|
Lets be clear here. The atrocities that Japan committed before and during WWII is worse than hitler's germany. I'm serious. Westerners forget that there was a horrible holocaust in asia too. I'm not trying to diminish the significance of the crimes that Nazi germany committed, but Japan was worse than germany. 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 really nasty when you start digging into the history.
With the exception of ceremonial beheadings, all of that occurred with the Nazis as well--and I don't think you can really make the argument that beheading is actually worse than industrial-style gas chambers.
Also, the Nazi-caused civilian death toll is significantly higher than the Japanese civilian death toll (the Holocaust alone killed more people than Japanese occupation). Both countries were absolutely terrible and it's not a contest, but there's no reason to start downplaying or manipulating the history.
|
On September 21 2012 13:32 robjapan wrote: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_ShimonosekiThe 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
And Japan agreed to return all territories it had taken from the Allies after WW2:
The Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of the Second World War who met at Potsdam, the USA, the UK and the Republic of China. Japan accepted the terms of the Declaration when it surrendered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
The Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands are a part of Taiwan so they must be returned to Taiwan as part of the agreement.
I think the sad truth is Japan refuses to acknowledge their war crimes like Germany has and that's why all of Japan's neigbors still despise Japan to this very day (look at the Korean dislike for Japan in this thread).
|
On September 21 2012 13:33 b0mBerMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:27 Xiphos wrote: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
And everyone for themselves. Now we are back to being animals!
How refreshing where laws won't be imposed to you and that you won't get jailed for murder.
|
On September 21 2012 13:33 white_horse 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. 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.
I'm assuming you are Korean. Japan does not advertise its efforts like America and other countries do. Japan has ongoing long term projects in the region affected by WWII. I am against hate and war. And don't be too aggressive like you know everything.
|
On September 21 2012 13:33 white_horse 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. 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.
It's clear YOU are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Japan has apologized on many many many MANY occasions, VAST amounts of money has been given and the school text books make the children I speak to cry in class because they can't believe the awful things their own people did.
Japan thinks they are the victims? No not at all, in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true, the majority of Japanese people believe they were the people in the wrong and that they got punished for the horrific things they did.
You think no neo-nazi's exist in Germany? dead wrong, they are a BIG group of people with a growing support.
It is up to us to encourage peace and understanding, what are you doing? encouraging racism and hatred?
|
On September 21 2012 13:50 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:32 robjapan wrote: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_ShimonosekiThe 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 And Japan agreed to return all territories it had taken from the Allies after WW2: Show nested quote +The Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of the Second World War who met at Potsdam, the USA, the UK and the Republic of China. Japan accepted the terms of the Declaration when it surrendered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_disputeThe Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands are a part of Taiwan so they must be returned to Taiwan as part of the agreement. I think the sad truth is Japan refuses to acknowledge their war crimes like Germany has and that's why all of Japan's neigbors still despise Japan to this very day (look at the Korean dislike for Japan in this thread).
I believe it was the "we" that returned those islands back to Japanese control?
|
But then a Neonazi doesn't get to be mayor of Berlin and run his mouth off.
|
On September 21 2012 13:57 robjapan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:33 white_horse 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. 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. You think no neo-nazi's exist in Germany? dead wrong, they are a BIG group of people with a growing support.
of course there will be pockets of extreme neo-nazi groups, but they are NO WHERE near as prominent as right wing japanese politicians. see Shintaro Ishihara...
|
Canada2068 Posts
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?
I mentioned in a post a few posts up that I subscribe to Orwell's definition of nationalism:
"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."
And no, the alternative to nationalism doesn't have to be going back to behaving like animals. How about we think of us all as free-thinking humans living on the same planet instead of focusing on some random division of nations and then picking sides?
|
On September 21 2012 14:06 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:27 Xiphos wrote: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? I mentioned in a post a few posts up that I subscribe to Orwell's definition of nationalism: Show nested quote +"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." And no, the alternative to nationalism doesn't have to be going back to behaving like animals. How about we think of us all as free-thinking humans living on the same planet instead of focusing on some random division of nations and then picking sides?
Then we are still living under one faction or group. This still makes it factionalism/nationalism.
|
When you listen to China it's like the whole world was Chinese long ago and they need to get back that land lol.
|
On September 21 2012 14:04 robjapan wrote:
I believe it was the "we" that returned those islands back to Japanese control?
Because the USA was fighting communism in the 1970s so of course, it made sense to return the islands to its ally that was fighting communism (Japan) rather than the communist enemy (China)? If I steal your car and give it to my friend, does that mean my friend properly owns your car?
|
On September 21 2012 14:09 lain2501 wrote:
When you listen to China it's like the whole world was Chinese long ago and they need to get back that land lol.
yeah man, those arrogant chinese people need to learn their place.
|
That guy is a TOTAL douche I agree. I would love to remove him from any form of power.
You see how he says Japanese people can't say no and how much he hates that?
Trouble is, if Japanese people could assert themselves better and say no, they would say no to him and the likes of him first.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 14:08 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 14:06 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 13:27 Xiphos wrote: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? I mentioned in a post a few posts up that I subscribe to Orwell's definition of nationalism: "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." And no, the alternative to nationalism doesn't have to be going back to behaving like animals. How about we think of us all as free-thinking humans living on the same planet instead of focusing on some random division of nations and then picking sides? Then we are still living under one faction or group. This still makes it factionalism/nationalism.
Do you see the way Orwell is using nationalism is different from you? By condemning nationalism, he is condemning a way of thought and not a way of organizing society. That means we'll still have countries and shit. He is talking about the battle raging inside the heads of all of us (bias towards our own/adopted nationalities) and he is not talking about dissolving borders of all nations, which is what I took your objection to mean.
less nationalism != we can no longer have countries
|
On September 21 2012 14:12 robjapan wrote:
That guy is a TOTAL douche I agree. I would love to remove him from any form of power.
You see how he says Japanese people can't say no and how much he hates that?
Trouble is, if Japanese people could assert themselves better and say no, they would say no to him and the likes of him first.
the japanese people has the power, unlike the chinese, to actually say no and not have someone like Shintaro represent their views. but they chose not to and have done so ever since he was elected. why is that?
|
On September 21 2012 14:10 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 14:04 robjapan wrote:
I believe it was the "we" that returned those islands back to Japanese control?
Because the USA was fighting communism in the 1970s so of course, it made sense to return the islands to its ally that was fighting communism (Japan) rather than the communist enemy (China)? If I steal your car and give it to my friend, does that mean my friend properly owns your car?
So when the British "discovered" America and took it from the Natives but then lost it.... does that mean Americans should give America back to the native Americans?
or how about Tibet, or Mongolia? how about Palestine?
What's done is done, the treaties were signed, agreed to and acted out. The End.
|
On September 21 2012 14:14 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 14:12 robjapan wrote:
That guy is a TOTAL douche I agree. I would love to remove him from any form of power.
You see how he says Japanese people can't say no and how much he hates that?
Trouble is, if Japanese people could assert themselves better and say no, they would say no to him and the likes of him first. the japanese people has the power, unlike the chinese, to actually say no and not have someone like Shintaro represent their views. but they chose not to and have done so ever since he was elected. why is that?
Because as I just said, they can't say no, they can't assert themselves and by the very core beliefs of democracy and freedom of speech they let him speak and voice his opinions.
Also you know, aside from him being a COMPLETE moron, in terms of his views on foreign policy, he is actually REALLY good at his job in regards to governing Tokyo.
IMHO he needs to STFU on foreign policy because he really does make Japan look bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
