5

Toru Hashimoto, Mayor of Osaka’s comment asserting the “Comfort women” system during wartime was ‘A necessary evil’ was appalling, and I feel deeply shameful of his sensless remarks as a Japanese. But most of all Japanese reject his anachronistic view, which was evidenced by the crushing defeat that the political party, “Japan Revolution” led by him suffered in the latest election of Tokyo municipal councilors.

We discussed his remarks and ensuing apology in Tokyo Foreign Correspondent Club in our English speaking circle recently by using a report of the status of “comfort women” in Myitkyna in Burma after its fall in August 1944 compiled by Psychological Warfare Team of United States Office of War Information in October 1944 as a part of reading materials.

Utterly independent from political or moralistic argument on this issue, I’m submitting questions on the meaning of two words I came across in the following statement referring to “Comfort bags –assorted present kit” in the report:

“The soldiers would often express how much they enjoyed receiving magazines, letters and newspapers from home. They also mentioned the receipt of “comfort bags” filled with canned goods, magazines, soap, handkerchiefs, toothbrush, miniature doll, lipstick, and wooden clothes. The lipstick and cloths were feminine and the girls couldn’t understand why the people at home were sending such articles. They speculated that the sender could only have had themselves or the “native girls” in mind.

Questions:

  1. I wonder what wooden clothes is. Is there clothes made of wood or wooden materials? I thought it could be wooden clothe pegs or linen handkerchiefs, but I can’t tell.
  2. What does “the sender could only have had themselves,” mean? Who are "themselves"?

Ronald Harmon’s “Talking American Dictionary of Informal Words and Expressions" defines “have had it” as a colloq;

  1. be worn out, no longer function or useful, be disgusted or bored with
  2. be bored with, can no longer tolerate sb, stg.
  3. be doomed, be assured of ruin or defeat,

but I’m unable to link anyone of the above definitions to the text.

No other dictionaries at hand carry “have had it (or oneself)."

Yoichi Oishi
  • 70,211
  • Great question. I have no idea either. – Jim Jun 30 '13 at 04:13
  • Is the quoted passage available in an online source? Perhaps a larger context will help. – James Waldby - jwpat7 Jun 30 '13 at 05:39
  • Jwpat7. I got the report in PFD format from my friend. But the source of Report is www.exordio.com/1939-1945 codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.hotmail. The title of the report is ‘Japanese Prisoners of War interrogation on prostitution –Segunda Guerra Mundial – Exordio. I trust you can locate the original report rightly with this address. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 07:15
  • Cont. As I tried the above link by pressing Ctrl key and clicking as I always do for checking, it didn't work - can't link the site. I don't know why. I think there should be some other ways to locate the link by the above address. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 07:21
  • 2
    Given several misspellings and awkward grammar in that passage, I wonder whether “wooden clothes” is a typographical error, perhaps for “wooden clothespins” or “woolen cloths”? Or even “worn clothes”? – Bradd Szonye Jun 30 '13 at 07:45
  • @YoichiOishi I found the correct link and edited it into the question. – Bradd Szonye Jun 30 '13 at 07:49
  • 1
    "Wooden clothes" -> I expect this is either supposed to be "woollen" or, perhaps just as part of the era, "clothes designed for use on wooden dolls". The next sentence is the bit that confuses me.. it now mentions "cloths".

    "Have themselves" -> See Bradd's comment. I can't find any other possible meaning

     – James Webster Jun 30 '13 at 08:30
  • @Bradd Szonye. Thanks for your locating the sources. I suspected if 'wooden clothes' is typo of 'woolen clothes' as James Webster suggested. Still it was wooden clothes in the original text. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 09:00
  • 6
    On further thought, I think it's likely that wooden is a transcription error for woolen, as the shape of ol is quite similar to d, and woolen clothes are likely contents of a care package. – Bradd Szonye Jun 30 '13 at 09:11
  • What about "the sender could only have had themselves"? "Musterbation" doesn't seem to add up to the context. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 12:12
  • 4
    I guess that the end of the sentence has been inadvertently omitted: the sender could only have had themselves or the "native girls" in mind**. That is, the comfort women speculated that the senders intended these items as gifts for women with whom the soldiers became acquainted--either the comfort women themselves or women native to the occupied region . – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 30 '13 at 12:29
  • A typo? woolen perhaps? –  Jun 30 '13 at 12:33
  • ＠StoneyB. It solved the question. The PDF copy of the report I received from my friend was lacking “in mind.” If I add “in mind,” after “the native girls” it’s all clear. It’s done. By the way, I see now “in mind” that was dropped in the quote in my original question. Did somebody kindly added and correct it? Thank you very much anyway. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 13:20
  • Cont. Wooden clothes seems to be “wooden clog” what we call ‘Geta’. Sorry for disturbing all of you by posting a question based on a copy of blurred print reproduced by PDF file which I received from my friend. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 13:33
  • A simpler but mostly equivalent transformation should give a clue t the meaning: "The sender had herself in mind" = the sender was thinking of herself (the sender) as the receiver of the gifts. You usually try to think of what would please the receiver of the gift, but here, in error, the sender thought of themselves instead. – Mitch Jun 30 '13 at 14:04
  • Given that lists are normally given in biggest, most important first, and noting the other contents of these "comfort bags", I think most likely there's a transcription error, and that the final item should be *wooden clothes pegs*. To say the sender could *only have themselves** in mind* is just a commonplace singular "they" usage. To have [something] in mind simply means to be aware of, think about, [something]. – FumbleFingers Jun 30 '13 at 16:31
  • 1
    Mitch / FumbleFingers:It seems there are several typos in the copy of the report I based on, which was reproduced from a blur PDF file. I’m also puzzled over the disagreement of the number of the subject of the main clause (they) and the subject (the sender) and object (themselves) of the subordinate clause of the line - “They speculated that the sender could only have had themselves or the “native girls” in mind.” The number doesn’t add up. I think ‘s’ is dropped from ‘senders’ in the copy I got from my friend. – Yoichi Oishi Jun 30 '13 at 19:33
  • I just came across the Japanese language Wikipedia article http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%85%E7%B4%97%E7%B7%AC , which Google translate describes as "Woolen cloth spring", and it talks about prostitutes or concubines. Is this somehow related? – Golden Cuy Aug 31 '13 at 13:30
  • +1 partially for the question, and partially for restoring my faith in humanity. – Golden Cuy Sep 01 '13 at 12:01

2 Answers2

4

“Wooden clothes” is probably a transcription error. Such errors are commonly caused by imperfections in OCR (optical character recognition).

The book The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan (C. Sarah Soh) reproduces the same passage but has “clogs” where your source has “clothes”. Wooden clogs are more likely gifts from Japanese communities than wooden clothes, so I suspect Soh has the correct text.

“Themselves” means “the soldiers themselves”.

MetaEd
  • 28,488
  • MetaEd. As I apologized in my comment, there were several typos and omissions of words in the copy of the report I based on (Exordio). I made a quick run through of Sarah Soh’s “Comfort Women.” Thanks for your input. I find it really informative and illuminating on this grave issue. There are not a few Japanese, particularly among young generation who do not believe the presence of the issue because it’s beyond their knowledge and imagination. I’d like to show them this book by ordering it to Amazon today. – Yoichi Oishi Jul 01 '13 at 22:22
3

No idea about wooden clothes, but the second question is fairly straightforward. If 'the senders had themselves in mind' when sending gifts, they were thinking about what they would have liked to receive themselves. So a husband might give his wife a Christmas present of a chainsaw, or indeed some frilly lingerie, with himself in mind, i.e. to please himself rather than her.

(Obviously a farfetched example, since all husbands are models of empathy and thoughtfulness.)

Tim Lymington
  • 35,168