# アメリカが強要した日本国というより



## mdbvma

"左の人々だけでなく、保守派の人々からも、「アメリカのいう通りにならずに、自主外交を貫くように」という要望を、何回もきかされた。叱責されたといったほうがよかった。しかし、*アメリカが強要した日本国というより、属国憲法を、有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立ったが、このような人々と議論しても、仕方がないと思って、黙っていた。*"

Could some please translate the underlined sentence for me?


----------



## frequency

Ah~ less logical partly.
Separate it in two once:*アメリカが強要した日本国というより、属国憲法を、有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立った。しかし、このような人々と議論しても、仕方がないと思って、黙っていた。"
属国憲法を有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立った。* This is okay.

*アメリカが強要した日本国というより、*This is problematic a bit.

ちょっと待って・・


----------



## mdbvma

"属国憲法を有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立った"=Even in this part, I'm not sure what the subject of each verb is.


----------



## spu001

Hi, mdbvma,

[But] how dare they say "One must not toe the U.S. line," when they, on the other hand, bowed to the status which the states had bulldozed this country into, if not, the constitution of a vassal state? That made me mad, but then I realized it was nonsense to argue with such morons - so, I sat it out.

They = some leftists and even some conservatives (左の人々だけでなく保守派の人々.)

Hope this helps,
Spu


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

*彼らは、『アメリカが強要した日本国』というより『属国憲法』を、有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立ったが、このような人々と議論しても、仕方がないと思って、黙っていた。*

Although they are positively or willingly accepting "the country Japan which is forced to be as the US demands" or I'd rather say "the tributary nation's constitution," how dare can they say, "you should not behave as the US demands"? Their contradicted and selfish opinion made me mad. But I kept silence because I knew it was no use debating with this kind of people.


----------



## mdbvma

Thank you very much for your helpful replies.


----------



## karlalou

mdbvma said:


> "属国憲法を有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立った"=Even in this part, I'm not sure what the subject of each verb is.


（日本が）押し戴き
（日本は）アメリカのいう通りになるな
（日本が）よくいえるものだ
（私（＝話者）は）腹が立った


----------



## Flaminius

This sentence is confused by bad punctuation (It may sound better in soeech but one does not write as one speaks).  The author means to say 日本国憲法 is more like a 属国憲法 (because the Constitution was forced onto Japan [and the usual litany about how Japan ever cowers before  US).

This author probably intended to say アメリカが強要した日本国憲法 but changed their mind to say it is more like a constitution becoming of a vassal state.  The mid-sentence というより serves as a link between the old and the new ideas.


----------



## SoLaTiDoberman

Oh, Flaminius's analysis makes sense to me.
My interpretation was wrong.
I edit #5.

*彼らは、アメリカが強要した『日本国憲法』というより『属国憲法』を、有難く押し戴きながら、「アメリカのいう通りになるな」と、よくいえるものだと、腹が立ったが、このような人々と議論しても、仕方がないと思って、黙っていた。*

Although they are positively or willingly accepting "the Japanese constitution" or more like "the tributary nation's constitution" that was made under the power of the US, how dare can they say, "you should not behave as the US demands"? Their contradicted and selfish opinion made me mad. But I kept silence because I knew it was no use debating with this kind of people.


----------



## frequency

属国憲法、これなあ・・a subject? subservient? constiutional law. But _subservient_ may not fit into _consitutional law_.
属国に適用する(ような)憲法
He is comparing two types of constitutional law: not a forcible constitutional law, but subject one.
アメリカが強要した憲法ではなく、属国的な憲法を有難く押し頂きながら、
「アメリカのいう通りになるな」とよくいえるものだと腹が立った。しかし、このような人々と議論しても、仕方がないと思って黙っていた。

_I was angry how dared they say not to be obedient to the US, while thankfully receiving a subject constitutional law, not the one forced by the US. However, I didn't say anything because I thought it was meaningless for me to discuss with this kind of people._

このような人々 is the referent of the people who said so. Who is receiving the subject law? I think the writer wants to say they are. They're receiving, but complaining about it.


----------



## spu001

Hi,

I think the speaker's talking about their hypocrisy (to put it mildly, irony) -- at least, in the OP's sentences.
To repeat, they = some leftists and even some conservatives (左の人々だけでなく保守派の人々.)



> アメリカが強要した日本国というより、属国憲法


That also reads: these two epithets "アメリカが強要した" "日本国[憲法]というより" describe the word 属国憲法 --> "アメリカが強要した + 日本国[憲法]というより属国憲法[というべきもの]".
Those activists bring home to people that "Japan's _pacifist _constitution (in his words, 属国憲法)" was drafted by the U.S. pundits -- to put it another way, "Japan's pacifist constitution (属国憲法[というべきもの]), which is less of T_he Constitution of Japan_ (日本国憲法,) _was imposed _(強要した) on Japan _by the U.S._ (アメリカが)".
So, I don't think that what he calls 属国憲法 is different from 日本国憲法 -- he tagged the constitution of Japan as 属国憲法, quote unquote.

"They have repeatedly urged a foreign policy independent of the states -- that might be more of criticism -- but how dare they say "One must not toe the U.S. line," when they, on the other hand, defer with all due respect to the constitution of a client state imposed on Japan by the U.S., which is less of The Constitution of Japan? That made me mad, but then I realized it was nonsense to argue with such morons - so, I sat it out."

Hope that helps,
Spu


----------

