|
On September 21 2012 03:03 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 02:36 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 20 2012 23:10 NBronJames wrote:
I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians.
It's always funny how people who haven't fought in wars bitch about 'kill this country, kill that country, kill their citizens!' when something like this happens in China-Korea-Japan area, while the people involved in it treat it as a 'thing in the past'. Pretty sure the people being angry over it are doing so because they were related to the the people involved in the war. And that these people are dead due to the war.
I'm related to someone who barely survived the Korean War and someone who grew up in Japanese-imperial system before the Korean revolution, and I'm not mad at them because of relative reasons. I'm also related to someone whose family is currently located in North Korea and can't contact them whatsoever. They unfortunately passed away before they had a chance to see if their family was alive.
|
On September 21 2012 03:33 supernovamaniac wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:03 fluidin wrote:On September 21 2012 02:36 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 20 2012 23:10 NBronJames wrote:
I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians.
It's always funny how people who haven't fought in wars bitch about 'kill this country, kill that country, kill their citizens!' when something like this happens in China-Korea-Japan area, while the people involved in it treat it as a 'thing in the past'. Pretty sure the people being angry over it are doing so because they were related to the the people involved in the war. And that these people are dead due to the war. I'm related to someone who barely survived the Korean War and someone who grew up in Japanese-imperial system before the Korean revolution, and I'm not mad at them because of relative reasons. I'm also related to someone whose family is currently located in North Korea and can't contact them whatsoever. They unfortunately passed away before they had a chance to see if their family was alive.
I don't get your point. So you're saying you're a pretty tolerant individual? Bravo then.
You're definitely part of a minority though.
|
On September 20 2012 13:31 CountChocula wrote:
Why your argument fails: "Tribalism is fundamental to human survival." (1)
What does that first sentence even mean? Its meaning is extremely vague, and I can imagine it meaning anything from "10,000 years ago, your ancestors had to form a tribe or else they would get eaten by the woolly mammoth" (2) to "modern nations must embrace nationalism to avoid being conquered by more powerful nations" (3). Do you see how the validity of the former is completely unrelated to that of the latter? The reason that you made the fallacy of attempting to go from (1) to (3) is because of the vague formulation of (1) and some handwavey substitution of "tribalism" by "nationalism". This is just an example of how convoluted and impossible it is to debate these matters without making proper definitions.
(1), (2), and (3) are congruent and I have described why. It is, of course, not achievable on a forum, in merely a couple of paragraphs, to detail every argument and answer every counter-argument. Nonetheless, I submit that the general idea you're resisting is that systems of greater efficacy eventually displace / replace systems of lesser efficacy. Nationalism succeeded - and continues to succeed - because organizationally it is able to unite and direct a large group of people better than what came before it, courtesy of industrial society and the basic rules of arithmetic applied to human and territorial resources.
That has been my thrust.
Your ambition with this topic seems limited to stating that through history, there has been a tendency for big countries to invade small countries, so nationalism is essential for survival. Maybe this was true back in the first half of the 20th century, but how relevant is it today (and to this thread)? Nowadays we have something called the UN which serves to deter and stop the invading country (examples include Korean War, the First Gulf War, etc.).
This is off topic, but what we have today is not 'the UN deterring invasions across the world.' What we have today is US hegemony. The UN is a lofty symbol, but it has no army and no economy. It has no physical ability to affect the world except through the actions of it member states, and the one member state that is capable of what you are describing is none other than the US.
This is an exaggeration, but not by a lot - when the US agrees with the UN, the UN's will is carried out. When the US disagrees with the UN, the US's will is carried out. The policing that happens around the world today are the result of the US's ability to maintain a global military presence and to determine - to an extent - the economic policies of other countries. The UN is at best a supporting partner, at worst a rubber stamp.
But of course, for all the US chest beating that goes on, American hegemony is passing. The new nationalism emerging in the rest of the world, across the world, is a portent for what the future brings.
Aside from that, I already said I agree with you that nationalism is good for survival, but only in cases where people are being persecuted or invaded (because your argument doesn't hold water while your use of examples were good). However to just remember the upside to nationalism without recalling the horrors of 20th century nationalism would be tragic. I will admit I may have been a bit idealistic when quoted Einstein saying, "Nationalism is an infantile disease" and dismissed nationalism en masse, but I still think nationalism is the bad way to go in general. Another word for morality is right and wrong. If we're not going to discuss whether it's right for Chinese rioters doing some good, old Japan-bashing out of nationalistic fervor and whether nationalism is justified there, what are we doing in this forum? It sounds to me like you're pushing your own flavour of ethics called "efficiency = good", "everyone for themselves", "survival of the fittest" Azarkon-brand ethics and trying to pass it off as simply being practical. If you don't want to ever think about ethical matters and consider such a topic to be too "high-brow", you should at least read what someone who has lived through nationalist movements of the 20th century thinks about it (an entertaining read for everyone else as well): http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
There is a preoccupation on the internet with what is 'right and wrong,' and not enough understanding of the forces and processes underlying the world and, indeed, 'right and wrong.' When I see people blindly bashing the protests because they are an expression of 'nationalism,' that to me is no different from the people blindly bashing Japanese cars in China, except that the former is doing it on a forum where their voices are irrelevant, while the latter is at the minimum having an effect on the world.
In both cases, there is a lack of insight, in the same fashion - to use an analogy closer to TL - shown by people who go into LR threads complaining about European / NA viewers cheering for European / NA players over Korean players and accusing them of 'racism' / 'nationalism.'
There is a time and a place to bash 'nationalism,' and 'racism,' and the host of other negative concepts in today's ideological arena. But first you have to understand - and not just at a superficial 'dumb people are dumb' level - why they exist.
|
Well, well, I first mentioned Dokdo/Takeshima only to point out Japan's double-standard nature (despite my support of Japanese view in general), but this turned into a mess... I hope a mod considers this discussion as relevant enough in that this is also another territorial dispute Japan has.
On September 20 2012 23:10 NBronJames wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 17:17 Orek wrote:On September 20 2012 16:15 czylu wrote:
frankly, i think the most appropriate solution to this issue is japan ends up returning the islands to their original owner, and taiwan ends up buying it up(maybe with some extra funding from International interests), and leasing its rights back to japan. This way, the island still belongs to china(as taiwan is china), but japan still gets to use'm. ofcourse, i'm talking out of my ass and there's probably no way this'll ever happen. In my eyes, taking the issue to ICJ (International Court of Justice) is a sound option. When 2 countries can't compromise, that's the only organization that can give an authoritative opinion on territorial dispute. That's what Japan proposed last month for Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan after Korean President's visit to the island. The proposal was subsequently rejected by Korean side that currently controls the island. In order to avoid double-standard, Japan needs to accept the ICJ option if China decided to propose on Diaoyu/Senkaku. Currently, Japanese government denies the existence of territorial dispute itself, which I personally think is arrogant. However, tide is changing these days, and many more Japanese people are in favor of ending the dispute once and for all at ICJ even though Japan is the one that controls the islands today unlike Dokdo/Takeshima case. I've been doing lots of reading on this territorial dispute, and a good start for anyone would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_disputeI read not just wikipedia, but as many original sources and relevant articles as possible on + Show Spoiler +
Treaty of Shimonoseki
Cairo Declaration
Potsdam Declaration
Treaty of San Francisco
Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China
Sangoku tsūran zusetsu(三國通覧図說) (Map)
Terra nullius (no man’s land)
ICJ (International Court of Justice)
Succession of states
etc.
Research for a few days didn't make me an expert, but I probably have better grasp of the argument than the most here. Everyone is biased, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That said, if I do it in balance discussion manner, Japanese claim is OP and Chinese claim is UP. JvC winrate would be 80% or so. Both sides at least have some solid ground and cohesive argument, but I find Japanese claim more consistent and Chinese more opportunistic. Of course, I don't know how evidences are evaluated according to international law, but that's my impression. I personally think this JvC80% winrate is the reason why China probably won't take it to ICJ. I really hope China does, and Japan accepts. If China is so confident of their argument, they should. I agree that everyone is biased including yourself. Where do you come up with these 90% win rates? This isn't starcraft.
I'm glad it's not. Japan can't ever win vs Korea in starcraft 
If you look at it in a historical context. Korea's claim makes more sense. Japan never claimed the island until 1905-1906 when they were in verge of colonizing Korea. They considered the island, terran nullius, meaning land belonging to no one. This indirectly implies that they had never claimed the land in the first place. In both 1696 Murakami Document and and in 1877 Japan herself admits that dokdo wasn't part of their territory. While Korean historical documents numerously states that the island belongs to them. I do however agree that term like Usando can be controversial since in some of the Korean maps it's actually on the west side of the ulleunndo island not the east. Ambiguity is there but here is something I checked out on wikipedia with all the sources presented. + Show Spoiler +The Sejong-Sillok (세종실록, "Chronicle of King Sejong", 1432) mentions Usando,[15][16] but interpretation of the context is disputed. The text is interpreted as follows: "Usando (우산도 于山島) and Mureungdo (무릉도 武陵島, a former name of Ulleungdo), in the sea due east of Uljin Prefecture, are close enough to each other to be mutually visible in clear weather at the top of the mountain". South Korea insists that this constitutes clear evidence that Usan-do refers to the Liancourt Rocks, the only island that is visible from Ulleungdo only in clear weather.[16] Japan, however, holds that the latter part as "come into view from mainland Korea," believing that it refers instead to Jukdo, located two kilometers east of Ulleungdo.[17] South Korea counters that Jukdo is only 2 kilometers apart from Ulleung-Do and therefore is visible regardless of altitude or weather, as well as that the passage is clearly written in the context of the two islands mutually, rather than in relation to the Korean mainland, as established in "相去不遠," "相" meaning "mutually."
South Korea also refers to Ulleung-Do Sajuk (울릉도 사적). This work was compiled by Korean government officer Jang Han-sang (장한상; 張漢相) in 1696 after the An Yong-bok incident under orders from the Joseon kingdom. In it, he states that, from Ulleung-do, "to the west can be seen the rugged mountains of Daegwallyeong; beholding the sea to the east, I noticed a faint island in the jin (辰) direction (east-south-east), not more than one-third of the size of Ulleung, and not possibly more than 300 li (approximately 100km) away."[18] Furthermore, Jang also states in a later part of the work that "I climbed to the peak of the island in order to see the boundaries of Japan, but no Japanese islands could be seen at all, and I cannot, therefore, fathom the distance to the border."[19] This evidence is used by South Korean experts to demonstrate that contemporary Koreans regarded this island to the south-east as under Korean control.
Paldo Chongdo
The Dong'guk yeoji seungnam (동국여지승람, "Augmented Geography Survey of the Eastern Nation (Korea)", 1481) defining Korea's territory, stated that "Usando and Ulleungdo are under the jurisdiction of Uljin-hyeon of Gangwon-do as an administrative unit. However, it also mentions that the tree and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day.[20] The 1531 revision of this book includes the Paldo Chongdo ("Map of the Eight Provinces"), showing two separate islands of Usan-do and Ulleung-do in the middle of the Sea of Japan. Usando is drawn to the west of Ulleungdo, which is clearly an error since there exists no island that to the west of Ulleungdo. Ambiguity is there but I don't how anyone with the right mind can say that the Japanese has the historical claim other than in 1905 when Korea was too weak to defend herself. Might as well say the entire Korean peninsula is Japan's territory if you want to go by that argument. Koreans definitely have the edge in historical claim.
This ambiguity is exactly the point. All the name mix up is really unfortunate for Korea. Those documents are nowhere near conclusive enough to say Korea had sovereignty over Dokdo before 1905. Therefore, Japan incorporated this terra nullius into Japanese territory. As you said, Japan doesn't have historical claim over Takeshima before 1905, but neither does Korea. What those documents provided are benefit of the doubt that Dokdo "could be" Korean territory before 1905.
Also, ICJ has shown what evidence must be outweighed. In Minquiers and Ecrehos Case between France and U.K., ICJ shows, “What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.” I guess direct evidence such as well-documented 1905 incorporation into Shimane prefecture in Japan is more of decisive importance than indirect presumptions decuded from events in the MIddle Ages that you just cited above. I would love to see how ICJ rules on Dokdo/Takeshima with this principal.
1951 Treaty of San Francisco has major flaws by the fact that China, Taiwan, and the two Koreas didn't participate. Russia did participate but were heavily against it. It's funny how all the countries most close to Japan and the biggest victims of Japanese war crimes weren't included and had no voice in the final decision. We all know that the purpose of the treaty of san francisco was to bring Japan to US/UK's side so they can contain the communists in Asia.
I see this as the root of all territorial dispute Japan has today. Basically, because China, Korea and Russia didn't sign the treaty, they can get away with claiming almost any islands Japan has. Korea was not invited because it wasn't considered to have been at at war with Japan. Rather, Korea was internationally recognized as a part of Japan during 1910-1945. U.S. occupied both now South Korea and Japan after the war and had a say in both territories. I am no legal expert, but legally speaking, I think Korea can even claim relatively minor 6800+ Japanese islands if it denies Treaty of San Francisco. The fact that Korea didn't sign Treaty of San Francisco is probably the weakpoint of Japanese claim, although one might wonder what Korea bases its recognition of Japanese territory today then.
Rusk documents also holds no water considering it was an one sided decision by the US and it was also a secret document. You can't call something like that a treaty in any form. At least the san francisco treaty is worth arguing but this is something US did on her own without the consent from even her allies, let alone the world.
American rules and decisions in Japan at the time were legitimate as U.S. was occupying Japan according to (7) of Potsdam Declaration and they had jurisdiction on territory according to (8):
+ Show Spoiler +
(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's warmaking power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
U.S., as the legitimate occupying country of Japan, decided on Dokdo/Takeshima as follows:
+ Show Spoiler +CHAPTER II TERRITORY of Treaty of San Francisco 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. MY EDIT:It was not secret document at all. It was the answer to Korean requests above. 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 1951
Also, Parangdo is an imaginary island still today in 2012. Integrity of Korean claim must be questioned. In my eyes, they had no idea what they were talking about just like name mix up in the Middle Ages.
And at last but not least, Korea has had full control of the island for nearly 50 years now. Regardless of the historical context this is just as important. It's the same reason why Mexico can't reclaim California. If Korea do accept the ICJ offer, Korea would actually have a better chance of winning it although not guaranteed. Problem is why would Korea accept this since it's a lose-lose situation for them. It's like US going to court for california against mexico just to prove something they already own. Another reason why Korea rejected Japan's offer is because ICJ includes a Japanese judge and the fact that Japanese has a significant influence there while there isn't a single Korean judge. I don't know how you can use this against the Koreans considering ICJ do have history of making questionable decisions.
First off, how long Korea has been controlling the island is entirely irrelevant. Control over territory after dispute started is not recognized as evidence. Dispute started in 1952, so 60 years of nothing. "Take by force, ignore all complaints, 60 years, it's mine!!" is not how things work. I am fully aware that ICJ is not a perfect organization, but then what is better? Korean court? Japanese court? No way. ICJ is all we got today. Or does Korea insist that military might is the way to claim disputed territory? Law-abiding Japanese government doesn't believe so. Maybe Korea doesn't want to go to ICJ to advertise to the world that Korea is not law-abiding country that respect international laws. Well, Korea already advertised so when it rejected the proposal last month for the 3rd time in 60 years. Mission accomplished? I don't know.
I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians.
I condemn "get over it, it's the past" argument as well. It's disgusting. Oh yeah, falling economy since 1952? I was not aware. Japanese claim has been consistent for the last 60 years regardless of economy situation. Korea should also quit using this as a scapegoat for inept politicians. Korean President's pattern has always been:
1st year of presidency= Korea and Japan must build future-oriented relationship
...
...
4th year of presidency= Japan must pay & apologize for the past history
Japan has already learned that anything anti-Japan in the last year of presidency doesn't mean much but politics inside Korea.
On September 20 2012 23:25 ExceeD_DreaM wrote:
Orek, please go read NBronJame's post. He nailed it right on. Please go look at Cairo treaty as well on top of the San Fran. Korea has no reason to go to ICJ and even if they did, Japan has no chance of logically winning.
Cairo Treaty has almost nothing to do with this dispute. Maybe you are talking about the part, "The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent." Korea became independent. No problem. What area belongs to "Korea" is disputed. No mention of which area belongs Korea in Cairo Treaty. Cairo Treaty is so much more relevant to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands issue, but that's another story. (despite the topic of the thread)
Actually, the more I argue, the more I feel Korea shouldn't go to ICJ if it wants to keep Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully or not. As I said, I think Japan is likely to win. As long as Korean government avoids going to ICJ, Korea will continue to be seen as coward that fears losing ICJ verdict because Korean evidence is weak. Until Korea accepts the proposal to bring the issue to ICJ, they can't quite deny that sentiment from international community. Confident=ICJ, Unconfident=no ICJ is how it is seen by others. Vexing? Yeah, lets go to ICJ then to end it once and for all !!
|
On September 20 2012 23:31 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 23:25 Louis8k8 wrote:
I feel sorry for the japanese tourists and occasional visitors in China atm. They're the kind who looks past stupid nationalistic grudges. And they're probably getting dragged into something they wished no longer exists. Why would Japanese people have a Nationalistic grudge against China? Don't worry, if I beat you up I wouldn't hold a grudge against you.
^^^
What Feartheguru said. I find it ironic that some Japanese have a reason to be angry, after the 20 million to 30 million Chinese they killed in WW2.
For those of you who say that's in the past and there is nothing that can be done in the present, I simply remind them that the Japanese government today refuses to acknowledge the atrocities they committed in the past, and are trying to rewrite history and whitewash the atrocities they committed in WW2:
http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/Denying_truth2.html
As long as Japan continues to try to rewrite history, its neigbors will never forgive them for what happened in WW2. I find it ironic that the Japanese culture emphasizes honor but yet they can do something so dishonorable in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately for Japan, the entire world has their own record of what happened in WW2 so no matter how much Japan tries to rewrite history, it will never convince the rest of the world.
Japan would do well to follow Germany's lead. Where Germany is honorable, Japan dishonors itself.
|
I have a question for the Japanese reading this thread. Germany has atoned for its past by properly educating its people on the sins it committed in WW2. In fact, Germany has gone much further than this. Today in Germany, they keep open the concentration camps and allow public tours of the concentration camps as a reminder of the horrendous acts it committed in WW2:
http://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/index-e.html
This is no easy feat. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for the Germans to keep the concentration camps open but yet they do it because they do not want to run from the truth.
In addition, there is a large memorial for the Holocaust victims in Berlin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_to_the_Murdered_Jews_of_Europe
Why can't Japan do what Germany has done? Instead, we read about the Japanese government coming out with yet another texbook that tries to whitewash and cover up Japanese atrocities in WW2.
Comparing Japan and Germany is like night and day. No wonder why Japan's neighbors still hate Japan to this very day.
|
On September 21 2012 04:35 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 23:31 Feartheguru wrote:On September 20 2012 23:25 Louis8k8 wrote:
I feel sorry for the japanese tourists and occasional visitors in China atm. They're the kind who looks past stupid nationalistic grudges. And they're probably getting dragged into something they wished no longer exists. Why would Japanese people have a Nationalistic grudge against China? Don't worry, if I beat you up I wouldn't hold a grudge against you. ^^^ What Feartheguru said. I find it ironic that some Japanese have a reason to be angry, after the 20 million to 30 million Chinese they killed in WW2. For those of you who say that's in the past and there is nothing that can be done in the present, I simply remind them that the Japanese government today refuses to acknowledge the atrocities they committed in the past, and are trying to rewrite history and whitewash the atrocities they committed in WW2: http://www.pacificwar.org.au/JapWarCrimes/Denying_truth2.htmlAs long as Japan continues to try to rewrite history, its neigbors will never forgive them for what happened in WW2. I find it ironic that the Japanese culture emphasizes honor but yet they can do something so dishonorable in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately for Japan, the entire world has their own record of what happened in WW2 so no matter how much Japan tries to rewrite history, it will never convince the rest of the world. Japan would do well to follow Germany's lead. Where Germany is honorable, Japan dishonors itself.
From what im hearing around here, its mainly the japanese government thats to blame for the bad image, or am I wrong in this?
Japan seems like a pretty civilised, modern and educated country to me, so id expect the majority of the population to not be as others here claim to be.
I am not very familiar with the intern politics of Japan, so could someone who is shed some light on this? I am allergic to hearing 'country\population X is bad' from people who havent actually experienced the country themselves by going there, or learning about the country by trustworthy sources. Politians, while they are supposed to be the image of a country, dont represent the opinion of the entire population.
|
On September 21 2012 03:40 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:33 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 21 2012 03:03 fluidin wrote:On September 21 2012 02:36 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 20 2012 23:10 NBronJames wrote:
I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians.
It's always funny how people who haven't fought in wars bitch about 'kill this country, kill that country, kill their citizens!' when something like this happens in China-Korea-Japan area, while the people involved in it treat it as a 'thing in the past'. Pretty sure the people being angry over it are doing so because they were related to the the people involved in the war. And that these people are dead due to the war. I'm related to someone who barely survived the Korean War and someone who grew up in Japanese-imperial system before the Korean revolution, and I'm not mad at them because of relative reasons. I'm also related to someone whose family is currently located in North Korea and can't contact them whatsoever. They unfortunately passed away before they had a chance to see if their family was alive. I don't get your point. So you're saying you're a pretty tolerant individual? Bravo then. You're definitely part of a minority though.
I am part of minority, but what I'm saying is I don't understand those who are not directly affected by the previous incidents. They weren't involved in anything, nor did their immediate relatives dead from the incidents, yet they act like they're really focused on this issue.
They always talk about how their government sucks, how the government should be reformed, the country they live in is not as good as others, then when something happens, they suddenly become patriotic and join anti-(insert country name here) rallies and whatnot. And when its all over, they're back to how they were. Endless cycle, just following what the whole country is doing.
P.S. Inb4 Baezzi sneaks in here.
|
On September 21 2012 05:25 []Phase[] wrote:
From what im hearing around here, its mainly the japanese government thats to blame for the bad image, or am I wrong in this?
Japan seems like a pretty civilised, modern and educated country to me, so id expect the majority of the population to not be as others here claim to be.
I am not very familiar with the intern politics of Japan, so could someone who is shed some light on this?
The government in Japan is elected by its people. Sadly, there are many people in Japan that want to suppress the truth and the government is carrying out the people's wishes. There are a few bright spots in Japan though, such as Professor Saburo Ienaga. Saburo Ienaga was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to push the Japanese government and Japanese education system to teach the truth about Japanese atrocities in WW2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/08/obituaries/08IENA.html
You can see that Professor Saburo Ienaga has been fighting an uphill battle in Japan and was still fighting towards the last days of his life.
Here is the wiki entry for Japanese World War 2 textbook controversies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies
I merely point you to one of the last paragraphs in that wiki entry:
In 2007, former education minister Nariaki Nakayama declared he was proud that the Liberal Democratic Party had succeeded in getting references to "wartime sex slaves" struck from most authorized history texts for junior high schools. "Our campaign worked, and people outside government also started raising their voices."[19] He also declared that he agreed with an e-mail sent to him saying that the "victimized women in Asia should be proud of being comfort women".[20]
2007 was 5 years ago. As you can see, the Japanese government (and of course, some of its people) are still trying to whitewash Japanese atrocities in WW2 and rewrite their version of history.
|
On September 21 2012 05:33 supernovamaniac wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:40 fluidin wrote:On September 21 2012 03:33 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 21 2012 03:03 fluidin wrote:On September 21 2012 02:36 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 20 2012 23:10 NBronJames wrote:
I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians.
It's always funny how people who haven't fought in wars bitch about 'kill this country, kill that country, kill their citizens!' when something like this happens in China-Korea-Japan area, while the people involved in it treat it as a 'thing in the past'. Pretty sure the people being angry over it are doing so because they were related to the the people involved in the war. And that these people are dead due to the war. I'm related to someone who barely survived the Korean War and someone who grew up in Japanese-imperial system before the Korean revolution, and I'm not mad at them because of relative reasons. I'm also related to someone whose family is currently located in North Korea and can't contact them whatsoever. They unfortunately passed away before they had a chance to see if their family was alive. I don't get your point. So you're saying you're a pretty tolerant individual? Bravo then. You're definitely part of a minority though. I am part of minority, but what I'm saying is I don't understand those who are not directly affected by the previous incidents. They weren't involved in anything, nor did their immediate relatives dead from the incidents, yet they act like they're really focused on this issue. They always talk about how their government sucks, how the government should be reformed, the country they live in is not as good as others, then when something happens, they suddenly become patriotic and join anti-(insert country name here) rallies and whatnot. And when its all over, they're back to how they were. Endless cycle, just following what the whole country is doing. P.S. Inb4 Baezzi sneaks in here.
Well, it's same thing as you complain about your spouse, but you would always side with him/her over others. How is that surprising in anyway is beyond me.
|
On September 21 2012 05:55 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 05:33 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 21 2012 03:40 fluidin wrote:On September 21 2012 03:33 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 21 2012 03:03 fluidin wrote:On September 21 2012 02:36 supernovamaniac wrote:On September 20 2012 23:10 NBronJames wrote:
I often hear japanese tell the Koreans and Chinese to "get over it, it's in the past". In the case of dokdo, Japanese should get over it and quit using this as a scapegoat for their own falling economy and inept politicians.
It's always funny how people who haven't fought in wars bitch about 'kill this country, kill that country, kill their citizens!' when something like this happens in China-Korea-Japan area, while the people involved in it treat it as a 'thing in the past'. Pretty sure the people being angry over it are doing so because they were related to the the people involved in the war. And that these people are dead due to the war. I'm related to someone who barely survived the Korean War and someone who grew up in Japanese-imperial system before the Korean revolution, and I'm not mad at them because of relative reasons. I'm also related to someone whose family is currently located in North Korea and can't contact them whatsoever. They unfortunately passed away before they had a chance to see if their family was alive. I don't get your point. So you're saying you're a pretty tolerant individual? Bravo then. You're definitely part of a minority though. I am part of minority, but what I'm saying is I don't understand those who are not directly affected by the previous incidents. They weren't involved in anything, nor did their immediate relatives dead from the incidents, yet they act like they're really focused on this issue. They always talk about how their government sucks, how the government should be reformed, the country they live in is not as good as others, then when something happens, they suddenly become patriotic and join anti-(insert country name here) rallies and whatnot. And when its all over, they're back to how they were. Endless cycle, just following what the whole country is doing. P.S. Inb4 Baezzi sneaks in here. Well, it's same thing as you complain about your spouse, but you would always side with him/her over others. How is that surprising in anyway is beyond me.
I'm not saying that its surprising, I'm saying its stupid at times when people don't know any shit about what's going on, the history behind it, yet they act like they know it all.
|
On September 21 2012 02:10 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 00:06 Hryul wrote:On September 20 2012 23:27 ragz_gt wrote:On September 20 2012 22:30 Hryul wrote:On September 20 2012 21:09 fearus wrote:On September 20 2012 21:03 MK wrote:
What I really don't get is what the Chinese really want. Not speaking of the officials and politicians, but the people.
From what I understand, it's more about a "lack of revenge". Someone said in this thread that the US got revenge on Pearl Harbor and the Chinese got nothing. It's a very simple point of view; but in a way, it's actually what I feel when I talk to some friends in the mainland.
The (not so) funny thing is I believe that the Chinese people are hating Japan for exactly what they would have done if they could. It's crazy but I feel like it's about "an eye for an eye" right now. Chinese are saying that Japan have committed atrocities and the only way to settle everything down is to find a way to make the Japanese pay the whole price. And the problem is there is no price for a life (and we are talking about 20-30M lives). So now what? Take the islands, kill the Japs, throw a bomb or what?
This is my problem with these riots: yeah, you got arguments to destroy whatever you want but eventually, what are the solutions you are bringing up to build something new?
And I guess the day China come with a good answer to this question, this country will become a great and responsible nation. Taking a look at Germany's action post WW2 and its actions for the last 60 would be a good start. it's still not helping. There was a servermerge for the WoW PvP servers some day and there have been several reports that the english called the germans "nazis" etc. Not to say that the WoW players are a good representation of the UK population but I was still kind of disappointed because most people who are alive now were born after WW 2 and I thought Europe could move on. It just seems to have such a deep impact on everyone in europe that we will hear the echoes through all those years. I'm also not buying the "you can't ignore those documents from 100years ago". It's simply not helping. By this stance Austria could make claims to Italy, Germany to Poland, Poland to Belarus etc. The list is endless and if you go back far enough the Italians could make claims about everything the Roman Empire ever conquered. Both chinese governments simply did nothing as long as they believed there was nothing on line. So the US had control over it and then handed it over to Japan. But since there probably is oil on the line, suddenly (read: since 40 years) they dig up their old maps and start the turmoil. It is not helping. Either you want it and start your claims at a reasonable time (read shortly after the US garrisoned the islands) or you shut up. Disputing facts after they changed their owner 2times (jap -> us -> jap) isn't really helping. The problem is that Treaties in China is a dirty word. If someone come in your house and beat the crap out of you to force you buy drug for your kids, and then take all your valuable as compensation for him having to come over, and by the way, your front porch now belongs to him. That's not exactly a treaty. And that's exactly what the word "treaty" means in China since Opium War. It means bend over and take it in the arse. Then after WWII US was acting as the divorce lawyer between China and Japan (and Korean and Japan), but in order to fight communism, US was also in bed with Japan. If someone sleeping with your wife deciding your divorce term, and you weren't even there when everything was decided, you'd be super pissed also. And China, which I'm surprised to find that the state motto is not actually "never forgive, never forget" literally spent the next 40 years having wet dream of killing Americans... and everyone else for that matter. (BTW, there was nothing "suddenly" about 40 year thing, because PRC was not officially recognized and part of UN, so it makes no sense. And why quibble over rocks when they are planning to kill everyone whole sell anyway? ROC on the other hand, was US's bitch, they wouldn't do anything that US not happy about) Would you please stop talking about war crimes as they were ordinary crimes. I am fully aware that the Japanese army committed horrible war crimes against both the Koreans and the Chinese. Which is part of the reason why the situation is so heated. But the Chinese seem to forget that they weren't the deciding factor in the victory over the Japanese forces. The US was. And the US followed their own interests in setting up the post war order. So it's all about power and who was holding it at the moment the important decisions were made. .... The US was a deciding factor in winning the war, but you seem to forget that without China to tie up some 3 million+ Japanese soldiers, the war might have been quite a bit different?
No I didn't forget the Chinese forces but the Chinese Forces at that moment were at a civil war. The communists also weren't engaging the J's on full scale etc. etc.
Matter of fact remains that the Chinese alone would never have had the powers to break Japanese mainland let alone in such a deciding manner as the US. I also think this is reflected by the fact that the US didn't need to incorporate neither the USSR nor the PRC&ROC in any treatys regarding the borders. In Europe there was mutual agreement between "western" forces and soviets needed.
You might throw around a lot of "if"s and "but"s regarding Nazi-Germany and the Soviets and the US/UK forces but at the pacific area you would have to educate me how any of the two Chinese forces would have been able to force the Japanese to surrender.
|
Orek wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +This ambiguity is exactly the point. All the name mix up is really unfortunate for Korea. Those documents are nowhere near conclusive enough to say Korea had sovereignty over Dokdo before 1905. Therefore, Japan incorporated this terra nullius into Japanese territory. As you said, Japan doesn't have historical claim over Takeshima before 1905, but neither does Korea. What those documents provided are benefit of the doubt that Dokdo "could be" Korean territory before 1905.
Also, ICJ has shown what evidence must be outweighed. In Minquiers and Ecrehos Case between France and U.K., ICJ shows, “What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.” I guess direct evidence such as well-documented 1905 incorporation into Shimane prefecture in Japan is more of decisive importance than indirect presumptions decuded from events in the MIddle Ages that you just cited above. I would love to see how ICJ rules on Dokdo/Takeshima with this principal.
I said there was an ambiguity in some of the cases not all of them which could be interpreted as an error which was common in pre-modern era historical documents.
"Usando is drawn to the west of Ulleungdo, which is clearly an error since there exists no island that to the west of Ulleungdo. (Quote in the wikipedia)"
My point was that Korea has a much better claim than Japan on a historical context since Japan denied owning the land twice while Korea constantly claimed that it was theirs. There is no ambiguity regards to that.
+ Show Spoiler +1696 Murakami documents http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Anyongbok-doc15.jpgIn 1696, Ahn visited Japan again. According to a Japanese record found in May 2005, the Bafuku is the investigation on Anyongbok who arrived in Hokishu in May 1696 via the Oki Islands. The document has a total of 15 pages. The fifth page records Anyongbok's statement that Jasando (Usando) is Matsushima (松島) The last page records the eight provinces of Korea. The document specifically states that Takeshima (竹島 Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (松島 Liancourt Rocks) are part of Gangwan Province (江原道) I sailed to Ulleung-do and the Usando again with the company of sixteen fishermen, disguised as a naval officer, and clashed again with the Japanese at Ulleung-do. The Japanese said they were living on Matsushima (Ullungdo) and strayed onto Takeshima while fishing and would return. I fulminated at this, demanding to know why the Japanese were living on a Korean island. When I was arriving in Japan, I said to the lord of the Tottori clan that "though it was confiscated by the Tsushima clan, I got the Tokugawa Shogunate's edict that the both islands were Korean possessions before visit. When I said that I will appeal for this to the Kanpaku, the lord of Tsushima clan came to Tottori and he entreated me to stop it. —Ahn[10][11]
Also there is no such thing as well documented 1905 incorporation into Shimane prefecture since all the treaties with Korea at that time were forced upon them.
+ Show Spoiler +Japanese claims the incorporation was legitimate in that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published.[93] Korea claims the incorporation was invalid in that the Feb 24 San-in Shimbun report lacked official status as its circulation was limited to the Shimane prefectural region. Korea claims neither the decision of the Japanese Cabinet, the order of Ministry of Home Affairs, nor the Shimane Notice had been announced to the Korean government until March 28, 1906. Many Japanese, including petitioner Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞), and certain governmental officials believed the title of Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea.
On that date, a party of 44 officials from Shimane Prefecture visited Ulleungdo. The Japanese officials, including Kanda Yoshitaro, travelled to Ulleungdo by way of Dokdo, and informed Sim Heung-taek, then Magistrate of Ulleungdo, that the rocks had been incorporated into Japan.
According to Korean historians, Sim immediately contacted Yi Myeong-nae, then Governor of Gangwon Province. Yi then forwarded the report to the State Council Minister of the Korean Empire. State Council Minister Bak Je-sun, in Directive No. 3 issued on May 20, 1906, stated, "It is totally groundless that Dokdo has become Japanese territory," and went on to order "an investigation and report on the situation and on what the Japanese have done."[94] The Eulsa Treaty had stripped Korea of all its diplomatic rights on 17 November 1905.[95][96] Five years later, Korea was fully annexed by Japan.
The 1965 Treaty of Basic Relations between Japan and South Korea also declared that:
It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void.
Japan agreed themselves. It's clear that Korea acknowledge the ownership of their island during that time or in any other time. It was illegally occupied by the imperial Japanese by force. I don't know how you can say other wise unless you justify their occupation or naive enough to believe that Korea actually wanted to be under Japanese control.
Orek wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +I see this as the root of all territorial dispute Japan has today. Basically, because China, Korea and Russia didn't sign the treaty, they can get away with claiming almost any islands Japan has. Korea was not invited because it wasn't considered to have been at at war with Japan. Rather, Korea was internationally recognized as a part of Japan during 1910-1945. U.S. occupied both now South Korea and Japan after the war and had a say in both territories. I am no legal expert, but legally speaking, I think Korea can even claim relatively minor 6800+ Japanese islands if it denies Treaty of San Francisco. The fact that Korea didn't sign Treaty of San Francisco is probably the weakpoint of Japanese claim, although one might wonder what Korea bases its recognition of Japanese territory today then.
I'm glad you are at least man enough to admit that the San Francisco treaty is the weak point of Japanese claim. Hopefully you no longer spam it since it has no bearing in this case. Also it doesn't matter how Korea was viewed back then since it was an illegal occupation admitted by the Japanese themselves in the "Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea" You might be right about Korea being able to claim 6800+ island if they deny the treaty of sanfrancisco but luckily Korea decided to keep what is rightfully theirs and nothing more.
U.S., as the legitimate occupying country of Japan, decided on Dokdo/Takeshima as follows:
Legitimate occupying country of Japan not Korea. Korea was illegally occupied, therefore any US decisions on Korea soil should be null and void based on the 1965 treaty. Rusk document was such an one-sided decision by the US it's not even really worth arguing. No international voice and Korea was strongly against it.
Orek wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +First off, how long Korea has been controlling the island is entirely irrelevant. Control over territory after dispute started is not recognized as evidence. Dispute started in 1952, so 60 years of nothing. "Take by force, ignore all complaints, 60 years, it's mine!!" is not how things work. I am fully aware that ICJ is not a perfect organization, but then what is better? Korean court? Japanese court? No way. ICJ is all we got today. Or does Korea insist that military might is the way to claim disputed territory? Law-abiding Japanese government doesn't believe so. Maybe Korea doesn't want to go to ICJ to advertise to the world that Korea is not law-abiding country that respect international laws. Well, Korea already advertised so when it rejected the proposal last month for the 3rd time in 60 years. Mission accomplished? I don't know.
Pot calling kettle black? That's what Japanese are saying "Get over it, it's in the past" regards to world war crimes which I actually agree. I don't think they are responsible for what they did 70 years ago. Korea was weak and they were pushed around. They learned their lesson and the han river economic miracle happened. They'll only get stronger after the reunification. I just hope that the Japanese do the same and get over the dokdo issue considering they have zero claim to the land.
You have yet to proof that Korea took the island by force. As long as they didn't force it, having possession of the land greatly increases your chance of winning the ICJ. Your Minquiers and Ecrehos example actually favors my argument. Middle age thing was explained to show you that Japan has never claimed the land before they colonized Korea and started illegally occupying surrounding islands. Again, you can't just grab anybody in the street holding the iphone and say it's yours and try to take it to court if the guy tells you to back off. Japan currently has territorial disputes with pretty much all her neighbors. You can't just blame everyone but the Japanese. I'm strongly against violent protests but there is something they are doing that's causing all these disputes. If you didn't know they are also pissing the russians off.
Orek wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +Korea should also quit using this as a scapegoat for inept politicians. Korean President's pattern has always been:
1st year of presidency= Korea and Japan must build future-oriented relationship
...
...
4th year of presidency= Japan must pay & apologize for the past history
Japan has already learned that anything anti-Japan in the last year of presidency doesn't mean much but politics inside Korea.
It's clear to me you don't know much about Korean politics. The current president and party have been neutral or pro Japanese and still are. It's the former president Roh that has been anti-Japan, anti-american and he was lucky to be elected since the conservative party was divided at that time and one of the them backed out and ended up supporting Roh.
Korea hasn't been overly anti-Japan since they agreed to establish normal relationship in 1965. I know you are going to say well look at the netizens! Well they don't mean much since the internet is dominated by the liberals. Historically the Korean election are won by the quiet masses, the quiet conservatives, not the loud mouth irrational liberals. Yes they are the ones that do all the protest. However, even they don't protest against Japanese. The few ones you do see sometimes are some couple of lunatics that sometimes put on a show to get attention but they are universally frowned upon.
I think Japanese flatter themselves too much. If you know anything about Korean politics, Japan itself wouldn't even be in the top 10 list of priorities among politicians, including the lunatic liberals and that's saying a lot. North Korea is by far the biggest issue. 2nd would be the regional tension between Jeolla and Kyongsang province. 3rd would be the USA. Those are the three big issues and every political issues revolve around them.
Orek wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Actually, the more I argue, the more I feel Korea shouldn't go to ICJ if it wants to keep Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully or not. As I said, I think Japan is likely to win. As long as Korean government avoids going to ICJ, Korea will continue to be seen as coward that fears losing ICJ verdict because Korean evidence is weak. Until Korea accepts the proposal to bring the issue to ICJ, they can't quite deny that sentiment from international community. Confident=ICJ, Unconfident=no ICJ is how it is seen by others. Vexing? Yeah, lets go to ICJ then to end it once and for all !!
Read above, japan has no claim. There is no reason for Korea to go to court for something that is indisputably theirs and especially ICJ where there is a Japanese judge and no Korean judge. Even if Korea has 90% chance of winning why risk 10%. It's the same reason why Japanese isn't going to court with China and Russia.
Also I'm always amused when Japanese and their supporters claim and insist that this would have a negative view from the international community. Let me make this clear to you. Nobody gives a damn about dokdo/takeshima other than Korea and Japan.
|
On September 21 2012 04:06 Orek wrote:
Well, well, I first mentioned Dokdo/Takeshima only to point out Japan's double-standard nature (despite my support of Japanese view in general), but this turned into a mess... I hope a mod considers this discussion as relevant enough in that this is also another territorial dispute Japan has.
You are just about the only one that constantly bring Korea to the discussion. That is in a way derailing the thread. It's strange how you don't mention the territorial dispute with Russia. It makes me question your agenda.
Keep in mind this is a thread to discuss about the disputed territorial between China and Japan. I'm not the only one you have been debating heavily against regards to Dokdo and you are pushing harder and harder with your biased Japanese view.
It should be okay though since it's at least somewhat relevant. I just hope that you focus more on China and Japan instead of Korea and Japan. It's still better than that world war 3 scenario non-sense people were discussing earlier. That was ridiculous
|
OP or somebody, what the hell happened to that english teacher who was pranked and didn't show up for work?
|
On September 21 2012 07:26 JeanLuc wrote:
OP or somebody, what the hell happened to that english teacher who was pranked and didn't show up for work?
That's 99% just some dumb thing people made up.
|
Wow 90 pages, and I think I've read all of them...
I just want to update my position. Earlier I was strongly arguing that the Chinese have a right to be angry at the Japanese, because Japanese atrocities in the 2nd World War are possibly the worst of all time, and the Japanese unrepentant. I feel they should learn from the Germans, and I'd still say this is reasonable.
However, as I watch day to day life here in China, I can also see the other side, that this anti-Japanese feeling is strengthened beyond what is neccessary. I pass people on the street and hear them insulting Japan. Ok I guess, but the other day I passed a group of 7 year olds, and they were having the same conversation. Worse, my friend's son just came home from kindergarten talking about how Japan is bullying the Chinese. 4 years old is a bit young...
The Japanese may be in the wrong, but this stuff just fans the flames, and makes a long term solution harder and harder.
|
Don't be too surprised at the children. One rarely have the mental capability to resist the enormous cognitive dissonance present in their surroundings at that age.
Most of these youngling probably still take in everything they say about the CCP in school (i.e. apologetic bullshit and endless praise) seriously too. They'll grow up, discover the internet and read about real history.
IIRC Korea also indoctrinate anti-Japanese sentiments starting from Kindergarden.
This is indeed quite sad, however the adults and the government knows better.
|
I think it's just unfortunate the situation got escalated because both Japan and China are in the middle of leadership transitioning. It's common for a government to boast a 'hardline' stance during this process. In China's case, I suspect part of it is that people just wanted an outlet to voice their opinion on something, anything. On the other hand, Japan really needs to inspect its marry-go-around style government and the long-term damage it's causing to the country and the region.
|
On September 21 2012 08:03 RavenLoud wrote:
Don't be too surprised at the children. One rarely have the mental capability to resist the enormous cognitive dissonance present in their surroundings at that age.
Most of these youngling probably still take in everything they say about the CCP in school (i.e. apologetic bullshit and endless praise) seriously too. They'll grow up, discover the internet and read about real history.
IIRC Korea also indoctrinate anti-Japanese sentiments starting from Kindergarden.
This is indeed quite sad, however the adults and the government knows better.
Korean here. I'm pretty old and even during my childhood days there were no anti-japanese teaching. My parents, definitely no.
It might be true in certain area and during the old times but definitely not now. Our government is currently pushing this multi-ethnic multi-cultural society and pulling away from the pure blood nationalist ideology. So we are going the opposite direction.
It also depends on your political preference. Conservatives are definitely not anti-Japanese. Most are neutral and some pro but they do acknowledge the war crimes and that it was bad but willing to move on. Liberals are mostly anti-american and anti-japanese but the younger crowds don't seem to care much these days and they have lighten up a lot, especially toward the americans. Conservatives have always been pro-america. As for the Chinese, Koreans as a whole don't have much problem with them.
I personally like both China and Japan, and SEA. We Asians need to unite and stop fighting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
