Talk:The Post War Dream (song)

Shocking racism
I find a strange lack of discussion to use as sources about this song's racism. But as much as I love Pink Floyd, I would dare say that it's the most racist song ever to be released on an album by a major rock band. It has every malevolent trope against the Japanese I've ever heard (and I have uncles who were in the Bataan death marches). I suppose the critics have overlooked this because they tend to side with Waters' anti-conservative politics. There's the anti-Japanese "n word," the supposition that "all their kids [are] committing suicide" because of Japan's supposedly oppressive society. But is this song absolved simply because he blames England's manufacturing woes on Margaret Thatcher's trade policies? 2600:8806:1002:4C00:2093:EF15:5755:7619 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I’ll start this reply by giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that your complaint of racism comes from a feeling of genuine concern, and that you are not being intentionally inflammatory in hopes of creating an issue where none exists.
 * While I’ve been listening to Pink Floyd and Roger Waters for nearly five decades, and having seen him in concert, and read countless books, articles, and essays on the subject, I cannot profess to personally know him or his innermost thoughts. But to levy a charge of "racism" because of his use of specific words in the lyrics to this song seems reductionist and meritless.
 * To start, there is a difference between that which is racist and that which is offensive; while one is a subset of the other, the reverse is not true. Meaning, not everything that is offensive is racist.  Just because a song uses a word that you do not approve of does not mean the intention itself is racist; but it can certainly be offensive, often by design.
 * I assume your first issue is with Waters's use of the word "Nips," although you lack the courage to use it yourself, even in an academic or critical setting. To quote Wikipedia's own article on that topic, the "word Nip is an abbreviation from Nippon (日本), the Japanese name for Japan."  Yes, it is certainly considered offensive, and can absolutely be used in a racist context. So is that actually Waters's intention as an artist?  Do you truly feel that he chose this opportunity to use an offensive - perhaps even racist - slur in his lyrics to this song in order to profess his displeasure and hatred of the Japanese people?  Does the mere acknowledgement of the existence of this word constitute racism in and of itself?  If so, are you not guilty of this as well - and by extension, me - for pointing this out?  Or is there perhaps a deeper meaning to his usage, given the context of the song, one that transcends the simple appearance of the word itself?
 * For context, the song begins by relating Waters's anger and frustration at the loss of his father during World War II. It is well known that both "The Final Cut" and "The Wall" are semi-autographical albums with anti-war themes that deal, in part, with the loss of his father, Eric Waters.  The use of the term "Nips" is not an attempt to denigrate the Japanese people - instead, Waters is shining a light on the use of wartime propaganda and the prejudices that the British people held against the Japanese at the time.  He is not demeaning Japan; rather, he is lamenting that his own nation was guilty of a closed-minded attitude towards a people that they knew little about.  This is also observed by Whoopi Goldberg in her opening commentary on on the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3"  DVD.  While recognizing that the use of some words or imagery is both offensive and wrong, she states "removing these inexcusable images and jokes from this collection would be the same as saying they never existed."  It is reflections on past behavior like this that Waters is referring to, not his deep-seated hatred of Japan.
 * Next you claim that Waters notes "Japan's supposedly oppressive society" as the cause for suicide. This is a remarkably poor and ill-thought out interpretation.  Nowhere in this short, less than three minute piece that deals with World War II and its aftermath can you find support for any commentary on the harshness of Japanese society.  Later in the album, the song "Not Now John" contains the line "Got to compete with the wily Japanese."   I’ll save the analysis of that song for another day, but I don’t see a connection to your claim of a suppressive Japanese society, so I have no idea where you got that from.  The far more obvious answer is Kamikaze (神風), where Japanese pilots would (among other things) purposely crash into enemy ships, thus committing suicide.  When Waters released these lyrics, he was already in his forties; as one ages, one tends to see younger people - even younger adults - as children, or "kids."  Again, this is a lament.  Waters is highlighting the tragedy of not only war itself, but that the Japanese military had directed very young pilots ( such as Kiyoshi Ogawa who was 22 and Seizō Yasunori, only 21, when they flew their aircraft into the USS Bunker Hill) to kill themselves in service to their nation.
 * Finally, you ask about absolution. This is art, why does Roger Waters - or anyone else - need to be absolved?  Is it a sin for others to use words that you don’t like, even in an artistic sense?  Far be it from me to defend Roger Waters the man; I have little faith that he and I would ever manage to get along in a personal setting, for many, many reasons.  But Roger Waters the artist - and any artist - has the right to create art without fear of being branded a racist.  I hope you’re more open-minded on other topics. Vansidv (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For context, the song begins by relating Waters's anger and frustration at the loss of his father during World War II. It is well known that both "The Final Cut" and "The Wall" are semi-autographical albums with anti-war themes that deal, in part, with the loss of his father, Eric Waters.  The use of the term "Nips" is not an attempt to denigrate the Japanese people - instead, Waters is shining a light on the use of wartime propaganda and the prejudices that the British people held against the Japanese at the time.  He is not demeaning Japan; rather, he is lamenting that his own nation was guilty of a closed-minded attitude towards a people that they knew little about.  This is also observed by Whoopi Goldberg in her opening commentary on on the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3"  DVD.  While recognizing that the use of some words or imagery is both offensive and wrong, she states "removing these inexcusable images and jokes from this collection would be the same as saying they never existed."  It is reflections on past behavior like this that Waters is referring to, not his deep-seated hatred of Japan.
 * Next you claim that Waters notes "Japan's supposedly oppressive society" as the cause for suicide. This is a remarkably poor and ill-thought out interpretation.  Nowhere in this short, less than three minute piece that deals with World War II and its aftermath can you find support for any commentary on the harshness of Japanese society.  Later in the album, the song "Not Now John" contains the line "Got to compete with the wily Japanese."   I’ll save the analysis of that song for another day, but I don’t see a connection to your claim of a suppressive Japanese society, so I have no idea where you got that from.  The far more obvious answer is Kamikaze (神風), where Japanese pilots would (among other things) purposely crash into enemy ships, thus committing suicide.  When Waters released these lyrics, he was already in his forties; as one ages, one tends to see younger people - even younger adults - as children, or "kids."  Again, this is a lament.  Waters is highlighting the tragedy of not only war itself, but that the Japanese military had directed very young pilots ( such as Kiyoshi Ogawa who was 22 and Seizō Yasunori, only 21, when they flew their aircraft into the USS Bunker Hill) to kill themselves in service to their nation.
 * Finally, you ask about absolution. This is art, why does Roger Waters - or anyone else - need to be absolved?  Is it a sin for others to use words that you don’t like, even in an artistic sense?  Far be it from me to defend Roger Waters the man; I have little faith that he and I would ever manage to get along in a personal setting, for many, many reasons.  But Roger Waters the artist - and any artist - has the right to create art without fear of being branded a racist.  I hope you’re more open-minded on other topics. Vansidv (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Next you claim that Waters notes "Japan's supposedly oppressive society" as the cause for suicide. This is a remarkably poor and ill-thought out interpretation.  Nowhere in this short, less than three minute piece that deals with World War II and its aftermath can you find support for any commentary on the harshness of Japanese society.  Later in the album, the song "Not Now John" contains the line "Got to compete with the wily Japanese."   I’ll save the analysis of that song for another day, but I don’t see a connection to your claim of a suppressive Japanese society, so I have no idea where you got that from.  The far more obvious answer is Kamikaze (神風), where Japanese pilots would (among other things) purposely crash into enemy ships, thus committing suicide.  When Waters released these lyrics, he was already in his forties; as one ages, one tends to see younger people - even younger adults - as children, or "kids."  Again, this is a lament.  Waters is highlighting the tragedy of not only war itself, but that the Japanese military had directed very young pilots ( such as Kiyoshi Ogawa who was 22 and Seizō Yasunori, only 21, when they flew their aircraft into the USS Bunker Hill) to kill themselves in service to their nation.
 * Finally, you ask about absolution. This is art, why does Roger Waters - or anyone else - need to be absolved?  Is it a sin for others to use words that you don’t like, even in an artistic sense?  Far be it from me to defend Roger Waters the man; I have little faith that he and I would ever manage to get along in a personal setting, for many, many reasons.  But Roger Waters the artist - and any artist - has the right to create art without fear of being branded a racist.  I hope you’re more open-minded on other topics. Vansidv (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally, you ask about absolution. This is art, why does Roger Waters - or anyone else - need to be absolved?  Is it a sin for others to use words that you don’t like, even in an artistic sense?  Far be it from me to defend Roger Waters the man; I have little faith that he and I would ever manage to get along in a personal setting, for many, many reasons.  But Roger Waters the artist - and any artist - has the right to create art without fear of being branded a racist.  I hope you’re more open-minded on other topics. Vansidv (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)