Two seemingly interchangeable words can differ greatly in their implications. Take "compensation," defined by the dictionary as payment for loss or injury experienced, and "reparation," which is the act of making up for loss or injury inflicted. The subtle difference is in the acceptance of responsibility of the injury implied in the use of "reparation"; an insurance company may give compensation for an accident without having caused it, but reparation is due only from a guilty party.

In Japanese, a similar distinction exists between the words hosho ( ) and baisho ( ). Both can be translated as either compensation or reparation. But baisho implies guilt in a way that hosho does not. If the government appropriates land to construct a highway, hosho is given to the owner, but that does not imply that the government is wrong to build the road. After the World War II, Japan’s payments to other countries were translated as baisho.

In the media, the reparation demanded by former "comfort women" and other victims of Japan’s war is usually translated as hosho, implying that although it may be necessary to give some money because of the injury this is not owing to any misdeed by the government. Activists now insist on using baisho, to underline that the women are seeking justice rather than charity.

The language we use often reveals our underlying assumptions. When discussing the victims of Japan’s war, to choose to use a word that avoids the question of guilt is to show a reluctance to accept responsibility for the harm that was done. For the government to accept that the women are asking for baisho rather that for hosho would be one step in the slow process of establishing the justice of their claims.