OBama's Bow in Japan- criticized.

Obama's bow in Japan sparks some criticism

Conservative commentators accuse president of groveling to foreign leader

WASHINGTON - Some American conservative commentators are seizing on President Barack Obama's deep bow to Japan's emperor during the weekend, accusing the U.S. commander in chief of groveling to a foreign leader.

Obama greeted Emperor Akihito, whose father ruled when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, with a simultaneous handshake and nearly 90-degree bow, sparking furious online commentary, much of it negative.

Obama's gesture on Saturday was not without precedent, however. Neither was the outrage.

I feel that the president chose a certain way of addressing another person which was from the other person's culture rather than his. I do not see this as grovelling and feel that such criticism is unjustified.
Maybe those who are criticising him feel that Obama represents all of America, and hence what he chooses to say or do should owe more thought to that representation, ie he can or cannot do some things that he may do as an individual not representing a country. For eg, there may be remarks that an individual makes which are derogatory about another religion or culture, which only reflect the person's limited understanding. But when a politician or a post holder makes them, they become incendiary and could ignite resentment and even violence.
However, I feel that this is not the case here and he is not being subservient, only thoughtful.

Originally posted by: whynot

I feel that the president chose a certain way of addressing another person which was from the other person's culture rather than his. I do not see this as grovelling and feel that such criticism is unjustified. Yes it is not grovelling but part of normal Japanese culture.
Maybe those who are criticising him feel that Obama represents all of America, and hence what he chooses to say or do should owe more thought to that representation, ie he can or cannot do some things that he may do as an individual not representing a country. For eg, there may be remarks that an individual makes which are derogatory about another religion or culture, which only reflect the person's limited understanding. But when a politician or a post holder makes them, they become incendiary and could ignite resentment and even violence.
However, I feel that this is not the case here and he is not being subservient, only thoughtful.

The commander in chief of USA. Anyways summerjee, your avi is not going with ur image😒

Originally posted by: gumsum

The commander in chief of USA. Anyways summerjee, your avi is not going with ur image😒

Originally posted by: Summer3

My Avi of Aamir ? Oh I used it because he acted well in Ghajini.

Okay will change it.

He looks old nowadays.

Originally posted by: gumsum

He looks old nowadays.

Its too late for me and my milk is over too. gnight guys🥱.

theres no end t criticism nor is there any escape. Even Sachin tendulkar was criticised for saying he is proud to be a maharatrian but hes 1st an indian & that mumbai is part of india ! Cant C why thackrey Sr found that objectionable.

Every action has a context, you just dont evaluate one action in a vacuum.

i think it's just absurd. it is always good for one leader to understand the custom and cultures of another countries, one who can do so can conquer the world and blend with the world wherever he or she is. it's just the stupidity of the american people or whoever complain and criticizing this act because they don't know and understand and appreciate other people.