#(not a direct quote of prof.)

[alt-wannabe]

“Let’s make the question hard to understand!”

oh my GOD

[cimicherrychanga]

linguistics major who is SO SCARED of the concept of writing a glossary on their own

[prankprincess123]

My elementary school teachers: You REALLY need to stop being so chaotic and belligerent, even in your creative assignments, because it will only cause problems and get you in trouble in life.

My university English professors: I adore this chaotic and belligerent almost trickster voice in your writing! Next time I'd like to see you push the sporadic and confrontational energy even further, because I'm loving both the vibes and your hot takes on everything.

[criminalgays]

historians of tumblr is there a reason that the author of this britannica academic article is referring to King Charles VIII of France as a “barely literate gnome of a man” or is this another case of a historian having random beef with a historical figure but still being forced to talk about them

[heyitsjaki]

Just prof things with Gale, featuring a direct quote and some REAL ACTUAL MATH from my partner (who is also a nerdy prof)

[theannoyingknowitall]

"The natural instincts we inherited from our ancestors make it so we flinch when we see a spider, a snake or an integral"

[writingwithfolklore]

Punctuation Rules

Punctuation is like the very last thing I actively think about when writing something (what's the point of fixing the punctuation of a sentence you'll end up taking out or editing anyway?) but it is still an important step!

Having proper punctuation increases your credibility and the overall quality of your work. Also, it’s doubly important in professional work, emails, and resumes. With that, let’s get into it!

Commas

We use them all the time. We get them wrong all the time. There are six rules for where you can use commas:

Use to separate items in a list or series:

The book was long, tedious, and painful.

The comma after tedious is called the Oxford’s comma. Feel free to debate if you need it in the reblogs, but you won’t get in trouble professionally if you use it or leave it out (in most cases.) It always comes before ‘and’ in a list to prevent confusion of the items:

I ran into my mother, my best friend and a scientist. (1 person?)

Is very different from

I ran into my mother, my best friend, and a scientist. (3 people)

2. Use to separate independent clauses, with a coordinating conjunction.

An independent clause is just a sentence that makes sense on its own.

A coordinating conjunction is: and, but, or so.

Miley had a ton of work to do, so she set her alarm early.

3. Use after an introductory statement.

Introductory statements begin with many different words, but typically: Before, after, when, while, as soon as, etc.

Before her first class, Stacy looked up her prof on Rate Your Teacher.

Main point about this, “Before her first class” is not an independent clause, it needs a second part.

4. Use to surround info in a sentence

This info is not essential to the sense-making of the sentence, but it should be relevant.

Parents, no matter how skilled, cannot function at 100% all the time.

5. Addresses and Dates

6. And with direct quotes

Important for essay writing.

Casey said, “I hate this house!”

Colons:

Introduce a list after a complete sentence:

I have three favourite foods: spaghetti, chowder, and garlic bread.

2. Use after ‘the following’ or ‘as follows’

Please provide the following information: your date of birth, full name, and address.

3. Don't use with sentence fragments

A sentence fragment is an unfinished sentence (that doesn’t make sense on its own).

My favourite foods are: spaghetti, chowder, and garlic bread.

This is wrong because, “My favourite foods are.” Isn’t an independent clause.

4. Introduce an explanation

My parents ask one thing of me: that I try my hardest.

5. Introduce a quotation

Mom always quoted the bible: “The truth will set you free.”

6. And times (12:00)

Semi-Colon:

Not super common, but makes you look good if you can use it properly.

Separate two related independent clauses

I never drink Starbucks; it tastes burnt.

2. Similar, but with conjunctions: however, moreover, therefore, nevertheless, etc.

I don’t like Starbucks; however, it does the job.

Agatha didn’t witness anything; nevertheless, she was called in to court.

3. Use to avoid misreading in a series

The invited guests are the club leader; the treasurer; the new member, Jason Tanner; and Wanda Johnson, the investor.

Semicolons clarify the separation between the four people. Had it been, “The club leader, the treasurer, The new member, Jason Tanner…” it would seem that the new member and Jason Tanner are two different people.

Apostrophes – Possessive

‘s shows possession of a singular noun

The girl’s parents were quite rich.

2. S’ shows possession of a plural noun

The students’ books were all over the place. (there are multiple students who have books)

3. ‘s to singular words ending in s, and nouns that are plural

My boss’s office My children’s toys

Apostrophes – Contractions

Use to combine two words (they are, he is, there is, etc.)

It is -> It’s a beautiful park They are -> They’re really good friends You are -> you’re good at this and so on.

[sevault-canyon]

ms appleton was nowhere close to having total control over soy sauce: perspectives on food and postwar japan

there's a popular post going around this month by @inneskeeper about how a single person changed japanese soy sauce forever. i've made my own post showing why this the story is incomplete and based on some factual inaccuracies, but i will be honest in saying that i would not be so engaged in responding to this post if it were not wrapped in a shockingly reductive narrative. i'll use this quote from op as a summary of the general idea they're trying to convey:

[...] I think that it is incredibly important that more people in the world are aware that leading into the Cold War, Japan was forcibly coerced into giving total power over a significant cultural touchstone/ingredient/way of life to a single foreigner who had a complete lack of respect for what shoyu is, even going so far as to say "I want to change Japan's taste preferences". I cannot imagine a more direct and blunt parallel to settler-colonialism mindset. I truly cannot. [link]

i will attempt give a larger view of that era and convey why this singular view is at best oversimplifying and at worst an incorrect projection of other trends upon what is an almost unique event in history.

note: i am not an academic historian; i will do my best to provide sources, but they will mostly be secondary.

i will use the three i's presented by prof. ian shapiro of yale, interests, institutions, and ideals, as lenses through which i will provide a more holistic view of the events at hand:

tl;dr:

the united states did not have uniform interests entering the cold war and the occupiers had a varying set of visions for japanese society and economy.

both the japanese public, the american occupation, and the japanese civil government had a more important goal: preventing hunger. japan was not coerced into handing over a tradition; it was suffering the consequences of its own colonial empire-building.

both countries were interested in building a healthy consumer economy, and ultimately the tastes of the public held most sway.

the idea of "a guy" being in charge of things has been a common theme in american foreign policy, but the idea that "the guy" was singularly responsible for massive change belies american perspectives and biases that often misrepresent the truth abroad.

i - ideals

i think this lens is maybe the most sympathetic to @inneskeeper's narrative: it makes sense that a settler-colonial nation with a deep root of anglo-protestant self-righteousness and evangelical tendencies would want to impose its vision of society upon a defeated foe. that said, it is not the only ideology at play in this situation, from both japan and the usa.

let's talk about main value the united states likes to impose upon foreign societies: democracy capitalism. i think what is interesting here is that this single word can have multiple interpretations in practice, and we can use this soy sauce story to look at the diversity in opinion of what capitalism means.

first, a capitalism tied to liberal ideals: a free and open market without monopolies as a promoter of egalitarianism. this concept was brought to japan by many of the administrators in the american occupation that have previously observed or enacted roosevelt's new deal in the aftermath of the great depression. [1, p.57-58; 2, p.98] we see a focus on trust-busting and a strong aversion to any significantly concentrated capital. pre-war japan was dominated by structures known as 財閥 zaibatsu, vertically integrated groups that are helmed by a family-controlled holding company owning a set of subsidiaries in banking and industry with interlocking stock ownership and directorship. the zaibatsu structures, emerging since the late edo and early meiji periods, have become inextricably linked to building the japanese imperial war machine (though somewhat forcibly). [3] on the american side, as a result, certain american elements viewed trust-busting as a way to democratize japan through the economy. [2, p.34; 4, p.19; 5, IV-2b] this included maj. gen. marquat, ms. appleton's boss at the ghq/scap economic and scientific section (ess). [4, p.31] japan's first postwar prime minister, shigeru yoshida, and his ministry of foreign affairs, seemed to agree with the deconcentration of capital. [4, p.20] this is not to say that the americans were particularly sympathetic, as gen. macarthur and others were quite convinced of the japanese population's inability to shed its feudal tendencies; rather, the americans found an opportunity to build a new liberal, democratic society to their liking. and yes, there was some punitive intent; the united states and allies did just finish fighting an 8-year-long war against an expanding empire. [4, p.30]

opposite the liberal view is the conservative, if not pragmatic, ideal of capitalism: as a bulwark against communism. japan was an industrialized nation with a developed economy, and as far as the looming cold war is involved, the united states wants both a healthy consumer economy and one that is integrated in the new world economy (i.e. one with american interests as stakeholders). [4, p.31-32, 44] if "deconcentration" of capital, as it was called by the occupiers, were to run its course, some americans (and lobbyists linked to japanese industry) feared that japanese society would be thrown into chaos, or worse, the rapprochement with the soviets under a socialist economy. [4, p.22, 32] the victors did initially break up many of the tightly-woven zaibatsu, but the overall health of the economy was eventually prioritized as a bulwark against communism, thus the number of zaibatsu slated for dismantling was reduced, and the main deconcentration proposal (FEC-230) was disavowed. [4, p. 32]

all this debate within the american occupation, plus some interjections from the japanese business community, about the nature of the rebuilding japanese market and economy was held from 1946 to 1948. this culminated in the "reverse course," in which cold war objectives won out in occupation policy, though the free market as a liberalizing principle was not discarded. [4, p.44-46] in the same space, there existed both a punitive drive to disperse the old japanese economic engine and a desire to build a new, genuinely local, consumer society as a protection against communism.

“Nothing will serve better to win the Japanese people over to a peaceful, democratic way of life than the discovery that it brings rewards in the way of better living and increasing economic security.” - col. r.m. cheseldine, u.s. war department [4, p.44]

it is important to distinguish this from the colonialist drive, which is to capture markets and resources for the sole benefit of the homeland.

in the context of soy sauce, the release by ghq/scap of american soybeans to japan was announced in 1948, after the reverse course has taken hold. [6, p.157] in addition, kikkoman was not even a zaibatsu, it was a company with roots in family ownership, vertically-integrated structures, and eventually found to engage in monopolistic practices, but was not of a large enough scale or diversification to qualify. [7, ch.3] the list of zaibatsu is actually quite limited. [wiki] all this meant that the anti-trust case brought against noda shōyu k.k. (kikkoman's predecessor) in 1954 in the tokyo high court is an entirely domestic affair (scap handed over power in 1949 and the position was abolished in 1952). [8, p.53] that said, the 1957 ruling against noda in noda shōyu k.k. v. japan fair trade commission (jftc) was the result of an aberrant and unfavourable reading of the act on prohibition of private monopolization and maintenance of fair trade, article 3; the act was passed in 1947, when scap was in power. [8, p.53] since article 3 is quite short ("an enterprise must not effect private monopolization or unreasonable restraint of trade."), it was open to wide interpretation, leading to the argument by the jftc that price-fixing as a leading player in an industry constituted monopolistic behaviour. [9] in that sense, we can see echoes of the debate around monopolies from the occupation era.

through the lens of ideals, we can see that in the periphery of this story, there is a friction between competing visions of capitalism in practice. in that sense, while it agrees that the usa had some desire to reshape a foreign country to its own ideals, it also shows how @inneskeeper's narrative unduly reduces the american occupation to a singular actor with singular motives, and one that is akin to colonial empires in other parts of history.

research questions:

did american attitudes towards monopolies affect the free distribution of semichemical fermentation methods? [6, p.160]

what direct links can we make between occupation-era attitudes towards monopolization and japanese governance regarding the food industry?

ii - institutions

from the point of view of institutions (i use the term loosely), it's a lot more apparent how the situation has a lot more factors flowing in many directions. i will largely focus on three structures: the japanese food industry, the allied victors, and the japanese civil government.

when discussing the food industry, it's important to note that this is what sustains the inhabitants of a place; while condiments are a trivial part of sustenance, the way it is made and its ebbs and flows and shed a lot of light onto the needs of people. japan, since the early 20th century, had been a country that could not sustain itself off the resources of its home islands. as a colonial empire, it relied on food imports from korea and taiwan, and in the 20s and 30s pursued the low-lying plains of manchuria (northeastern china). this reflects in its soybean consumption as well: japan consumed about 1 million tons of soy each year in the 1930s, and at least two-thirds of it was imported from the colonies or manchukuo (the puppet régime ruling machuria). [10] within what we now call the "home islands" of japan, hokkaido, the one remaining settler-colony of japan to this day, produces the most out of all regions. [11, p.4]

(time for some math: [10] states that about 949 000 tons of soy sauce was consumed in japan per year in the mid-1930s. a quick look at soy sauce recipes reveals that 1kg of soy produces about 4 litres (and assuming about 4kg due to density of water) of sauce. with the 4:1 ratio, we can therefore estimate that about 237 000 tons of soy was used per year to make sauce immediately before the war.)

the end of the japanese empire meant losing direct access to those production areas: manchuria was returned to china, and korea and taiwan were placed under various allied (usa, china, ussr) administrations. with japan needing to supply its troops over an ever-growing front line, caloric intake by the average japanese already dropped well below necessary levels for an adult by 1944. [12] by 1946, the defeated nation was at the brink of starvation. american analysis towards the end of wwii determined that soybean production in the home islands could not rise beyond its pre-war levels without sacrificing other land use. [11, p.5] in order to survive, the soy industry needed to replace about 70% of its sources in short order without encroaching upon other agricultural sectors necessary to sustain life. there was immense pressure.

regarding the allies: the japanese empire was largely carved up by three victors, china, the ussr, and the usa. the ussr, having been the least active in the defeat of japan, with its most important contribution being the verbal threat of invasion, was not actively threatening aside from the spectre of spreading communism (as mentioned in part i). china, on the other hand, regained the lands that produced much of the food japan was consuming. while the republic of china (ruled by the kmt) was still in power, it was able to continue supplying food to neighbouring nations. [14] however, civil war broke out between the kmt government and the communists almost immediately after the end of wwii. [13] 1948 saw active fighting in northern china, thus hampering any exports of food; the kmt régime collapsed and fled to taiwan in 1949, and the communist government stopped all trade with the western bloc at the outbreak of the korean war in 1950. [14] with china being unable to supply japan, there is only one remaining option for food imports: the usa. soybean imports in the usa was generally coordinated by the garioa program and through private trade. american exports of soybean to japan skyrocketed from 6000 tons in 1946 and 34600 tons in 1947 to 119500 tons (about 12% of pre-war consumption) in 1948, 152500 tons in 1949 (almost all imports to japan that year), and 305000 tons in 1950. [15, p.67, 69] japan itself likely produced between 300 000 and 450 000 tons of soybeans each year, which meant that in 1947-48 japan was consuming definitively less than two-thirds of its pre-war consumption. the soy industry as a whole, and certainly the soy sauce industry, was in a desperate state.

unlike the collapsed german and italian régimes, the japanese government retained a functioning structure after the rapid end to hostilities in the pacific theatre. [16, p.194] this meant that instead of being tasked with the groundwork of running a country, the allied powers had an existing civil government to administer directives and policies; the u.s. eighth army served as an enforcement and reporting arm of scap. [16, p.195-197] during the war, from 1939 to 1942, the imperial government instituted various food control laws that collected and distributed food from producers under a quota system. [17, p.221] such quotas, as as well as rationing, persisted in the immediate months after allied victory. however, with the surrender of japan, public confidence in the government plummeted, significantly hampering its ability to administer food. the average caloric value of rations in tokyo could only fulfill about a third of an adult's needs; hungry city-dwellers increasingly opted to buy on the black market (which had poached imperial military stock) or physically go to the countryside to acquire food directly from farmers outside of government rationing. [18, p.30-31; 19, p.835, 843] scap policy directed the japanese government to "reinstate" agricultural quotas, and in 1946, it issued the emergency imperial food ordinance which empowered government expropriation of food for the production quota and enforcement of such policies; the u.s. eighth army participated in enforcing the policy within the civil administration. [17; 18] the yoshida government,the first democratically elected administration in the new state of japan, was keenly aware of the necessity of food in rehabilitating japan, as well as the importance of competing against the black market in order to once again establish the rule of law. [18] as such, the tight government control of domestic food production lasted much longer than in other industries, causing pressure for "non-essential" segments like the seasoning industry.

(as an aside, in line with certain ideas discussed in part i, scap directed land reform which redistributed much of the arable land in japan, increasing productivity of land and eliminating the interest of large landowners thought to be threatening to democracy. [18])

as discussed in my previous post, chemical alternatives to fermented soy sauce have been developed since the early 20th century. [6] during the war, substitute methods (especially amino acid-based ones, e.g. hvp or mixed hvp-honjozo) replaced fermented honjozo* methods as resources became more scarce. [20]

*honjōzō (本醸造) means "genuinely fermented".

in early 1948, it was announced that 20 000 tons of soybean meal would be made available by the eroa fund for the purpose of making seasonings, to be allocated by ms appleton at ghq/scap. [14; 6, p.159] this amount is only about 10% of the soybean consumption of soy sauce manufacturers before the war. on the surface, for an industry marginalized by the need to stave off starvation and maintain social stability, securing the imported soybean meal can be seen as a life-or-death situation. however, given the wartime state of sauce production, the struggle to acquire the soybean meal is more akin to an attempt to return to fully soy-based fermentation methods. the invention of the semichemical #2 method which increased soy usage productivity and secured most of the soybean meal for the soy sauce industry can be seen as a faster intermediate step to return to traditional fermented methods used before the war. it's also important to note that over 80% of soy sauce in japan has returned to traditional honjozo production, and that large companies such as kikkoman and yamasa have attempted to return to honjozo methods as early as the late 1950s. [20]

from this point of view, it does not seem particularly apparent that a single administrator had the power to change an industry, but rather her decisions were the impetus for developments to happen within the domestic industry. ultimately, japan's soy sauce industry was suffering the consequences of its industrialization and the failure of its colonial experiment. in a wider view, we can see this as a detail in the friction between two imperial projects. (consider this: out of the major parties involved, japan, china, usa, ussr, and other minor players in the pacific war, gb, netherlands, france, all of them entered the 20th century with imperial projects.)

research questions:

are there japanese sources that can verify production and imports during the 1940s?

there was a soy sauce control corporation formed by the imperial government in 1942 (全国醤油統制株式会社) that dictated resource allocation and quotas for the soy sauce industry. it seemed to have only been dissolved in 1948. what was its role after the war and what relationship did it have with scap?

iii - interests

as for interests, i will limit its scope to answering "who materially benefits." the groups at play are generally the same as the previous part, so i will be brief in elaboration.

the most obvious interest is that of the japanese public: their main material benefit in the late 1940s is to be nourished enough to stay alive (see part ii). while soy sauce is an important part of japanese cuisine, as a condiment, it is a nutritionally trivial part of its diet. it is then understandable, that japanese society and scap would be willing to temporarily sacrifice an immediate return to traditional production in favour of methods that would leave more food for direct consumption.

the next interest to discuss is that of the soy sauce industry, and its desire to return to honjozo (traditionally fermented) production after a period of scarcity during and after the war. it is important to note that regarding the 20 000 tons of soybean meal to be allocated by scap in 1948, the competitor to the soy sauce industry for those resources is the amino acid industry (msg, etc.). [6, p.159] with soybeans hard to come by, the soy sauce industry would have been under immense pressure to aquire the soybean meal distributed as aid. with kikkoman's development of semichemical #2 method, the scap decisionmakers reconsidered an earlier uneven distribution of soybean meal in favour of the amino acid producers. [6, p.160] what resulted next was talk between representatives of the two competing industries, facilitated by the americans. [6, p.160] it is important that taste trials were conducted, with wide support for the new semi-chemical method by the polled public. [6, p.160] at every step of the decision-making process, japanese interests were consulted by scap.

it is also important to mention the "japan lobby" in washington a set of interest groups and lobbyists representing japanese business as to illustrate the bidirectionality of influence in postwar japan. [21] this group arose from the aftermath of the first zaibatsu dissolutions. some key achievements of their advocacy activities include the disavowal of the fec-230 policy proposal from the allied powers (against gen. macarthur's wishes!), and adding revisions to scap's economic deconcentration program. it is plausible that this lobbying set had influence with scap and washington regarding soy sauce, given the tight-knit nature of the japanese business class. that said, the direct link between the japan lobby and soy sauce, should it exist, necessitates further research.

i think it is necessary to analyze from the lens of interests @inneskeeper's claim of the united states occupation forcibly seizing and making changes to a traditional food industry. it is known that the united states seeks to build a strong consumer economy that is open to american investment and imports of american products. [18, p.40] given that the soybean meal managed by scap in 1948 was aid, it would've been in the american interest to support either industry, since they would both eventually rely on american imports once the period of scarcity ends (china would soon cease ot be a reliable exporter of food). there is nothing related to soy sauce that would've been against american interests, business or political, whereas food scarcity has been a real problem facing the japanese and allied administration. in this case, the chief american interest is to stabilize japan as a society against two perceived social enemies: communism on the left and a renewed militarism borne of resentment on the right. with the task of placating a hungry and defeated populace, producing large amounts of soy sauce that is palatable to the public using minimal aid material would be an interest in and of itself for the americans. i think it could be argued whether comments made by americans about how easily japanese tastes can be swayed are insensitive and out of line, but it is also true that the public had much more pressing needs than condiment purity.

@inneskeeper also mentioned the yakuza in some of their posts as a possible interest group involved. the informal economy grew to encompass all strata near the end of the war and immediately afterwards; most urbanites were forced to use the black market to stave off hunger. [19] the yakuza, mafia-like organizations that would operate somewhat openly in the decades before the war, entered the fray as groups that managed informal vendors. [22, p.632] racketeering became rampant in the years immediately after japanese surrender due to shortages and irregular flows of necessities such as food, but as the economy recovered entering the 1950s, the yakuza moved to more conventional underworld enterprises such as as gambling, prostitution, and nightlife. [22, 23] it also moved towards the underbelly of political life, becoming an actor in anti-left politics. [22] we know that the changes to soy sauce production happened in the small window between the end of the war and the earnest start of economic recovery, so it is possible that parties involved would have to deal with the yakuza as a necessary source of material. however, since their sights are set on the industries traditionally associated with the underworld, it would be a stretch to say that they had any real say in the proceedings of this development beyond being one additional obstacle to the soy sauce industry in acquiring ingredients. that said, using a singular product can be very useful as a window into how the yakuza may have coerced informal food distribution channels.

research questions:

what specific outcomes were agreed upon at the "shoda-ouchi conference" between the soy sauce and amino acid manufacturing industries? [6, p.160]

how did the japan lobby affect or facilitate changes in the soy sauce industry?

how did the yakuza affect the informal food economy?

iv - individuals

one thing that made the original story by @inneskeeper so appealing to the tumblr public is the proposition that a single person may have changed japanese soy sauce forever.

it bears repeating that major industrial changes (and i would challenge the categorization of this soy sauce happening as "major" in comparison to the general state of japan in the 1940s) are often the culmination of many small decisions from a wide set of actors. what is interesting about the idea of a singular "manipulator" is that it mirrors a common trope in american foreign policy: the idea of "our guy" (e.g. "our guy in afghanistan" [24, p.277], "our guy in panama" [25], etc.), that is, a singular handler for american interests in a foreign theatre of operations. in this case, since the country at hand is managed by an american occupation, "our guy" in the japanese soy sauce industry is an american, ms. blanche appleton. while american policy sometimes prefers to use this paradigm, it does not necessarily mean it works, not is the wishful american imagination correct when it comes to situations on the ground (see citations above). this trope may also possibly be borne of the oft-cited concept of "american individualism," a value that is as much a contradiction (how can a single person be free to change the world as they see fit, while also live in a world free from the will of others?) as it is a real part of american culture.

in the faulty narrative of ms. appleton, we also see a similar contradiction: how can a foreign woman who is allegedly willingly unfamiliar (as it turns out, probably not true [6, p.160]) with the native culture be in total control of an entire element of its cuisine? what is the meaning of "total power": did she personally decide taste profile of the condiment to her tastes, coerce various native parties to the will of the americans (what will?), or facilitate the solution to a complex resource distribution problem? in any case (except the fancifully implausible first case), what is the singular role of ms appleton? did power flow from her, or through her? perhaps a more interesting way to look at this problem is to ask what would have happened if someone else were in ms. appleton's place. would their personal influence be significant enough as to change the outcome? if so, what would have been the extent of the changes? (we can maybe look at the facilitation of the "shoda-ouchi conference" as one point. [6, p.160]) conversely, what would have remained the same as the various parties involved influenced the situation?

a more helpful view is to see the balance between the ideas, institutions, and interests behind each decision that would paint a more complete picture of this historical era. perhaps it is not as flashy to break down a chapter in culinary history as the convergence of multiple influences, but it is the one that does history most justice.

discussion questions

this is for the test

how significant was the dearth of food in late 1940s japan to this situation, and what similar adaptations of food cultures occurred in other post-wwii nations?

what factors from imperial japan, whether before the sino-japanese war or during the war, influenced this situation?

is there any part of this development that forshadows the economic rehabilitation and subsequent growth of japan in the latter half of the 20th century? if so, how?

what american attitudes were at play in this situation, and what japanese attitudes (if you're familiar) were involved as well?

what influence did china, as the originator of soy sauce, a major source of food in east asia, and a significant allied power, have on postwar japan and how did it influence the development of the japanese variants of soy sauce?

what was the influence of the japanese public's tastes?

bibliography:

apologies for the weird mix of ieee inline and mla bibliography formats, ieee works best with hypertext but doesnt make much sense for non-stem subjects.

Allinson, G. D. Japan's postwar history, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004. [link]

Moore, R. A., & D. L. Robinson. Partners for Democracy : Crafting the New Japanese State under MacArthur, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2002. [avail. at libraries]

Okazaki, T. “The Japanese Firm Under the Wartime Planned Economy,” in The Japanese Firm: Sources of Competitive Strength, edited by M. Aoki and R. Dore, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994. [link, requires academic access]

Sugita, Y. Pitfall or panacea : the irony of US power in occupied Japan 1945-1952, New York: Routledge, 2003. [avail. at libraries]

State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee. United States Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan (SWNCC150/4), 1945. [link]

Oguri, T. "醤油製造技術の系統化調査 Development of Soy sauce Manufacturing Technologies" in 国立科学博物館技術の系統化調査報告, Tokyo: National Museum of Nature and Science, 2008. [link; translation of excerpts in an earlier post]

Fruin, W. M. The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994. [link]

Haley, J. O. "Marketing and Antitrust in Japan" in Hastings Int'l & Comp.L. Rev. 51 Vol. 2 No. 1, San Francisco: UC Hastings Law, 1979. [link]

Japan, National Diet. Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 54 of April 14, 1947), Tokyo: National Diet, 14 Apr. 1947 [link]

Nakamura, H. "The Japanese Soybean Market" in Illinois Agricultural Economics Vol. 1, No. 2, Milwaukee, WI: Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, 1961. [link]

United States of America, Tariff Commission. Japanese trade studies : special industry analysis no. 13, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1944-45. [link]

United States of America, Strategic Bombing Survey. Summary Report (Pacific War), Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946. [link]

Crisis, Time, 1944. [link]

Hirano, M. "Using American Soybeans in the Japanese Economy" in The Soybean Digest Vol. 12 Iss. 11, Cleveland, OH: Penton, 1952. [link]

United States of America, Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. United States Farm Products In Foreign Trade, Statistical Bulletin No. 112, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953. [link]

General Staff of Gen. D. MacArthur. Reports of General MacArthur - MacArthur in Japan: The Occupation: Military Phase Volume I Supplement, Washington, DC: Center for Military History, 1966, reprinted 1994. [link]

Smith, H.F. (Chief, Food Branch, Price and Distribution Division, ESS, SCAP) "Food Controls in Occupied Japan" in Agricultural History Vol. 23, No. 3, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1949 [link]

Fuchs, S. J. "Feeding the Japanese: Food policy, land reform, and Japan’s economic recovery" in Democracy in Occupied Japan: The U.S. Occupation and Japanese Politics and Society, edited by M. E. Caprio and Y. Sugita, New York: Routledge, 2007. [link]

Griffiths, O. "Need, Greed, and Protest in Japan's Black Market, 1938-1949" in Journal of Social History Vol. 35, No. 4, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002. [link]

Oya, Y. "みそ製造業の構造変化とその要因" in 食品経済研究 第30号 (Bulletin of the Department of Food Economics, Nihon University), Tokyo: Nihon University, 2002. [link]

Schonberger, H. "The Japan Lobby in American Diplomacy, 1947-1952" in Pacific Historical Review Vol. 46, No. 3, Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1977. [link]

Siniawer, E. M. "Befitting Bedfellows: Yakuza and the State in Modern Japan" in Journal of Social History Vol. 45, No. 3, The Hidden History of Crime, Corruption, and States, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2012. [link]

Hill, P. B. E. The Japanese Mafia: Yakuza, Law, and the State, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2003. [link]

Blaxland, J., M. Fielding, and T. Gellerfy, Niche Wars: Australia in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2001–2014, Canberra: ANU Press, 2020. [link]

Kornheiser, T. "Noriega Our Bountiful Nation" The Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1989. [link]

[kvhasproblems]

My essay for my film history class on “But I’m A Cheerleader” and lesbian cinema history:

Reposting this now that school is done lol

I wanted to post this because I found it very interesting while doing my research into queer cinema history. It’s not the best essay and the end could be better but I am a first year Uni student lol. Please don’t like plagiarize or whatever lol. It’s also 2000 words.

Edit: This essay only got a B+ which my worst of the year despite this being my fav one I wrote lol. My prof said that I was trying to cover to much and that it lacked some specificity and details, which I definitely agree with in some parts.

Camp, Queer History and Cheerleaders.

Though lesbians have existed throughout history, history has fought to bury them and their experiences, with the media of film being no different. Lesbians in film were not somewhat normalized until the 1990s; the first major lesbian film in North America (directed by a lesbian) was Desert Hearts by Donna Deitch, released in 1985. This was followed by what some have deemed the Queer Revolution in media in the 90s. With the end of the Production Code Administration or Hays Office (also known as the 'Hays Code') in 1968, it created opportunities for queer people to tell their stories, and with the milestones queer rights took after the Stonewall Riots, the queer community was more united than ever. With the rise of more readily accessible film equipment, movies made by lesbians for lesbians began to hit the screens. It is important to note the distinction between films focusing on lesbian or women-loving-women (WLW) relationships made by queer women versus those made by straight men, as movies made by men tend to have a distinct Male Gaze. As Laura Mulvey said, "In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female… Women displayed as a sexual object is the left-motiff of erotic spectacle… she holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire" (809). When talking today about popular queer films, most brought up were made in the 90s. Specifically, one film made in 1999 became a cult classic and a staple for queer cinema. But I'm a Cheerleader, directed by Jamie Babbit, is tag-lined as "A comedy of sexual disorientation." Despite its bright colors and Campy comedy, it tackles issues of sexism, homophobia (internalized, externalized and projected) and misogyny.

As mentioned, lesbian cinema did not make an appearance until 1985, which seems late when looking through the lens of North American society today. This late emergence can be directly linked to the mandatory and non-mandatory censorship present from the years 1934-1968 and 1968 to the modern day, which is still being affected by abolished codes set in place almost a century ago. As the film media became more popular among the masses, people began to worry about what was being shown to the populace. To quote Stephen Vaughn, "Fierce debates over the content and control of the new medium arose in the early days of silent film and intensified with the advent of sound technology" (39). He goes on to further mention how groups like progressive reformers and religious and civic organizations wanted (and tried many times) to censor and control not only the content of the films being shown but also the types of people making them (40). Starting from a list of "Do not's and Be carefuls" that aligned with Christian/Catholic values, the Hays Code was created and fully established in 1934. The Hays Code had many guidelines that today would be considered discriminatory, for example, no white slavery and any inference of sex perversion (interracial couples and homosexuality) (44).

Since homosexuality was censored from the screens, people got creative in implying and subtlety making reference to queer struggles and relationships; this became known as Queer-Coding. Even after the end of the Hays Code era and the start of The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), queer people were rarely openly depicted. More often than not, they ended up being queer-coded characters, with the implication being left for the audience to pick up on and read between the lines. As homosexuality was still not in public favour, open depictions, especially those not from the male gaze, were rare and even more so rarely celebrated. The depictions from the male gaze were often harmful, stereotypical and deeply rooted in homophobia. As Melinda Roddy wrote, "People felt compelled to self-regulate as a result of this and the lasting effects of the Hays Production Code of 1930. The film industry was under official or unofficial censorship for nearly half a century, and this restricted the movies that could be made, especially films about LGBTQ+ characters" (126). The Stonewall Riots of 1969 was a needed push for the queer community to further establish queer activism in America, and the Aids Crisis of the 1980s pushed the lesbian and gay communities to become a more unified front. (Prior to the Aids Crisis, the two communities were divided by sexism. "While men who are attracted to men are discriminated against and marginalized by the homophobia of American society, Sapphic women are affected by both homophobia and sexism" (125).) Now having a unified front and queer activists, the fight against homophobia was rampant. This opened up doors for queer filmmakers to tell the story that people fought so hard to censor for decades prior, and so on September 12th, 1999, But I'm a Cheerleader premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The film follows Megan who appears to be your typical high school cheerleader she has an all American football playing boyfriend, she is blonde, wears girly clothes and is a Christian. Except Megan hates kissing her boyfriend, has pictures of bikini-clad women in her locker and is a vegetarian. Fearing their daughter is a lesbian, Megan's parents send her to 'New Directions,' a "rehabilitation" camp to help Megan become "Ex-Gay" in five easy steps. As Megan arrives at New Directions, it can only be described as a campy, life-sized doll house. Before going into an in-depth analysis, it is important first to note what Camp is, as the Camp is not only the main genre of the film but is quintessential to understanding the visual and narrative elements present in the film. To get a brief look into the art of Camp, refer to Susan Sontag's first, third and seventh notes on Camp. The first note on Camp, "To start very generally: Camp is a certain mode of aestheticism. It is one way of seeing the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. That way, the way of Camp, is not in terms of beauty, but in terms of the degree of artifice, of stylization" (2). The third note on Camp is, "Not only is there a Camp vision, a Camp way of looking at things. Camp is as well a quality discoverable in objects and the behaviour of persons" (2). And the seventh note on Camp, "All Camp objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifice. Nothing in nature can be campy" (3).

Though Camp is present throughout almost every aspect of this film, it appears most extravagantly in the set and visual design of New Directions itself. The house mimicked a Barbie doll house and is brightly coloured in almost neon pinks, greens, yellows and blues, with each room having a mostly monochromatic colour palette. This is true to Camp in its distinct level of artifice, as what is a more false sense of reality than that of dolls in a doll house? Camp is used throughout the film to mock the expectations of society, gender roles and the idea that someone can become an "ex-gay." The women are dressed all in pink, a colour associated with femininity and girlhood, and a colour society dresses up little girls to drive home their assigned gender at birth. The steps to becoming an ex-gay include things like cooking, cleaning and childcare, and the stereotypical housewife expectations put on women to keep them isolated and submissive. The men similarly wear all blue and do things like sports, fixing cars and playing with guns, all while phallic-looking symbols surround them, for example, the large blue wrench and wheels in the background of the fixing car scene and the blue cut-out of a man holding a "gun' to another man on his knees in the playing war scene. The film goes so far with the idea of falsehood that the characters' outfits are made of fake shiny plastic at the graduation ceremony, and their hair is done perfectly. They could be mistaken for dolls; it is a visual representation of how they have been forced by themselves and the authority figures to be exactly what they want them to be, not who they are.

Referring back to nothing in nature can be campy; the moments where Megan and the others are true to their nature and self are moments most free from the camp lens. The moment when Megan realizes she is a homosexual starts with light disorientating music and camp over-the-top visuals of her realizations. Her outburst is met with praise and hugs, which is Camp, but as her peers leave and she is left to sob on her own, the absence of back music is prominent as nothing can be heard besides her sobs as the camera cuts back to show her in the now empty room, with no one to face but herself. Most of the private moments between Graham and Megan also lack the falsehood of the majority of the movie. The first real private conversation the girls have takes place outside in nature, down the hill from the doll-like house. At the 36-minute mark, they have an open conversation where Graham says the line, "This is bullshit Megan, you are who you are. The only trick is not getting caught." It is the first time Megan begins to look at homosexuality from another lens, not the hateful agenda pushed upon her.

The contrast between the figures of authority and the subordinate characters is most prominently the level of falseness and Camp. The boy's teacher, Mike, is a so-called "ex-gay," but he constantly eyes up Mary's son and follows all of the behaviours he preaches against. Played by famous drag queen, comedian and advocate RuPaul, who is known for being gay, we instantly associate and see the repression of his character. The most false of all is the head of New Directions, Mary Brown. She is constantly wearing the most eye-blinding shade of neon pink, standing out in every scene she is in like a sore thumb. Nothing about her is natural; her face bears too much makeup, and her tone of voice is a forced grating mimicry of calm collectiveness; even her son is gay, regardless of the steps she takes to fix him. It is comical when she encourages youth to follow their "true direction" when she is never true to herself outside of the compounds of her hate and anger. Multiple times, the figures of authority are shot from a low angle when addressing the subordinate character, making them seem larger than life, towering over the kids, emphasizing the power that Mary and Mike have over them.

But I'm a Cheerleader has become a cult classic within the queer community and has had a long-lasting impact on generations of queer people; for its representation and campy comedy, it explores and subverts traditional depictions of queerness in media while addressing issues of homophobia and misogyny. While some say the Campy comedy hides the complex issues presented in the film, an argument can be made that the over-the-top Camp set design, clothes and dialogue provide a deeper look into the harsh, complex issues that people tend to shy away from when presented with at face value. Gay conversion camps were a serious problem that killed and affected many LGBTQ+ people, some of whom the trauma still harms to this day. But what better way to display and sort through complex trauma than by turning the joke onto the oppressors themselves? Queer cinema has come a long way from the heavily censored era of the Hays Code and, with the efforts of hard work from the queer community, has continued to grow and evolve.

Works Cited

But I’m a Cheerleader. Dir. Babbit, J. Act. Lyonne, N. DuVall, C. 1999, Lionsgate.

Mulvey, L. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 1975.

Vaughn, S.. Morality and Entertainment: The Origins of the Motion Picture Production Code, 1990.

Roddy, M. Sapphic Cinema: An Exploration of Films about Gay Women and their Relationships to American Society in the Reagan Era and Beyond, 2018.

Sontag, S. Notes On “Camp”, 1964

Also special thanks to @schrodingerspsycho for reminding me to post this!!

[the-magiarcheologist]

History of Magic window

It's me! Back again with some harebrained theory about the most minute detail in this game!

And this time we are looking at the stained glass window in the History of Magic classroom:

First of all, the obvious, what the 3 panels of the window represent (from right to left):

The first one is obviously the Hogwarts Founders, all holding or wearing their relic (cup, diadem, sword, locket). For a long while I wondered what that weird shape in the circle at the bottom was. I have since come to the conclusion that this represents the sorting hat (??). It is vaguely hat shaped and has the colors of the 4 houses. But honestly, I'm not sure. If anybody knows please tell me!

The second one is Merlin, it says so at the bottom.

The third one represents the International Warlock Convention of 1289. This is actually an easter egg. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, chapter 9, Hermione interrupts Prof. Binns when he's in the middle of a lecture on the International Warlock Convention of 1289 to ask him about the chamber of secrets. The only thing we know about that convention is that a subcommittee of Sardinian sorcerers is involved (the exact quote from Binns is : "In September of that year, a subcommittee of Sardinian sorcerers -" and then Hermione interupts him again to ask another question 😂)

Apart from what is represented on it, what is remarkable about his window imo is that the flow of time is represented from right to left (the Founders came before Merlin, who came before 1289). In western culture, conventionally, time is represented from left to right, because that's the order in which you would naturally read. Also I think it's a convention for stained glass windows in churches to be read from left to right and bottom to top. But the 3 panels here are backwards.

Another thing remarkable to me is that there is very little in common between these 3 panels. Obviously the central figures represented are all different but, also, the embellishments and decorative elements placed around the central figures are all different.

For the panel about the Warlock Convention of 1289, the theme is time, with several hourglasses being represented. (The red hourglass creeps me out a bit because of the red drop you see falling makes me think of blood, like the passage of time is measured by the blood spilt...but anyway!)

For the Merlin's panel the theme is astrological, with the phases of the moon and stars. For the Founder's panel the theme is learning (with a book) and the Hog of Hogwarts. Very little ties the 3 panels together. Except one thing.

The way I see it, there is only one thing in common between those 3 panels and that's the rolled parchment that the International Warlocks are writing on, and that Merlin and Rowena are holding.

And if you look only at that scroll and nothing else, you would naturally infer that the 3 panels might tell the story of this scroll: in the first panel on the left the scroll is being written, then Merlin hold it and has his wand directed at it, like he is applying magic to it, or otherwise doing something to it. And then Rowena is just holding it. That would be the natural way to read the window: left to right and bottom to top. Except we know from the context that this is impossible since time flows in the other direction.

So I wonder if there is a secret message in that window, that you should read from left to right and bottom to top (like you should normally read a stained glass window), that speaks about whatever law was passed at the International Warlock Convention of 1289 and how it relates to Merlin and the Founders.

We don't know much about the Warlock Convention. The only other tidbit I could find is that Ron tells Harry in the first book that dragon breeding was outlawed by the Warlock Convention of 1709 so we can deduct that this convention passes important laws for the worldwide wizarding community. Which law did they vote in 1289?

(Or maybe I'm just being crazy and reading too much into things!)

[supergraphicultramoderngirl]

ok i’m bored so i wanna do a hyper specific poll even tho that trend is dead bc i think it’s funny

the prof one is a direct quote from him btw. fuck that guy

[bugs-and-grass]

Okay, so. To elaborate on what happened yesterday. I went out with Mama to the Lab to meet up with the Professor. It was... way too cold, but Mama helped keep me going. Got in and before I could even say why I was there, the Professor urged me to sit and warm myself up for a few minutes while she made some tea. At least Mama got me nice and warm quick.

Once Prof. Ebony got the tea together I finally had a chance to explain myself, and... she was surprisingly quick to understand??? Like. She just outright said it was fine, that she'd support me whatever happened to me. And the thing that... honestly got me a bit emotional? Direct quote here.

"No matter what shape you are, you'll always be welcome here. You're my assistant no matter what, darling. Don't forget that."

...I may have cried a minute when she said that.

[devsgames]

Advantages of Working With References You Know Very Little About

(This post cross-posted from my Patreon. Please consider supporting for access to my unreleased game prototypes, devlogs and blog posts just like this one. It helps me pay rent and supports the work I do!)

One of my favourite quotes from one of my Game Design profs was "The best designers are those who either play every kind of game they can get their hands on, or those who play nothing at all".

The implication here is that the former has a huge subset of reference to pull from to create a wide variety of interesting designs across all genres, while those who play nothing don't have any preconceptions about how something "should" be designed and therefore will come up with new and interesting concepts as a result.

From my experience, I think this is largely true in most cases; many designers I know who split the middle and intimately fixate on one specific type of game or genre typically are the ones who tend to pigeon-hole themselves into very same-y designs and struggle to break out of their own mould they make, whereas the most interesting concepts come from folks who barely touch video games or play a huge variety of them.

I think the same general principle apply to making concepts and works informed by a specific theme or genre. Familiarity with a wide amount of media can help you pull pieces of those media into your work in a way that is unique or interesting to your style, and on the other hand having almost no familiarity with a piece of media means you're free to imagine and interpret that genre or media as you see fit without your direction being informed by already understood tropes or assumptions the genre makes, which I think is a huge asset.

When planning direction in a lot of my works I actively try to draw inspiration from media that I have limited experience with but are interested in or would like to emulate to some degree, because I think it incidentally makes the end product more genre-bending.

As an example: one of the biggest things informing the game I'm currently working on (a Mech Arena Survival Shooter) is Neon Genesis Evangelion. I know just almost nothing about Evangelion, and what little I do know is by way of proxy and have never experienced any of it myself. I know there's basically teenage angst, giant robots and evil angel things, and that it's leaven with questions on the human psyche as much as it is about giant robots fighting. I've seen screenshots and stuff, but aside from that I have literally no idea of what it really is or what the heck even happens in it, but thematically I'm just pulling from the vibe I get from it and what others say about it,and not from any working knowledge of the property itself. Another reference point for me visually is Dreamcast games; I never grew up with the Dreamcast and have only played maybe one or two titles from its library personally, but I know just barely enough about how it looks and plays from various sources to pull from it. I've seen footage of stuff like Phantasy Star Online or whatever here and there, but I'd never dare to claim I've internalized enough about it to have any idea about what makes it what it is.

And this isn't a bad thing! I genuinely think that if I knew more about it and committed to learning from these pieces of media more intimately for the sake of this project, there's a very real risk I would start unconsciously (or consciously) pull from them in ways that would push my work in a direction that is more informed by the media than it is myself. I could end up with themes that are less myself being 'inspired by', and more my work being 'derivative towards' that piece of media. It can easily be too tempting to say 'Well the mechs in Evangelion are [x] size large so I should make everything bigger" or "The Dreamcast can't make shadows like [y] so I shouldn't do that". Being healthily divorced from your reference points sounds counter-intuitive but can actually help a lot!

I guess the main idea here is that when it comes to informing your direction and generating concepts, in some cases what you think you know about a property or work can often be more effective directional tool than what you might know you know about it.

[petejj]

“Grief is a sign. Something is going in the right direction...” pjj - @nosebleedclub - sharing is caring

“Mourning quotes to help cope with grief” A.N.

By - Prof. Abigail Nathanson (A.N.) - A licenced social worker & psychotherapist in grief & trauma - via Reader’s Digest Australia ↓

My interpretations as I paraphrase with my own lived journey

grief is a sign something is going in the right direction. There is a knowing that grieving is understandable and expected as we mourn the loss of the loved one, a dream, a diagnosis of an illness - Big or small grief’s gifts help us maintane a peaceful memory - grieving for a few hours, days or years - Feelings as sharp as cuts of a knife or dull as a deep bruse our individual grieving journey is finding an excpantance - there are no right or wrong ways to grief.

Seeking ways of expressiing our grief that will help us carry griefs pain, while maintaining a meaningful way of still living can be writing down your feelings - seeking connections both physical and digital with others who understand and sympathise. Professional affordable help -

connections of communities - friends or family who find space and patience with our mourning - these communities provide valuable support. navigating community connections of those who also have loved and lost and share about their living journey through their living experiences of deep connections I find provide me with universe healing and a knowledge that I'm not alone

Pete JJ

My Mourning quote -

‘Oh, Grief, you necessary word! This hour in safeties darkness, a numbing pain overcomes him as he overdosed in melancholy’s arms- stumbling stumbling along a path into his healing, giving him permission to weep for the loss of a mothers love’

[rubyjean-jacket-blog]

i feel so stuck.

i have a creative writing assignment due in a week (rough draft) and the only direction the prof gave was "write a story." which is fine and should be good in theory bc *gestures to the mountain of fanfiction i've written*

HOWEVER

i don't even know where to start. sci-fi? fantasy? contemporary? some pretentious bullshit that isn't any fun to write but is quote-unquote serious???

i don't know. it's four days into the semester and i'm so stressed already.

[darkmaga-retard]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/dangers-lessons-perennial-israeli-palestinian-war-big-picture/5837437

Dangers and Lessons from the Perennial Israeli-Palestinian War: The Big Picture of Propaganda and False Flag Operations

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

Global Research, August 14, 2024

False flag operations:

“The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it is necessary to create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain group of people or to a religion or a nation.”James Morcan(1978- ), New Zealander-born actor, writer, producer and a resident of Australia, 2014.

“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in our way.” Benjamin Netanyahu (1949- ), Israeli Prime Minister (1996-1999), (2009-2021) and (2022- ), addressing Israeli settlers in the West Bank, (as quoted in ‘Netanyahu: ‘America is a thing you can move very easily'”, The Washington Post, July 16, 2010.)

“We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy’s side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.” Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), American journalist, (in ‘Public Opinion’, 1922).

“Those who want thwart the creation of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfert of funds to Hamas.“ Benjamin Netanyahu (1949- ), Israeli Prime Minister, (during a meeting of the Likud party, in 2019).

Introduction

Nowadays, almost all wars, involving governments with access to enormous propaganda resources, are either deliberately provoked or simply the result of false flag operations, camouflaged under a veil of lies and fake news. In time of war, all parties lie. With the help of passive or complacent medias, not one distracted person in a hundred can see clearly what is really going on.

Rocket and missile clashes between Islamist Hamas and Israel, and atrocities and war crimes committed against civilians, are not new in that part of the world. The most recent outbreak of violence is, in reality, the continuation of a deep conflict, which is ongoing and which is entering into a new cycle of escalating violence.

Indeed, two years ago, in May 2021, serious riots took place inside the compound of al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City, which left hundreds of Palestinians and many police officers injured. What followed was an escalation of attacks between Israel and Hamas. The latter launched more than 1,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip towards Israel, while the Israeli army, in return, dropped a deluge of fire on the blockaded Gaza Strip, causing more than 150 Palestinian deaths and 10 deaths on the Israeli side.

Only six months ago, on April 5th and 6th, 2023, there were new violent clashes in Jerusalem when Israeli police raided again the al-Aqsa mosque, in the pursuit of  “agitators” who had barricaded themselves inside.

It is therefore somewhat puzzling why so many observers were taken by surprise when Hamas launched its rain of rockets on Israel, on Saturday, October 7, 2023, in an operation specifically called al-Aqsa Deluge.

Likewise, we can only remain perplexed when the Israeli government itself says it was taken by surprise, since its relations with the Palestinian populations have been extremely tense, particularly since 2021.