|
On September 21 2012 07:50 Tal wrote:
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.
The vast majority of people get their information from each other, and when an emotionally dissonant idea rises among them, it spreads without the need for indoctrination. Word of mouth is by far the greatest shaper of public opinion in an age of mass communication.
|
The korean kids in my english classes absolutely despise Japan. It's a hard thing to shake in a confucian culture where everything your grandparents tell you is gospel. If i'd grown up believing everything my grandparents told me I'd be a full-blown racist too.
|
Please tell when when your Beijing friend's english teacher comes back to work. I'd like to know that he didn't just kill his english teacher. That's a pretty retarded prank to do at a time like this.
|
Don't worry about him, OP already said he came back reasonably unharmed.
Link
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 04:02 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Probably we are using "nationalism" by different definitions and any further discussion will be fruitless without clarifying.
"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."
When you say that the protests are an expression of "nationalism" your definition of "nationalism" appears to be that the Chinese people understand that the world has nation-states as an abstraction or social construct and have broken out in spontaneous celebration in recognition the utility of this social construct, and that perhaps those protests may be justified.
This seems to be your definition of "nationalism" as per your statement here:
"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."
My definition is closer akin to Orwell's definition:
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
This is the "nationalism" I am criticizing and I believe this is closer to the "expression of nationalism" we saw in China that resulted in mobs bashing Japanese-built cars and beat a Chinese driver of a Japanese car comatose. Also, I believe there was an anecdote of a Chinese student who wished to dedicate himself to materials engineering so that he can help China develop more advanced weaponry. Japanese-owned businesses have also been shutting down for fear of personal safety.
I don't see how this such "nationalism" can be defended. I believe the general sentiment in this thread has been towards condemning such acts. Certainly your handwaving argument from "congruency" does not form a satisfactory defence. This is the definition of "nationalism" that MisterFred condemned, because it can make intelligent and rational people accept reprehensible actions done by their side as long as it's done in the name of country. Do you remember when you were a kid in kindergarten and there was your group and perhaps another group of kids, so it felt "good" to be able to get the teacher to inflict some punishment on one of the kids in the other group and one-up them in that sense? This is exactly what being a nationalist feels except like writ large.
|
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism.
|
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 12:53 Xiphos wrote:
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism.
When I (and others) talk about nationalism, I don't mean nationalism as a specific way of organizing and grouping of people into nations, but something deeper. Remember in high school history class when they always mentioned "nationalism" as one of the causes to WW1? It wasn't the fact that people were grouped into countries that wars happened, but the fact that people felt excessive pride in their country and placed it above criticism.
|
On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase.
Giving back the islands would be a start.
|
On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
Especially when Japan is the one muddling up the history.
|
blah blah and it goes on and on.. I'm currently living in China, you have no idea the amount of BS nationalism that gets thrown around here these days with Diaoyu, fact is.. people are bored and frustrated out of their skull slaving away at their capitalist controlled jobs, slaving away at 'get rich or die trying' .
Its their great excuse for destroying property, harassing people, letting their beast loose at rather innocent japanese folks.
|
On September 21 2012 13:03 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:53 Xiphos wrote:
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism. When I (and others) talk about nationalism, I don't mean nationalism as a specific way of organizing and grouping of people into nations, but something deeper. Remember in high school history class when they always mentioned "nationalism" as one of the causes to WW1? It wasn't the fact that people were grouped into countries that wars happened, but the fact that people felt excessive pride in their country and placed it above criticism.
But see Nationalism incited hatred among countries. But individualism instill despise within people. If a person thinks that he is entitle to his own will. Who knows what he'll do if his emotions starts to flip on him toward another.
Nationalism is everywhere, it is meant to protect the overall interest or the grande scheme of things.
|
On September 21 2012 13:05 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
Especially when Japan is the one muddling up the history.
And China and Korea as well. The entire East Asian region is a powerhouse of vested interests that it is difficult to even imagine where to start, adding to the issue American intervention.
I would like to believe there is a possible solution and that all parties are willing, we just need strong political resolve and vision.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 13:16 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:03 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 12:53 Xiphos wrote:
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism. When I (and others) talk about nationalism, I don't mean nationalism as a specific way of organizing and grouping of people into nations, but something deeper. Remember in high school history class when they always mentioned "nationalism" as one of the causes to WW1? It wasn't the fact that people were grouped into countries that wars happened, but the fact that people felt excessive pride in their country and placed it above criticism. But see Nationalism incited hatred among countries. But individualism instill despise within people. If a person thinks that he is entitle to his own will. Who knows what he'll do if his emotions starts to flip on him toward another. Nationalism is everywhere, it is meant to protect the overall interest or the grande scheme of things.
Can you give me your definition of nationalism? I think we are talking about two different things.
|
On September 21 2012 13:23 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:16 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 13:03 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 12:53 Xiphos wrote:
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism. When I (and others) talk about nationalism, I don't mean nationalism as a specific way of organizing and grouping of people into nations, but something deeper. Remember in high school history class when they always mentioned "nationalism" as one of the causes to WW1? It wasn't the fact that people were grouped into countries that wars happened, but the fact that people felt excessive pride in their country and placed it above criticism. But see Nationalism incited hatred among countries. But individualism instill despise within people. If a person thinks that he is entitle to his own will. Who knows what he'll do if his emotions starts to flip on him toward another. Nationalism is everywhere, it is meant to protect the overall interest or the grande scheme of things. Can you give me your definition of nationalism? I think we are talking about two different things.
My definition is Nationalism = a group of people who call themselves with a certain name and to survive by striving to gain as much advantage for the sake of the group. What's yours on it?
|
On September 21 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase. Giving back the islands would be a start.
You do realize that saying something like that is as retarded as me saying -
"Give Canada back to the aboriginal peoples who were living there for thousands of years before the British and French arrived"
These islands and who owns them was agreed upon over 100 years ago -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Shimonoseki
The FACTS of the matter are that China didn't give a shit about these islands until someone found oil.
I think the sad truth is that the Chinese people are frustrated and Japan is just the easiest target who their anger
|
1019 Posts
On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase.
Yes, Japan is clearly trying to rehabilitate its "errors" from WWII. That's why people in Korea and China aren't angry at all. Clearly you don't know what your talking about. Japan isn't sorry. Look at germany. They admitted their mistakes and done many things to let others know they are sorry (banning of swastika imagery, formal apologies to israel, neo-nazism is criminal, etc). And most of europe has gotten over it. What has Japan done? Continual aggression on other people's territories, distortion of school history textbooks, and a growing far-right wing that they can't seem to control.
Lets be clear here. The atrocities that Japan committed before and during WWII is as bad or worse than hitler's. Westerners forget that there was a holocaust in asia too. I'm not trying to diminish the significance of the crimes that Nazi germany committed, but Japan did many worse things. You think gas chambers and concentration camps were bad? What about systematized human torture or chemical experiments on live humans? What about ceremonial beheadings of prisoners or systematized rape? It gets even worse once you start digging into the history.
It's hilarious. Japan thinks they are the victims of WWII. They think they were the victims when they were responsible for the deaths of millions of people around asia. They have all these memorials and shit set up around their country that cry about the "horrible" things that american carpet bombing did to them. I'm not even going to go into the nuclear bombs that got dropped on two of their cities. It's not a lack of the correct attitude. It's having the totally wrong one.
|
On September 21 2012 13:27 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:23 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 13:16 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 13:03 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 12:53 Xiphos wrote:
Nationalism, factionalism and what not is very much needed in the society. A group of people with the same believe comes together to form a faction. If factionalism isn't practiced, then those people wouldn't have a type of alliance with each other. Therefore you will have more violence among people.
If true democracy is practiced with everybody for themselves with liberty to do w/e they want, then people would start acting really selfish toward everyone, whereas you would at least be willing to share prosperities among a group of people in a faction.
In sort, factionalism unites people, total free will is anarchism. When I (and others) talk about nationalism, I don't mean nationalism as a specific way of organizing and grouping of people into nations, but something deeper. Remember in high school history class when they always mentioned "nationalism" as one of the causes to WW1? It wasn't the fact that people were grouped into countries that wars happened, but the fact that people felt excessive pride in their country and placed it above criticism. But see Nationalism incited hatred among countries. But individualism instill despise within people. If a person thinks that he is entitle to his own will. Who knows what he'll do if his emotions starts to flip on him toward another. Nationalism is everywhere, it is meant to protect the overall interest or the grande scheme of things. Can you give me your definition of nationalism? I think we are talking about two different things. My definition is Nationalism = a group of people who call themselves with a certain name and to survive by striving to gain as much advantage for the sake of the group. What's yours on it?
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
and no religion too
|
On September 21 2012 13:32 robjapan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:04 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 12:58 b0mBerMan wrote:
Japanese hate is difficult to eradicate, with history being so muddled.
As a Japanese American, I can say that Japan has gone to the length to rehabilitate its errors in WWII to its victims, not only monetarily but also in terms of national support in all programs whether cultural, development, education, etc. But Japan suffers from the stigma of WWII that is impossible to erase. Giving back the islands would be a start. I think the sad truth is that the Chinese people are frustrated and Japan is just the easiest target who their anger
i'm sorry but that is so far from the truth that your post is ridiculous and borderline inciting anger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
