Pro-China, Anti-Japan Protests - Page 51

On September 18 2012 04:17 Kazeyonoma wrote:
I'm just not understanding this whole thing. is it about the islands? or about the past? are they using the past as a reason to use these islands as a catalyst for hate? I mean, what's going on really. From what I have read and researched, the paper trail leads to japan owning the islands back in 1895 when they annexed it and china did nothing. in 1945 the islands were given to the US temporarily as part of the end of ww2, and again china did nothing (i believe PRC was asked and they said, nah have it US), then oil was found in the 60s-70s in that area, and in 1972, US gave it back to japan, and THEN china and taiwan said, nope, it's ours. even though historically, both in 1895, and 1942, they seem to have showed no signs of ownership. and even then, they never did anything about it after 1972 and instead opted to just 'agree to disagree' and just let things slide until now, when japan decided to nationalize the island from it's long term private ownership, suddenly the arguments fly out that the islands belong to china? wut? look i'm chinese, and even I think this is weird because paper wise, it's japan's, so where's the argument on china's ground. that they owned it back in 1400's? yeah well it got annexed in 1895, just like so many countries were annexed or given up throughout history. France owned vietnam for a long time, and no longer does, they can't just suddenly say well, we used to own that island outside of vietnam, now we want it back. and neither can the british claim to take sri lanka because they once owned india.

The amount of hate coming from this, when there's no grounds is already astounding, yes, the japanese did terrible terrible things in ww2 to china, but countries have done terrible terrible things to each other whenever war is out. no country is absolved from this during war time, and it is 100% bad. So fight that, prevent it, demand that, but you can't compound two issues just because it's convenient for you. it shows a lack of intelligence, and tact, and it also shows you're being manipulated by the puppeteers who want you to believe what they want you to believe, while they do shit behind the scenes. I am rather ashamed of my own people who are doing this, do the people who live in japan now, who manufacture goods now, who do everything the same as chinese people do now, have anything to do with what happened in 1895? or even 1945? yet this hate continues. why? Are we not past these simple minded disputes that tore us down as a species in the past? have we learned nothing from our past, and only seek to repeat our failures again? This is dumb. even if violence doesn't happen from it (thank god if so), it just shows poorly we really understand each other AS HUMAN BEINGS.

On September 18 2012 04:30 []Phase[] wrote:
ugh makes me really sad to see all this hate over such trivial things. The worst part is these violent protests. Smashing cars? burning flags? seriously? Leave this dispute to the politicians and let them solve it with civilised negotiations. Im all for peaceful protesting, but this is just a bunch of frustrated or misguided people working out their anger.

I guess there are just nasty people in this world, and we have to somehow cope with that. Its sad, really sad.

On September 18 2012 04:30 []Phase[] wrote:
ugh makes me really sad to see all this hate over such trivial things. The worst part is these violent protests. Smashing cars? burning flags? seriously? Leave this dispute to the politicians and let them solve it with civilised negotiations. Im all for peaceful protesting, but this is just a bunch of frustrated or misguided people working out their anger.

I guess there are just nasty people in this world, and we have to somehow cope with that. Its sad, really sad.

On September 18 2012 04:39 FindMeInKenya wrote:


it is sad to see people behaving in this way. But saying it's due to 'trivial' things? That is also ignorant.

On September 18 2012 03:01 CandyHunterz wrote:
this is typical of a growing china. 50 years ago china wouldn't dare to even make any claims towards any land but today china is strong and powerful and suddenly they just start to have conflicts with EVERY single one of its neighbours.

Look up whats happening with Philippines and Vietnam. China used the same claim as it did for the japanese island (that they historically owned literally the entire sea for like 2000 years).

They patrolled and chased away Philippines and vietnamese fishing boats (which are fishing legally in their territories) and even built facilities on spratly and paracel islands which belong to vietnam and garrisoned them.

This hypocrisy of china is making me feel sick. The Chinese govt is not really thinking this through either, they allow their citizens to protest in LARGE groups but that may just be the cue for future protests but with a different aim: to overthrow the corrupted chinese government.

On September 18 2012 04:17 Kazeyonoma wrote:
I'm just not understanding this whole thing. is it about the islands? or about the past? are they using the past as a reason to use these islands as a catalyst for hate? I mean, what's going on really. From what I have read and researched, the paper trail leads to japan owning the islands back in 1895 when they annexed it and china did nothing. in 1945 the islands were given to the US temporarily as part of the end of ww2, and again china did nothing (i believe PRC was asked and they said, nah have it US), then oil was found in the 60s-70s in that area, and in 1972, US gave it back to japan, and THEN china and taiwan said, nope, it's ours. even though historically, both in 1895, and 1942, they seem to have showed no signs of ownership. and even then, they never did anything about it after 1972 and instead opted to just 'agree to disagree' and just let things slide until now, when japan decided to nationalize the island from it's long term private ownership, suddenly the arguments fly out that the islands belong to china? wut? look i'm chinese, and even I think this is weird because paper wise, it's japan's, so where's the argument on china's ground. that they owned it back in 1400's? yeah well it got annexed in 1895, just like so many countries were annexed or given up throughout history. France owned vietnam for a long time, and no longer does, they can't just suddenly say well, we used to own that island outside of vietnam, now we want it back. and neither can the british claim to take sri lanka because they once owned india.

On September 18 2012 04:58 []Phase[] wrote:


Yes, people are smashing cars and burning flags over a few islands. Id say those islands dont even influence the lives of most people just one bit, and to them are indeed trivial. No matter what grudges you hold against a certain people, no matter the reason, violence should never be the answer. As soon as there is violence over matters like these, in my eyes it becomes trivial.

Its not that I dont try to see that there may be more going on here, because there very well may be, its that I think that responding with violence over the reasons that have so far been laid out is just totally unacceptable, and if it has come this far, everything else should be put aside for a second.

On September 18 2012 05:09 LaNague wrote:
With the recent revolt in chinas political party and the two week disappereance of their "throne prince", this dispute and the focused public hatred reminds me of pre world war germany.

On September 18 2012 04:58 []Phase[] wrote:


Yes, people are smashing cars and burning flags over a few islands. Id say those islands dont even influence the lives of most people just one bit, and to them are indeed trivial. No matter what grudges you hold against a certain people, no matter the reason, violence should never be the answer. As soon as there is violence over matters like these, in my eyes it becomes trivial.

Its not that I dont try to see that there may be more going on here, because there very well may be, its that I think that responding with violence over the reasons that have so far been laid out is just totally unacceptable, and if it has come this far, everything else should be put aside for a second.

Taiwan recalls envoy over Japan island purchase

Published on Sep 11, 2012

TAIPEI (AFP) - Taiwan said on Tuesday it had recalled its envoy to Japan in protest at the Japanese government's purchase of disputed islands also claimed by Taipei and Beijing.

"We sternly condemn Japan's nationalising the Diaoyu islands, which is an illegal action that violates the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan," said foreign minister Timothy Yang in a statement.

"We strongly demand that the Japanese government revokes this move. Japan's unilateral and illegal action cannot change the fact that the Republic of China (Taiwan's official name) owns the Diaoyu islands." Taiwan's envoy to Japan, Mr Shen Ssu-tsun has been instructed to lodge a protest to Tokyo, the statement said, adding he had been called back to report to the foreign ministry on the incident.

The state Central News Agency said Mr Shen was expected to return to Taipei on Wednesday while a foreign ministry spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

On September 18 2012 05:05 FindMeInKenya wrote:


You say you are Chinese, but your understanding of Chinese history is clearly lacking.

Using your logic and example, since British can't claim Sri Lanka because they once owne India, likewise, Japan can't claim Daiyu Island since they once owned parts of China.

Your understanding on the dispute is perhaps inadequate. China did own the island dating back to the 15th century, and they used the island as front line defense against the Japanese pirates. Japanese also acknowledge this in the past in the maps and their admiral later on also acknowledge that the island belong to the Chinese before they took it over.
After WWII, US took over the island temporarily, and the reason why China say much in this time period is due to several factors. First of all, civil war broke out almost immediately after WWII between ROC and PRC. Eventually, PRC took over the main land China while ROC escaped to Taiwan. However, during this time period in the UN, ROC is the party that represents China while PRC really had no outside connection except with USSR. Since ROC relied on US backing and support during this time period and also due to the fact that they were under the impression that eventually US will return the island back to them, they have no leverage to ask US give the island back. During late 60's and unto 1971, tension rises in the UN on whether ROC or PRC should be represent China as the permanent security coucil. Also during this time, ROC heard winds about US planning to give the island to Japan, and they immediately protests this in early 1971 (before the reversions). However, ROC exit UN during mid 1971 and was replaced by PRC. Once PRC entered the UN, PRC also protested immediately.

So you can see, 1971 is truly a funky year. So perhaps next time you post the timeline on the dispute, at least check the wikipedia page first and get a better understanding of the history.

On September 18 2012 05:20 Kazeyonoma wrote:


what? that doesn't even compare to my analogies, my emphasis is that you can't just blatantly use 'we used to own it' as a reason to claim it now, IF you signed it away or acknowledge it's freedom, something china DID acknowledge happened in 1895 by not doing anything, and again in 1945 when the US took over control and the Chinese opted to not take sovereignty over the islands despite being asked by the US at the time. So when the US gave it back to Japan at this point, they have no claim, which is why I brought up the india and vietnam examples. what are you even talking about.



No I do understand all of this, but regardless of what turmoils were undergoing china during the time of release in ww2, the fact is they gave it up to the US and it was the US who had the right to give it away, which was to Japan, likewise they annexation in 1895, you completely left out which is when Japan first stated sovereignty over the islands. I never denied that China owned the islands back in the 15th century, so what? Regardless of the situations that the ROC and PRC was having, the reigning nation that had control in the UN gave control to the US, and the US later turned over the islands to japan. unless china wants to openly say that the US fucked up then, that's something else entirely, japan is acting within it's own jurisdiction here.

And I did read wikipedia, i read through several actually, you didn't post anything that was pertinent to my argument, yes, so prc and roc had a civil war during that time, so what? the fact that they were in turmoil and had to ignore the island, is sadly to japan's favor, something that happens in nations all the time, when civil war breaks out, your neighboring countries smell blood in the water, and make moves, and if you're too weak to fend them off, then you got screwed, but it happens.

On September 18 2012 05:31 Oatsy wrote:
Fine I'll just say it. Fuck China.

On September 18 2012 05:30 FindMeInKenya wrote:


So it's okay, in your opinion, for a stronger country to take over weaker country because, you know, they are weak so they are screwed. Also by your logic, Taiwan was also part of US territory and should be return to Japan as well. http://lifeinmotion.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/taiwan-is-not-country-but-us-territory-says-chen-shuibian/

On September 18 2012 05:44 Kazeyonoma wrote:


I'm saying during the time at which countries were being taken over and before the end of manifest destiny, this was the norm, it's how a lot of countries gained satellites/expanded boundaries, it's how a lot of current boundaries exist now. no it's not 'okay' to do so, but that's the name of the game, and it happened a lot in the past, what china is doing now is the exact same thing but to japan because it has now surpassed japan as the #2 world super power, and trying to exert it's own dominance on japan to give up the island. But japan has to agree to give it up, like china gave it up to japan in the past first, if not, then they will inevitably fight over it, either in court, or on the battle field, who knows, but right now japan owns it, there's no argument against that presented so far. so what china is doing is trying to take it from japan, nothing else.

And yes, taiwan was technically owned by japan in the same 1895 annexation (the treaty of Shimonoseki), but it was released from Japanese rule at the end of ww2, aka 1945, the same time that the OTHER islands, were given to japan. So basically, 1895, Japan takes over most islands outside china, including current senkaku islands AND taiwan, end of ww2, japan loses, and surrenders it's islands, to the allied nations, china takes taiwan, but SPECIFICALLY chose not to take senkaku, ceding it to the US to have/use do what it pleases, in which the US does set up a remote government there. Taiwan however became the headquarters for the ROC when the PRC took over china. What that has to do with my argument I don't know, but you seem to want to try to undermine my own understanding of the situation by pulling up nonsense analogies. Taiwan was NOT part of US territory btw, at least not from what i've seen in sources. So can you elaborate?

Your link is basically about a leader of taiwan trying to get himself out of jail by claiming that the US has the right to rescue him since it is a US territory. that is NOT the same as Taiwan actually being a US territory.

On September 18 2012 02:23 Caphe wrote:
I love it how people in China are protesting and not a single piece of news related to it appear on China main media. Chinese government on one hand want to let the people keep protesting but on the other hand, they fear it will backfired, if they let this get too big, people will get a good practice and may turn against them when they don't want communism anymore.