|
On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:On September 18 2012 17:09 sharkie wrote:
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Yes, they have committed atrocious things. But what country in the world has not? Japan's Rapes and Germany's Holocaust are "the most horrible" ones because they have lost the most recent war.
But we are talking about a country here who has SPENT BILLIONS of dollars supporting other countries in need. You think without Japan Southeast Asia would be as prosperous as it is today? It wouldn't be.
Southeast Asia loves to hate on Japan, yet they still have welcomed and KEEP welcoming Japan's money.
And no, they not only help with money but also by being helpful. How many nature catastrophes did we have in the last 10 years? Tons, from tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. And which country has sent the most help in MONEY, RESOURCES and WORKERS in the world? Yes, it is Japan.
Just ask New Zealand. When the big earthquake happened in Japan, most helpers were still in New Zealand because they suffered huge damage from a earthquake prior to the big one.
Yes Japan's past is shameful, I feel huge remorse and the huge majority of Japan feels the same. So I ask again, why is there so much hate for Japan? Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's. It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field. Why is there so much hate for Japan? Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed. Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either.
Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers.
Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever.
The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights.
There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left.
Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ
독도는 우리땅.
![[image loading]](http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4528335065514799&id=75555e0094ca1ec04aef4e72087f2c4e)
|
I just looked at the latest link update with the Koreans side with Chinese on Diaoyu Islands issue. The article is a paragraph of text by a guy called Justin_C and refers to the last line where he says
Korean netizens were in their thousands on portal websites discussing the issue at hand, sympathizing with the Chinese.
Is this really the level of journalism that is going to put as an update? A line someone mentions with no links to a news source or quotations of the actual netizens.
Edit: Oh and I was just told by a co worker that a Japanese couple were attacked by a guy in East Tsim Tsa Tsui in Hong Kong. Does anyone have any links to that? I'm hoping they find the guy as morons like that need to be off the street. Assaulting innocent people from a country you don't like...
Edit 2: Never mind here is the link
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=126580&sid=37680355&con_type=1
|
On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:On September 18 2012 17:09 sharkie wrote:
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Yes, they have committed atrocious things. But what country in the world has not? Japan's Rapes and Germany's Holocaust are "the most horrible" ones because they have lost the most recent war.
But we are talking about a country here who has SPENT BILLIONS of dollars supporting other countries in need. You think without Japan Southeast Asia would be as prosperous as it is today? It wouldn't be.
Southeast Asia loves to hate on Japan, yet they still have welcomed and KEEP welcoming Japan's money.
And no, they not only help with money but also by being helpful. How many nature catastrophes did we have in the last 10 years? Tons, from tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. And which country has sent the most help in MONEY, RESOURCES and WORKERS in the world? Yes, it is Japan.
Just ask New Zealand. When the big earthquake happened in Japan, most helpers were still in New Zealand because they suffered huge damage from a earthquake prior to the big one.
Yes Japan's past is shameful, I feel huge remorse and the huge majority of Japan feels the same. So I ask again, why is there so much hate for Japan? Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's. It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field. Why is there so much hate for Japan? Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed. Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅.
No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. But just because they weren't called comfort women doesn't mean that American soldiers (and Korean soldiers & ordinary civilian men) didn't visit whorehouses after the Japanese left.
As for the geography, heritage is an iffy thing.
After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo?
Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers?
Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that?
|
On September 19 2012 11:35 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:
[quote]
Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's.
It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field.
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed.
Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅. No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. Heritage is an iffy thing. After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo? Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that?
Prostitution is an optional occupation, and a choice made by desperate set members of all complex societies. I have never refuted that. Sex slavery is a disgusting practice that goes beyond the monetary exchange. Sex slaves were subject to extremely grotesque acts and inhuman fetishes of the Japanese.
As for the heritage situation, Dokdo was clearly given to the Korean government after the war by the Japanese surrender terms.
EDIT: It goes beyond just heritage, but a reparation by the Japanese for their atrocities during their occupation.
It isn't named after Koguryo it is named after Gojoseon, a predating dynasty that spanned much larger area than the Koguryo.
Koreans are not interested in expanding our territory, but only to sustain the little of it we have left.
Also, we associate ourselves to the Joseon dynasty as we have sustained an isolationist stance after the founding of Joseon.
|
Claiming that a government that no longer governs your area long ago once held land there is a stupid argument, All that develops into is who got there first which by that stretch all you have to do is kill off all native people and then you can always claim i got there first, native inhabitance is dead no one else in line to possess the land, this isn't 1700's =p.
it further falls apart if all you have to claim to the idea of a nation is that the people of that nation stayed in the same spot all those years even after governments and the world changes.
Just because you once held land is no claim to right of that land now, how did you get that land to begin with? How does land become yours? Simple you live on it, if no one lives on it then the land is owned by no one natively; so then next thing is proximity to it. After either living on it or proximity to where you live there is very little actual legitimization of land ownership outside of weird constructs, and if you're going with that fuck the past just split it up between the parities at play. Playing winner talk all mentality is idiotic,
|
On September 19 2012 11:35 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:On September 18 2012 17:18 Tal wrote:
[quote]
Show me another country whose atrocities match Japan's.
It's not unusual to support the area next to you who you can sell stuff to. Look at the rest of the worlds huge aid budgets. Japan isn't an outlier in that field.
Why is there so much hate for Japan?
Because Japan's remorse isn't demonstrated. It's not in its politics, or its culture. There are no monuments, except to the war criminals. That's why China and Korea keep so much hate - and when something like these islands comes up, throwing up the spectre of imperialism, they see it as a sign nothing has changed.
Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far. In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea). No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅. No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. But just because they weren't called comfort women doesn't mean that American soldiers (and Korean soldiers & ordinary civilian men) didn't visit whorehouses after the Japanese left. As for the geography, heritage is an iffy thing. After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo? Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that?
korea is a name that was stuck by foreigners since goryeo kingdom which is before joseon, the last korean kingdom.
the lands of what was once goguryeo is history(since the 3 kingdom era, there has been 3 kingdoms, unified silla+smaller states, goryeo, joseon in the korean pennisula)but what people are against is china claiming goguryeo as their history and not related to koreans, which has happened through china's academic northeast project despite heavy criticism. goguryeo was in the end defeated by silla/tang and later became part of china but to say modern koreans are not the descendants of goguryeo, is wrongfully stripping korean people's heritage.
i personally wouldnt mind unified korea taking back (parts of) manchuria (in historic geological terms) XD
|
On September 19 2012 11:49 Cattlecruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:35 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:On September 18 2012 17:22 Womwomwom wrote:
[quote]
Dokdo Island is a non-issue. If South Korea wants them, they bring it to the ICJ and Japan will lose. They haven't done this despite the fact Japan has submitted the case three times so far.
In the case of China, I don't even think their claims exist within modern maritime law (which is also their justification for their hilarious boundaries in the South China Sea).
No one wants to settle any of these issues so the status quo keeps spinning around. Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅. No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. Heritage is an iffy thing. After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo? Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that? Prostitution is an optional occupation, and a choice made by desperate set members of all complex societies. I have never refuted that. Sex slavery is a disgusting practice that goes beyond the monetary exchange. Sex slaves were subject to extremely grotesque acts and inhuman fetishes of the Japanese. As for the heritage situation, Dokdo was clearly given to the Korean government after the war by the Japanese surrender terms. It isn't named after Koguryo it is named after Gojoseon, a predating dynasty that spanned much larger area than the Koguryo. Koreans are not interested in expanding our territory, but only to sustain the little of it we have left. Also, we associate ourselves to the Joseon dynasty as we have sustained an isolationist stance after the founding of Joseon.
Wait.. so what is it? Dokdo is territory conceded to Korea by terms of a treaty resulting from the conquest of Japan, or it is Korean because they claimed it in 1435 and it is rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers?
Those two concepts, though both assuming Korean control of the islands, are radically different. One is a legalistic argument, the other is nationalist sentiment desiring to defend the glory of the nation. One bases territorial claims on a principle of international law and a rejection of competing historical claims, the other claims territory by right of having occupied said territory intermittently in history.
Thank you for correcting me re: Koguryo, Gojoseon.
And for many prostitutes, their occupation is not a choice. The Japanese history of comfort women is particularly disgusting because of the open acknowledgement of the situation by Japanese authorities, not because it happened. The fact sex slavery happens is sad and disgusting, but unfortunately present in many societies, including modern Korea.
|
On September 19 2012 11:56 jinorazi wrote:
i personally wouldnt mind unified korea taking back manchuria XD
Korea would be in the wrong if that happened. What did the Chinese living north of the Yalu ever do to you? Why would you force them to leave their homes?
If you wouldn't force them to leave their homes, and Korea magically got the territory peacefully, would Korea's government suddenly become bilingual, issuing legislation in both Korean and Chinese, mandating that all ministries be willing to help citizens in both languages?
Or would you force the Chinese north of the Yalu to learn Korean, as the Japanese tried to force their language on Korea during the occupation of your country?
|
On September 19 2012 11:14 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:04 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 08:43 MisterFred wrote:
Humans always act as individuals, even those who bow to tribalist instinct. The two are not mutually exclusive.
More specifically, the two of us, members of the same tribe, are being pretty individualistic right this moment. On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:
When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that. See bolded. My contention is not that individuals do not exist, but that no person is just an individual. The collective - be it the tribe, the ethnic group, the nation - is omnipresent. The existence of society is itself a case of collectivism taking priority over individualism, for societies require sacrifices from individuals that are not guaranteed to lead to benefits for said individuals. You experience that each time you pay taxes. Whether or not I agree with you on those points seem irrelevant to our earlier argument - about whether seeking to punish a society for the crimes of a dead generation is wrong.
I don't think you understand the issue if your stance is that black and white. Is it that much of a "punishment" to acknowledge the sins of the fathers, and apologize sincerely by stopping the visits to the shrine, the revisionist textbooks or to not let an equivalent of a holocaust denier into important government posts? It's not like they ask for the firstborn's blood of every Japanese family.
These riots are, sadly, understandable, although still stupid as fuck.
EDIT:
On September 19 2012 11:56 jinorazi wrote:
i personally wouldnt mind unified korea taking back manchuria XD
Manchuria doesn't exist anymore, the Manchus are like 99.9% sinicised.
Maybe Korea could conquer all of China, and 200 years later become sinicized too.
Don't underestimate the reproductive power of the Han Chinese I say.
(Why don't a Mongolia-China-Korean alliance retake back the steppes and Siberia from Russia? That actually makes more sense.  )
|
On September 19 2012 12:04 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:56 jinorazi wrote:
i personally wouldnt mind unified korea taking back manchuria XD Korea would be in the wrong if that happened. What did the Chinese living north of the Yalu ever do to you? Why would you force them to leave their homes? If you wouldn't force them to leave their homes, and Korea magically got the territory peacefully, would Korea's government suddenly become bilingual, issuing legislation in both Korean and Chinese, mandating that all ministries be willing to help citizens in both languages? Or would you force the Chinese north of the Yalu to learn Korean, as the Japanese tried to force their language on Korea during the occupation of your country?
lol dont take it seriously, think of it as like civ5 scenario.
|
On September 19 2012 11:58 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:49 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 11:35 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 04:16 Cattlecruiser wrote:
Japanese government wants DokDo (Liancourt Rocks) from Korea also. I understand that they feel the pressure from natural disasters to claim as much of the fishing rights and land outside of the sinking island, but they are going about the geopolitics in the worst way.
Korea and China have helped Japan during the Tsunami disaster in 2011 with relief aid and harboring refugees. Have fun on your sinking ticking time bomb of an island.
PS The Japanese civilization has always looked to gain territoriality since the unification of power under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and have done many atrocious experiments, war crimes, and acts against humanity. It feels like poetic justice that their nation is literally sinking. On September 18 2012 18:27 Orek wrote:[quote] Treaty of San Francisco CHAPTER II TERRITORY U.S. Draft made on March 19, 1947 Article 4 Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).Reviced U.S.-U.K. Draft made on June 14, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet MY EDIT: Liancourt Rocks=Dokdo=Takeshima is removed from the list of islands that Japan has to renouce all right, title and claim to. Requests From Korea July 19, 1951 1.My Government requests that the word "renounces" in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by "confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo." Rusk Documents August 10, 1951 As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Final text of the treaty on September 8, 1951 Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. MY EDIT: Dok......do? Take.....shima? Liancourt.....Rocks? Sources: Draft Treaty of Peace With JapanIndex:Rusk note of 1951Let's just go to ICJ if Korea is so sure of winning the case ^^. Korean government doesn't want to because they know they would lose. Well, this was a bit off-topic as this thread is about anti-Japan protest in China, but in the context of territorial dispute in the region, maybe relevant enough. takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅. No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. Heritage is an iffy thing. After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo? Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that? Prostitution is an optional occupation, and a choice made by desperate set members of all complex societies. I have never refuted that. Sex slavery is a disgusting practice that goes beyond the monetary exchange. Sex slaves were subject to extremely grotesque acts and inhuman fetishes of the Japanese. As for the heritage situation, Dokdo was clearly given to the Korean government after the war by the Japanese surrender terms. It isn't named after Koguryo it is named after Gojoseon, a predating dynasty that spanned much larger area than the Koguryo. Koreans are not interested in expanding our territory, but only to sustain the little of it we have left. Also, we associate ourselves to the Joseon dynasty as we have sustained an isolationist stance after the founding of Joseon. Wait.. so what is it? Dokdo is territory conceded to Korea by terms of a treaty resulting from the conquest of Japan, or it is Korean because they claimed it in 1435 and it is rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Those two concepts, though both assuming Korean control of the islands, are radically different. One is a legalistic argument, the other is nationalist sentiment desiring to defend the glory of the nation. One bases territorial claims on a principle of international law and a rejection of competing historical claims, the other claims territory by right of having occupied said territory intermittently in history. Thank you for correcting me re: Koguryo, Gojoseon. And for many prostitutes, their occupation is not a choice. The Japanese history of comfort women is particularly disgusting because of the open acknowledgement of the situation by Japanese authorities, not because it happened. The fact sex slavery happens is sad and disgusting, but unfortunately present in many societies, including modern Korea.
Both reasons are behind our fervor for Dokdo, it belongs to our government and people because it it our heritage as well as reparation for the Japanese desecration.
Sex slavery is not present in modern Korea. Where are you getting these ridiculous notion from? (prostitution is in modern Korea) It is disgusting because it happened, I assume you don't find pedophilia revolting as well?
|
On September 19 2012 12:08 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 12:04 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:56 jinorazi wrote:
i personally wouldnt mind unified korea taking back manchuria XD Korea would be in the wrong if that happened. What did the Chinese living north of the Yalu ever do to you? Why would you force them to leave their homes? If you wouldn't force them to leave their homes, and Korea magically got the territory peacefully, would Korea's government suddenly become bilingual, issuing legislation in both Korean and Chinese, mandating that all ministries be willing to help citizens in both languages? Or would you force the Chinese north of the Yalu to learn Korean, as the Japanese tried to force their language on Korea during the occupation of your country? lol dont take it seriously, think of it as like civ5 scenario.
Yeah, I figured, lol. But you gave me a perfect opening for developing my point that claiming Dokdo based on historical ownership is... not good. (Note, I am pretty ignorant of post-war treaties with Japan, for all I know Korea has an air-tight claim to the island(s) on those grounds.)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this 'incident' is rather shocking to me. nationalism is a quaint, backwards and immensely destructive human trait. we hear about how this is the 21st century etc etc. but stuff like this just likes to remind you that, we are still in kansas.
not very different from dung flinging baboons fighting over the right to pee upon a particular tree.
|
Why are the Chinese mad?
User was warned for this post
|
On September 19 2012 12:09 Cattlecruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 11:58 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:49 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 11:35 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 11:24 Cattlecruiser wrote:On September 19 2012 07:27 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 06:28 Orek wrote:On September 19 2012 05:23 jinorazi wrote:On September 19 2012 05:03 Orek wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
takeshima/dokdo not part of korea according to what record? the records support dokdo as korea's territory before annexation and japan's only claim is that to return the island wasnt included in the treaty. and if that claim somehow stands, no fucking doubt japan-korea relations will be zero because you're taking again what was korea's through "legal" means, its like a robber suing the homeowner because he got hurt while breaking in(which has happened in us court). and korea has nothing to gain going to icj, it only validates japan's claim, korea has alot to lose and nothing to gain meanwhile its win-win for japan. i did research on this because i was curious and i say it without bias being korean. there are hazy maps that koreans say this proves korea's claim meanwhile japan refute korea's claim because the island names and position not matching but yet japan's evidence shows both, korea's and japan's and korea's maps show korea's, dokdo is visible from ulleungdo on a clear day just so you know, which japan claimed it isn't visible...yet there is a picture that proves it. Japanese government argues that there was no Korean control over the island. With all the name mix up and hazy maps, evidence is ambiguous at best. That's one thing. Another is the legal process I posted with plenty of sources above. Korea lost its sovereignty in 1910 when Japan annexed the country, which by the way was internationally recognized at the time by countries like UK=Japanese ally back then, so I wonder if it really matters at all who had sovereignty over island prior to it. Korea was a part of Japan up until 1945. So, which part of "Japan" is given up holds upmost importance. The drafting process clealy omits Dokdo specifically. It's not like Dokdo had never been mentioned in the process. And yes, Korea probably won't gain much from going to ICJ. Law-abiding country of Japan would not take the island by force. If that ever happens, I guarantee here that I harshly criticize Japanese government as much as I believe Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Once barbaric, yet now peace-loving country of Japan (believe it or not) should only seek to regain control of the island through the means of legal action/peaceful dialogue, not force. "dokdo became japan after annexation", annexation as legitimate claim will not sit well with any korean and in no way in hell they would give it up for that reason. it left a bad taste in our mouth, no one liked it and no one ever will enjoy submitting to another country by force. japan is saying they took it by force almost a century ago, therefore it is still there since it was never included in sf treaty, and korea is illegally holding it. if that isn't to piss koreans off, i'm not sure what its suppose to achieve. koreans obvious believe dokdo is korean island pre-annexation, as ulleungdo is. to say "korea was japan for 50 years, therefore any land dispute prior to that does not matter" is just rubbing it in korean's face. on a similar note: the japanese government also claims (specifically, some government officials) there is no evidence of comfort women...when there is. korea is taking japan to icj for war crimes on sexual slavery. I think Korea can m ake a reasonable case that Dokdo belonged to Korea prior to 1905. It is not conclusive, but makes enough sense at least to me. Territorial dispute is not about emotion. I could care less how Koreans or Japanese people for that matter feel about it. This is not "who is more pissed contest." Evidence and laws are all that matters. Japan simply seeks to regain control of the island that they think legally belongs to them. Anything along the lines of "Japan should not claim it because it hurts Korean feeling" or "Koreans would be pissed hard if it lost Dokdo, so it should be Korean territory." is hardly legitimate argument. Saying that there is no evidence of comfort women is beyond retarded, btw. These guys really hurt Japanese reputation. It is exactly opposite. Comfort women existed for Korean and American army as well in the times of Korean war. They were supposedly treated better, though. None of this justifies Japanese act either. Dokdo was first claimed Korean territory by Sejong the Great in the first Joseon census in 1435, there is no doubt about that. It is definitely conclusive and there is no question about Korea's possession of DOKDO before 1905. It isn't about emotions, but it is our rightful heritage passed on from our forefathers. Your information is completely incorrect and have no validity whatsoever. The military implications of Dokdo is the primary reason we are not willing to give up our inheritance, it is situated in a strategic location between the Korean coast lines and Japan that allows our navy to defend our territory from a repeat of the Imjin War. Fishing rights are the secondary reason, there is a large portion of the (서해) South Sea that is contested between the governments for fishing rights. There were absolutely no Comfort Women after the JAPANESE left. Your ignorance combined with your hubris is insulting, check your facts. ㄱㄱ 독도는 우리땅. No Comfort Women, perhaps, but plenty of prostitutes, willing and otherwise. Pimps are an ugly blight on virtually every nation with a significant population. That those pimps are illegal is the good thing. Heritage is an iffy thing. After all, isn't Korea ultimately named after the proud and noble kingdom of Koguryo? Why is Dokdo rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers, but the lost lands of Koguryo north of the Yalu river not rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Or is the plan Dokdo now, unification later, and a reconquest of Greater Korea after that? Prostitution is an optional occupation, and a choice made by desperate set members of all complex societies. I have never refuted that. Sex slavery is a disgusting practice that goes beyond the monetary exchange. Sex slaves were subject to extremely grotesque acts and inhuman fetishes of the Japanese. As for the heritage situation, Dokdo was clearly given to the Korean government after the war by the Japanese surrender terms. It isn't named after Koguryo it is named after Gojoseon, a predating dynasty that spanned much larger area than the Koguryo. Koreans are not interested in expanding our territory, but only to sustain the little of it we have left. Also, we associate ourselves to the Joseon dynasty as we have sustained an isolationist stance after the founding of Joseon. Wait.. so what is it? Dokdo is territory conceded to Korea by terms of a treaty resulting from the conquest of Japan, or it is Korean because they claimed it in 1435 and it is rightful heritage passed on from your forefathers? Those two concepts, though both assuming Korean control of the islands, are radically different. One is a legalistic argument, the other is nationalist sentiment desiring to defend the glory of the nation. One bases territorial claims on a principle of international law and a rejection of competing historical claims, the other claims territory by right of having occupied said territory intermittently in history. Thank you for correcting me re: Koguryo, Gojoseon. And for many prostitutes, their occupation is not a choice. The Japanese history of comfort women is particularly disgusting because of the open acknowledgement of the situation by Japanese authorities, not because it happened. The fact sex slavery happens is sad and disgusting, but unfortunately present in many societies, including modern Korea. Both reasons are behind our fervor for Dokdo, it belongs to our government and people because it it our heritage as well as reparation for the Japanese desecration. Sex slavery is not present in modern Korea. Where are you getting these ridiculous notion from? (prostitution is in modern Korea) It is disgusting because it happened, I assume you don't find pedophilia revolting as well?
One reason makes sense. The other is nationalistic crap that makes you sound just like the worst of the Japanese.
As for the other issue... if you're going to put the opposite words of what I wrote in my mouth, there's no point in discussing it.
|
On September 19 2012 12:13 Luepert wrote:
Why are the Chinese mad?
Which Chinese? Rioters? Businessmen in the energy industry? National government officials? Army officers? Other group of your choosing?
|
The real question is WWBD??
User was warned for this post
|
chill out before america settles it for you
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 19 2012 08:14 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:08 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:32 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:24 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 06:56 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:50 MisterFred wrote:
Doomwish, you are exactly right.
[quote]
Yes. Yes. No. No. No.
I can control my own actions. This is all I can do (technically, I can only control my own thought, but luckily as a practical matter I have more freedom than that*). What you fail to realize is that nationality is a social construct. It is as easy to say that I am part of the society that invaded China in the 1930s and committed various atrocities because I am part of humanity. You have crafted a group of people with inclusions and exclusions that don't make a ton of sense unless they get ridiculously legalistic.
It may be that I live and die by my society's actions. That does not make me responsible for them. That does not make the actions of the Chinese rioters any less foolish & racist.
*Basic stoicism. A society is an interdependent structure, in which each participant plays a role. Whether you admit to this or not, that is what it is. Responsibility in the context of societal acts are borne by all members of said society. It is only possible to escape that responsibility if you detach yourself from the society altogether, or otherwise actively work against it. The hatred between China and Japan is not between individuals. It is between countries. A country is a social construct, yes, but just because it is a social construct does not make it less tangible. Conflicts and grudges between countries have ever lasted across generations. Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with. Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used. "Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. How does a country think if not for the individuals? How does a country hate if not for the individuals? And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism How does a country think if not for the individuals? Leaders.How does a country hate if not for the individuals? Public sentiment.And who do they hate? An arbitrary entity like a government? Do they hate the individuals in the government? Or do they hate all the civilians in the country--the poor sap whose only bad fortune in life was to randomly be born into that country? Other countries. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by Einstein and intelligentsia everywhere including Orwell, Bertrand Russell, etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nationalism So? Life is a disease by the accounts of biologists. Does that make it less relevant?People have been arguing against nationalism for ages, yet nationalism, an extension of tribalism, is intrinsic to the human experience. The unit of social organization need not be modern nations, of course - historically, it was at the level of tribes, kingdoms, ethnic groups, social classes, and empires. But it is never just the individual. Why do you say nationalism is intrinsic to the human experience? What value does it serve other than make you the tool subject to every whim, every war whichever dictator is in charge wants to enter? Again, you don't explain who entire countries can hate. If you answered my question by saying Chinese people hate every single Japanese person, you would realize how ridiculous that sounds and that at the heart of nationalism is nothing but generalization and racism based on random accident of birth. On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:37 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:28 MisterFred wrote:On September 19 2012 07:19 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 07:09 CountChocula wrote:On September 19 2012 07:03 Azarkon wrote:On September 19 2012 06:59 CountChocula wrote:
[quote]
Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? It sounds to me you're getting lost in the abstractions and using them in ways they weren't designed to be used.
"Saying that this is foolish is to not understand humanity to begin with." What's your reasoning? Should we believe it just because it sounds pithy or because you said so? No, you should believe it because it is all around you. It is how humans behave, whether you like it or not. Argumentum ad populum. Just because you see it a lot doesn't make it something innate in humans. You can reason your way out of nationalism by asking the questions in my previous post: Can a country think? Can a country hate? What does it mean to hate another country? There's a reason nationalism is considered an "infantile disease". Can a country think? Yes. Can a country hate? Yes. What does it mean to hate another country? See: China and Japan. Nationalism is considered an infantile disease by whom? The way I see it, nationalism is simply an extension of tribalism, which has been with humanity from the very beginning. No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it. No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together. Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be). But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion. Whether it is good or bad is not for you to judge. Tribalism developed in humans for a reason - an evolutionary cause, if you believe the proponents of group selection - and through the course of history it has served as a defense mechanism against the horrors of the outside world. Tribes form because it is advantageous to stick together. Tribes war because man is diverse in his opinions and wants. Who are you to say that they serve no purpose but to delude? It absolutely is for me, and you, and everyone else to judge. I believe in right and wrong, and that some actions are good and some actions are bad, and that a thinking man should be determine the difference between right and wrong. I do not acknowledge the abdication of moral responsibility or the belief we can only be the unthinking product of our environments. Moral relativity is the last refuge of evil. Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival. Are you consciously aware of the strawmen you build or does it just happen in spite of you? It's like trying really hard to win an argument and resorting to a sleight of hand/cheating. MisterFred's argument was against nationalism, not tribalism in general. Nationalism is an extension of tribalism. The two are branches of the same basic instinct, which I denote tribalism for the sake of it being primordial, while nationalism is recent. Why do I think this instinct is intrinsic? Because there was never a period of human history in which they did not operate as the prime drivers of human behavior. When have humans ever acted as just individuals? Before you go off pontificating about how nationalism is an infantile disease, answer that.
Sure, it's an extension of tribalism, but MisterFred's point was against a specific form of tribalism that has influenced 20th century history so much that it was given a name--nationalism. Tribalism covers from a small village of a dozen people up to hundreds of millions of people. It's a pretty obvious strawman when you tried to swap his criticism of nationalism with millions of people with a criticism of tribalism in general (which he never made).
Tell me how you go from this:
On September 19 2012 07:44 MisterFred wrote:
No, a country cannot think. People think. The idea that a group of people is a living, persistent entity is an artificial construct, a mass delusion. In times past there was no China. Then there was a China. Then it was gone again. Now it has returned. But always it is a new delusion, the product of our imagination, different depending on who describes it. Never does it have a will separate from the wills of those who create it.
No, a country cannot hate (for it cannot think). People hate, and often they hate together.
Yes, nationalism is an extension of tribalism, yes it has been part of humanity from the very beginning (and always will be).
But they are fools who believe this is a good thing, or a wise thing, or that what they think of a as a country (rather than a government or a state) is anything but a mass delusion.
to this:
On September 19 2012 07:48 Azarkon wrote:
Then I argue that you know too little about the world to make this sort of judgment. Saying that tribalism is inherently evil is both short-sighted and uncomprehending of the role it played in human survival.
|
On September 19 2012 12:23 skatblast wrote:
chill out before america settles it for you
Is there any oil known to be on or around these islands?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
