I think these kinds of comments are harmful to the discourse because there a good deal of nuance missing.
For one, it’s pretty reductive to call them ‘Japanese who’ve done bad things’ when who you’re talking about is dead or on their death beds. That’s not who the monument is for or about.
Historical monuments aren’t for attributing the sins of grandparents to their grandchildren. It’s about humanzing the victims and teaching people of this generation what was allowed to happen in the past. It’s about teaching them the dangers of complacency and the complicit nature of being a bystander.
If it’s worth anything, 4,300 people signed a petition against the removal and many protested in person.
Yes, Japanese people as a whole are severely lacking when it comes to acknowledging the atrocities committed by their country. No, Japanese people today are not personally responsible for them. The better we are at separating acknowledgement from responsibility, the easier time we will have convincing people to remember them.
Can we not gaslight and invalidate people for asking for less cancer inducing food?
When people say ‘processed’ or ‘chemicals’ colloquially, they mean excessive nitrates and nitrites which are carcinogenic. But you already know that. You’re just being pedantic so you could kiss the ass of big ham.
It’s astounding how effective the marketing was to shrug off regulatory concerns on nitrates and nitrites into an overreaction by ‘ma’ams’ and other grocery shopping women. Just take any valid concern and pin it onto an already ridiculed demographic and voila, you’ve made it popular with the internet.