land grab grab throughout Europe, Africa and the Far East. Throw in a plan to exterminate an entire race of people, and those would appear to me to be the prime candidates for the "Bad Guy" label.

That the Japanese were "enemies" in World War II because of their race - well, that's just wrong. Were we at war with the Germans because they were primarily a blonde, blue-eyed people? Were we fighting the Italians because their language is different than English? Certainly to fight them for just those reasons would be unbelievably racist - but those are no more the reasons we fought them them than to say we fought the Japanese because they were a different race.

It would be a wonderful thing to ask Sam Cobean how he feels about it, lo, these many years later. It would be interesting to ask him if he felt any differently about what he did during that time, and why or why not. My guess is, he might feel that at the time it was perfectly justified as he helped what he considered "the right side" to win. He might say but it's over 60 years later it's a different day, and it's time to put that behind us and recognize it for what it was and is - wartime propaganda and not a reflection of where we are now.

I only mention our war crimes during WW2 because they so seldom are, but Yes, those Natzis have us beat. And the fascists. And the Japanese committed horrible attrocities against the Chinese, and yes, Natzi propaganda was more venemous and widespread than anybody's--and it was extraordinarily short sighted of me not to mention their portrayal of Jews and African Americans.

As for US depictions of the Japanese-- I'm not talking exclusively about stuff like this specifically created for the war, but every aspect of our media at the time. All I really wanted to point out is the U.S.'s behavior and its consequences without entering too much into the realm of relativism, because I do think we need to take responsibility for what we DID do, and we DID single the Japanese out because they were non-whites.

It does seem like any criticism of our behavior during WW2 is anathema, and I do consider the climate of the time, but that doesn't justify every action we made. I simply don't consider it the "good war". All wars are bad wars and make us behave in ugly ways. Rather than discount that ugliness because, well, it was a war and tensions were high, I think it's useful to give our behavior a more objective look.

I don't think there are only two sides to this argument. I don't think it's "it was a time of war, so it was ok, and look what the bad guys did" vs. "we're assholes". I think it's more in the realm of: what exactly did we do and what compelled us to do it? And if it was unjust (and I don't go by the argument that all is just for a righteous cause) then lets look at that too. And yes, we did a lot of good as well, and that's also worth evaluating. But that doesn't discount the bad stuff.

Greg, woah there, think of the context. Americans weren't the only ones treating the Japanese poorly --> see Canada and the internment camps we set up for them (we took all their assets too!) after Pearl Harbour. The amazing thing is we didn't do this to Italian's, Germans's or any other group that wasn't "on our side". It should make you wonder why they were singled out the way they were or are you too blinded by peceived attacks on merikun's to notice the bigger picture?

I agree with Jed that we shouldn't celebrate the past american racism (whoever it is against) but I was just stating before that in the time of war any information that can help soliders in the field should be known, even if it does have a certain slant. And I would almost guarantee that stuff like this saved lives. Today soliders and even civilians in the military take anti-terrorism that is intended to save lives. AT training today is not racist by today's standards but who knows what it might be seen as in 50 years.

Pointing out the heinous actions of the US is bashing, but it's just factual discussion when pointing out the war crimes of others. I always forget that distinction. It's also interesting that pointing out what 'the enemy' did -- and I put 'the enemy' in quotes because really we're mean their race -- can be used to justify anything.

It's always amazing to me that there are those who seek only to bash how Americans are so "evil" in the context of something like this. Jed says, "we did seriously screw the Japanese" - really??? Presumably the Japanese during World War II represented a model of how prisoners and enemy combatants should be treated?

I'm sure if I had all day I could find countless examples of very demeaning and derogatory publications from the Japanese, German, Italian, etc., etc., etc. regarding Americans (and an interesting note here - the Japanese and Germans were very quick to portray American blacks in very unsavory graphic and descriptive terms - surprise, surprise!). And we all know that the Germans spent untold resources edifying and uplifting Jews in their propaganda.
Below are two links that contain some interesting examples (I only did a quick search) of how the Japanese and Germans portrayed their enemies.

http://www.2bangkok.com/wwiipropaganda.shtml

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm

I suppose in context, the Japanese illustrations are okay because they are watercolored, and all the Japanese soldiers look so darn cute. Obviously they also took great pains to paint the American and British in such a complimentary fashion - another mark of a truly enlightened society. If we really want to compare "war crimes" it would probably be fair to include the MANY atrocities committed by the Japanese and the Germans to not only Americans but many other nationalities.

I think it is safe to say, that these materials (on all sides) were created during war time when tensions and emotions were very high. The "enemy" was easily recognizable and identifiable by physical and social factors. Those in charge of creating materials for propaganda purposes were charged with making the enemy appear as undesirable and detestable as possible (hey! that's one of the goals of effective propaganda!) Almost seventy years later we are bound to have a different perspective on many things, and we certainly do not want to "celebrate" our less desirable moments, but it does not make the context in which these were used at the time any less valid.

These are intriguing for how they reflect the attitudes of the time, nicely drawn, unarguably racist in any context, and I seriously doubt this kind of stuff "saved lives". I think it has its place here as both a historical artifact, and for it's objective artistic merit. It's actually pretty good cartooning.

You know, we may not have screwed the Japanese as bad as the Germans screwed the Russians, but we did seriously screw the Japanese--apart from whatever you think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I think were completely unnecessary--we just obliterated the landscape of that little island with our relentless firebombing to an unjustifiable degree. We were seriously determined to make them pay for Pearl Harbor, and man did they pay.

But lets set war crimes aside for a moment. The Japanese were demonized in our depictions of them in our propaganda more than any other group. Europeans simply did not receive the same treatment. The Japanese were routinely portrayed as subhuman and evil. They were more than caricatured--they were made to look like monsters. parallel depictions of westerners that match these are pretty rare on either side, so really, this aint a case of tit for tat. As someone else kind of already pointed out, this kind of thing is an American tradition, but not one I'm anxious to celebrate.

'How to Spot a Jap' was also created with the intention of saving the reader's life by showing him how to tell a Japanese person from the Chinese he may be hiding among.

Darryl raises a valid point, though obliquely: would Drawn.ca post artwork about spear-chuckers and how they corrupt the White Man? And it's racist but it is also kitsch. It's the kitsch part that gets 'How to Spot a Jap' through the door, but (thankfully) shuts out the plethora of modern day racist drawings and tracts.

This looks to be an instruction manual deisgned to grab the attention of 18-24 year olds. The pamphlet contains information that may have saved the readers' lives.

It is clearly not the same as 'How to spot a Jap".

Johnny, I think Darryl merely commented on "name", Greg and Heidis posts. Interesting to note that the furore following How to Spot a Jap has been replaced by a shrug now. Is it because the artist behind The Punch Below the Belt was a card-carrying satirist, opposed to Milt Caniff?

Darryl -- don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say either of these posts were kitsch, and in both cases I clearly note that they are racist.

Nice post. Very informative, now I know how to spot a Jap and what his ruses are. Tell me, is Drawn.ca going to next tell me how The US dealt with uppity niggers during the Civil War? After all, it's not racism. It's "kitsch" so it's perfectly acceptable.

Agreed! Any propaganda is based on generalizations - generalizations that don't necessarily reflect what the general public/civillians think.

I would agree with the previous poster. This was an all-out war with a very clearly defined enemy complete with fully developed ideology from a specific geographic location. While these instructions and illustrations may be preceived as "racist" by today's standards, they were ostensibly designed to instruct, save lives and in some measure, entertain. My guess is, that if we could somehow obtain propaganda pieces by any enemy of the U.S., (duiring this period and even currently) we would observe similar characterizations from their viewpoint as well. Frankly, I doubt very seriously that those who produced these materials were too terribly worried about offending a declared enemy who wanted only to kill Americans.

The military uses training all the time to help save lives in the field. What we see clearly as racist now wasn't seen as so at the time.