77th Anniversary of Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Chinese Reactions

A Chinese man about to be beheaded by Imperial Japanese soldiers.

The following four microblog posts by state broadcaster CCTV and state newspaper People’s Daily about today being the 77th anniversary of the July 7 Marco Polo Bridge Incident are among the top 10 most popular posts on microblogging platform Sina Weibo (at time of translation)…

From Sina Weibo:

@央视新闻: At This Moment, Please Pay Your Respects and Mourn Them! — 77 years ago today, the #July 7 Incident# exploded, a prologue to the total invasion of China by Japan. The Japanese army once boasted that they would “destroy China in three months” In the War of Resistance Against Japan, amidst the arson, killing, rape, and plundering of the Japanese, over 35 million Chinese soldiers and civilians died, but never for a moment did Chinese people give up on resisting! At this moment, no matter where you are, let us pay our respects to and mourn the Chinese soldiers and civilians who sacrificed their lives, and forward/reshare them! Never forget our national humiliation [the humiliation of our nation]!

Comments from Sina Weibo:

晚晴客:

The difference between Chinese traitors and patriots lies in: When patriots commemorate history and the deceased, Chinese traitors instead say what use is there in posting this; when patriots resist Japanese goods, Chinese traitors instead say we should be rational in our patriotism; when patriots expose Japanese crimes, Chinese traitors instead say you are instigating hate; when patriots condemn Japan, Chinese traitors instead say you are a fenqing. The logic of Chinese traitors is that their parents were killed by Japanese people and instead of hating, he should be friendly.

找寻的小屋:

Can you first take care of the terrorists in the country [domestic China] before bringing up history, okay?! Can you first improve the quality of domestic products before boycotting Japanese products, okay?! Are you trying to start another anti-Japanese protest of beatings, rioting, and lootings?! If you want to educate the next generation to not forget history, then put it in the history textbooks, as opposed to disseminating the seeds of hate like this. Forever living in past hatreds, now that’s true cowardice!

海邃幽林:

Some people have already forgotten our national shame, treating today as if it is Valentine’s Day.

南城鸡大腿:

My grandfather was kicked [beaten] to death by the Japanese and my grandmother raised my father up alone, and never remarried.

安菲尔德的偏执狂:

The main force of the War of Resistance Against Japan has already become reactionaries [counter-revolutionaries], so how are we supposed to pay our respects to them?

From Sina Weibo:

@人民日报: July 7, a Memorial Day Not To Be Forgotten — Today is the 77th anniversary of the July 7 Incident [Marco Polo Bridge Incident]. 77 years ago today, in 1937 July 7, the sound of gunfire on the Lugou Bridge was the prologue to the War of Resistance Against Japan [Second Sino-Japanese War]. Through eight years of bloody struggle, over 35 million Chinese soldiers and civilians perished. The smoke from Lugou Bridge has already dispersed, but the blood and tears of national humiliation cannot be forgotten. Today, on the #War of Resistance Against Japan Memorial Day#, light a 蜡烛, and remember our fallen compatriots. Never forget!

Comments from Sina Weibo:

独孤求助的灰木崖:

The resistance against the Japanese at the time had nothing to do with our noble [Communist] Party~~ [挖鼻屎]

肖隆君:

Today is a memorial day for the War of Resistance Against Japan, and I have a two dreams, one big and one small; the big dream: that our homeland can be strong and its people prosperous, never to be humiliated by foreigners again; the small dream: from this day on, that Lugou Bridge no longer charge a 20 yuan scenic spot entrance fee, or that the fee be changed to one of voluntary donation, with no upper limit, to be used specifically for its daily maintenance.

0深度睡眠0:

Please restore the reputation of the Republic of China military… the War of Resistance Against the Japanese was fought by the Republic of China military forces, not [Communist] guerrilla forces.

这个姑娘有点冷_:

I detest Japanese people, will never forget our national humiliation, remember those Chinese victims, and at the same time curse the country of Japan to eventually be wiped out, to be punished by Heaven/God, that they be given more tsunamis or earthquakes, destroying Japan. [怒][怒]

袜子哪去了:

Japanese people are the most despicable and most shameless nation of people since the beginning of history that I have ever seen/met. — United States President Roosevelt.

From Sina Weibo:

@央视新闻: Support and Forward — ① China has already applied for comfort women and the Nanjing Massacre [documents] to be included in the Memory of the World Programme. ② The son of a Japanese soldier who participated in the Invasion of China War expressed that the Japanese government should construct a memorial museum for the Nanjing Massacre. ③ Hollywood German director Chris D. Nebe used a documentary to clearly explain how the Diaoyu Islands are China’s. ④ Japanese female director Tamaki Matsuoka filmed a Nanjing Massacre documentary [Torn Memories of Nanjing]: from conscience and responsibility… On today’s #July 7 Incident# memorial day, support these, and please forward this!

Comments from Sina Weibo:

阳小徐徐小阳:

If it was lifting the prohibition against Japan having a military, posting this kind of microblog post to increase Chinese people’s enmity against Japanese people [might make sense], but anti-Japanese serials are already broadcasted on TV every day. True [national] strength lies in foreign diplomacy; brainwashing people every day domestically is fucking useless.

海子y:

What was the Red Army doing at the time? Never mind the Songhu Campaign, China and Japan at the time weren’t of the same level at all. However, the Republic of China military at least fought with their lives [did everything they could to fight back], so may I ask, where was the Red Army that “triumphs in every battle”? Where was the Eighth Route Army?

景天why:

2014 July 7, the 77th anniversary of the July 7 Incident! Never forget national humiliation!

雨之魄2013:

Never forget national humiliation!!

田信宇:

Same principle, a certain government in the mainland should build a memorial museum for the Cultural Revolution!

From Sina Weibo:

@人民日报: #War of Resistance Against Japan Memorial Day# These Numbers Should Be Remembered By Every One of Our Countrymen — During Japan’s invasion of China, over half of China was trampled under by the Japanese military. Over 930 cities were occupied; over 42 million refugees became homeless; over 35 million Chinese soldiers and civilians died. Among the over 40,000 Chinese laborers forced to go to Japan, nearly 7000 died in Japan; the Japanese army plundered over 33.5 million tons of steel, 586 million tons of coal… Today, on the 77th anniversary of the start of the national War of Resistance Against Japan, review history, and never forget!

Comments from Sina Weibo:

跃层小复式:

If a certain Party wasn’t preserving its strength during the War of Resistance, would these numbers be smaller? So: WQNMLGB! [我去你妈了个逼 “fuck you, motherfuckers!”]

chenfeilong0129:

Certain keyboard warriors sure are high and noble. Someone talks about the War of Resistance Against Japan with them, and they change the subject to the three years of crop failures. Some day a conflict breaks out in the house of him and his brother and suddenly a neighbor comes to murder his father and rape his mother. As his brother calls the police and prepares to get revenge, he’ll admonish his brother for wanting to get revenge, that his brother still hasn’t paid him back the money he owes him, and that he is worse than the neighbor who killed their father and raped their mother!

laupeikam:

What’s the point of remembering these figures? What can it change? Should we instead engrave into our memories several questions: why was it that since the mid-19th century that a grand and magnificent country was unable to do anything about the threats and invasion of a small country like Japan? How much of the pressure faced today from Japan has improved? Will there be another war between China and Japan in the 21st century? If there is another war, what ability do we have to defend the country and build everlasting peace for our descendents and Asia? Only by walking away from the past can we respond to the future.

落叶_forever:

Seeing the ZF recently inciting anti-Japanese sentiments, Japanese car owners are getting cautious, as brash youths may take to the streets again.

新护士打针:

I’ve always wanted to know, how many casualties did the Communist army suffer during the War of Resistance Against Japan?

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Tamil Tiger

    Am I the one that is celebrating slaughter of these useless pigs? Hmmm, Maybe steamboat would be good.

    • Stefan

      Eff U

      • Tamil Tiger

        Yeah, time to celebrate.

    • Irvin

      You’re being a tool.

    • Guest

      You mean like how they slaughter the Tamils in Sri Lanka?

    • Feiniaozy

      How bad were you treated as subhuman by Chinese in Singapore to make a hate speech, just wondering

    • mr.wiener

      That wasn’t really coherent , but it was flamebait…don’t do that again.

      • Germandude

        That kind of shit should result into a direct ban, seriously.

        • Alex Dương

          Especially in light of his comment history. Has he ever made a single post that wasn’t flamebait?

          • Germandude

            I don’t know, I can’t check since he closed his profile. But if I don’t remember that usually suggests that someone’s posts were not worth remembering…

          • mr.wiener

            He has been warned, any further infraction will result in moderation.

    • WFH

      well…you did manage to upvote yourself 6 times…good for you.

  • bang2tang

    Hollywood German blah blah? …

  • Dannisi

    Of course these are only a small part of the comments, but I like the tone of them.

    “why was it that since the mid-19th century that a grand and magnificent country was unable to do anything about the threats and invasion of a small country like Japan?”

    That’s a thing I also wondered. China has that whole ‘losing face’ thing, but isn’t being beaten by ‘little Japan’ (as they all call it) a huge loss of face?

    • Zen my Ass

      Japan has been an isolated country for centuries and, in less than a century after their opening to foreign trade, it became the most powerful and richest nation of the entire Asia. China went down from wealthy and powerful empire to shit, and it still burns, because it doesn’t matter how rich this country is getting, it’s always a far cry if compared to Japan.

      • Irvin

        Proves that it’s easier to manage a small country than a big one. China is doing a pretty good job managing such a huge country at the moment with all things considered.

        As good as any and better than most is what I’ll say.

        • Zen my Ass

          Right, but this doesn’t change the fact that Japan’s rise to power has been impressive as well as its change of direction after the war.

          • Alex Dương

            Japan’s rise to power from 1868 to 1895 is indeed extremely impressive. It went from an isolated backwater to a regional power in less than one generation, and a mere ten years later, it defeated Imperial Russia to become a world power.

            As for the change of direction, well, that’s a bit more debatable.

          • Honibaz

            One reason for the rapid rise of Japan is that it was an archipelago protected by unpredictable weather in its surrounding waters, as displayed by the failed Mongol invasions of Japan. This meant that even after a civil war, the Japanese can rebuild quickly because foreign powers couldn’t attack them during their infighting. This is one of the reasons why the Meiji Restoration was so successful. In the case of historical China, even after unification of the country, it faced a constant threat from the northern powers (Xiongnu, Gokturks, Mongols, Jurchens, etc.), which meant that the primary focus of the imperial Chinese government was to direct military campaigns against its neighbours instead of developing the country.

        • Markus Peg

          I agree with your comment.
          Every country in the world has room for improvement. Human-beings should always strive to be and do better.

      • Don’t Believe the Hype

        China is just going through an identity crisis, otherwise its just as good as any other country (asia or otherwise)

        • firebert5

          That depends on how you define “good.” If you mean in terms of material goods and services, sure. If you mean in quality of those goods and services, then no. If you mean in having a moral foundation that generates an overall social justice for its citizens, then no and unlikely to ever happen in the near future.

        • Actually, most would say that China has already found what it wants to be: it wants to shape the world according to the so-called “China Dream”, a multipolar world but with China a first among equals. Kind of like the imperial China of old, sans the formal vassalage requirements.

          • Don’t Believe the Hype

            wait, no vassalage? that’s no fun

    • UserID01

      The thing I’m wondering about is how the anniversary of the Marco Polo Bridge incident was publicized but we got absolutely nothing on cS about the anniversary of Tienanmen Square. Was there really not enough conversation on the Internet on the anniversary to warrant an article here?

      • Ben

        I imagine that any conversation was shut down pretty fast.

      • Kai

        The CCP and its media organs has a vested interest in using propaganda to foster nationalism focused on external enemies, for purposes of solidarity or distraction, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t however have an interest in commemorating its past decision to turn the military against its own people.

        There were oblique references and allusions by some of the more daring Chinese netizens to Tiananmen on its anniversary, but no, there wasn’t a critical mass of meaningful conversation on the Chinese internet about it because it has been chilled by government censorship.

      • Alphy

        There was certainly a lot of people in Hong Kong remembering 6-4 incident. You just won’t see the same response in China, as most people were never told of that history in School or mentioned in media, as if it was erased from history.

        • firebert5

          I was talking to a coworker about it when my friend walked up and overheard. She told us that something like that could not possibly have happened here and she had never heard of it. I told her she may have been too young to know about it and to ask her parents about it (she was born mid 80s). So she went home and asked them. She came back and told us that her parents told her, “Yes, it happened, but we’re not really supposed to talk about it.” Her whole life her parents knew but she was never told.

          • Alphy

            You might not be able to change the past, but you can do something about the present. CCP’s active removal of this part of recent history must be change. There’s no reason to hide a fact unless you are in the wrong and refuse to admit to it.

      • The June 4 discussions happened on weightier news sites, like the Economist, South China Morning Post, and on Twitter. I had a good week scrolling through and replying to some of the comments too. Amazingly, many activists like Pu Fei, Hu Jia, Lin Xia, were tweeting actively throughout the HK commemoration activities, and remained free on the mainland despite the obvious presence of 50-cent snitches on Twitter.

      • Chris

        Chinasmack stopped publishing controversial stories months ago. They probably had warnings and barely escaped the blocking in Mainland China.

        • Kai

          Interesting perspective. Can you tell us what you considered to be “controversial stories” from “months ago”?

    • Alex Dương

      but isn’t being beaten by ‘little Japan’ (as they all call it) a huge loss of face?

      Of course. After the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing government could no longer deny that China was in steep decline.

      • Brian227

        The fact that the Qing royalty were Manchu gave them a bit of an opt-out, though. The pronounced anti-Manchu tinge to the various save-the-nation movements and revolutionary factions point to them being the fall guy for much more systemic problems with the Empire.

        Japanese predations throughout the Republican period and the new nation’s inability to counter them really left them with nowhere to hide from the unpleasant facts.

        • Alex Dương

          I agree that organizations like the Tongmenghui were (at least nominally) anti-Manchu, but I don’t think the KMT from 1912 to 1937 was ever under the illusion that China was strong at the time.

          • Brian227

            It’s amazing what a change of perspective can come from actually being responsible for running a country as against sitting on the touchline hurling abuse.

    • Kai

      It was a huge loss of “face”. Chinese people then and now consider it incredibly embarrassing how such a large country was fucked in the ass not only by Japan but by many other “smaller” countries. That’s why it’s called “national humiliation” and why China makes a big deal about becoming strong to avoid another ass raping.

      • HXM

        I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written here, realise it is the internet, etc., but would you be willing to reconsider the whole “fucked in the ass”/”ass raping” as humiliation phrasing?

        • Kai

          Apologies for the color. I’ve edited it to be less colorful.

          • WFH

            that was downright brown…

      • bujiebuke

        Technically it was the Qing dynasty that lost all those successive wars to pretty much every single European power, including the French. But I agree, the loss is still very raw in the minds of Chinese and much of China’s foreign and military power has been motivated by not being humiliated again.

        • Kai

          LoL, I like how you went out of your way to say “including the French”.

          Poor French people, I love you guys.

        • Chris

          LOL French bashing is so old. Historically France has the highest number of victories among every countries in the world. China on the opposite has the highest number of defeats. Now does it surprise anyone that the froggies won against the rice eaters?

          • Alex Dương

            Now does it surprise anyone that the froggies won against the rice eaters?

            It seems that you’re not familiar with how the Sino-French War ended.

          • fabulous

            It seems you are not familiar with the vagaries of historical perspective.

          • Alex Dương

            By all means, if there’s something you’d like to say about the Retreat from Lang Son, I’m happy to read it.

          • fabulous

            Then happily read this my boy.
            A French officer ordering a retreat, against the advice of his fellow officers; after the men in his charge inflict superior losses, against superior numbers, with inferior manpower under the leadership of his predecessor, may be a fairly French way to wage a war, but it is a small roost from which to crow “Chinese Victory!”
            So, while you compare the humans, ships, territory and influence lost by the combatants, with the amount of prestige afforded by this *smallcoughintoagentlyclenchedfist* victory, I’ll compare the celebrations of Muller, Klose, Kroos, Kroos, Khedira, Schurrle and Schurrle with Oscar’s celebration. Then let’s get back together and discuss historical perspective.

          • Alex Dương

            A French officer ordering a retreat, against the advice of his fellow officers; after the men in his charge inflict superior losses, against superior numbers, with inferior manpower under the leadership of his
            predecessor, may be a fairly French way to wage a war, but it is a small roost from which to crow “Chinese Victory!”

            Did you want to argue against my point or affirm it? Seriously, I think you and Wa are obsessed with “sounding smart” to the point where you don’t even read what you write anymore and realize how foolish you sound.

          • fabulous

            This is embarrassing.
            Apparently you’ve been made a Mod so that you can keep inane arguments like this going with your complete lack of comprehension skills, which helps to push up clicks and visits. France no lose war. China no “win” Long San. Your point, “China win Sino-French war”. Your point no true. Me explain your point no true.
            … Hold on a second! Of course! Is it possible that this is an elaborate ruse, and you are actually Kai pretending to be a semi-literate Sinophile?

            Either way, well played chinaSMACK; this Alex caricature is certainly holding my interest.

          • Alex Dương

            Well, that escalated quickly. I’ll explain my reasoning step-by-step, and after that, please feel free to condescend to someone else.

            I never said China won the Sino-French War; I implied that the war did not end well for France. And it didn’t. You didn’t contest that, either; in your own words, you referred to the retreat that followed what would otherwise have been a clear victory as a, quote, “fairly French way to wage a war.”

            You talk about the “vagaries of historical perspective.” It seems that you’re the one revising history here, as the French government at the time did not think, “oh, we beat them anyway, so who cares about the retreat?” The retreat destroyed Jules Ferry’s career as a politician. France’s enthusiasm for colonialism in Southeast Asia was temporarily curbed. That’s why I asked whether you were affirming my point or arguing against it.

          • Wa

            Ha ha…you even bring this up in conversations with other people. Yeah, you don’t have any insecurities, do you.

            Alex, you are someone who bases an entire argument on finding a word in a Google search absent all other evidence. Your behavior and logic has always been remarkably rudimentary, simplistic, and inane; and your emotions are febrile. If we sound foolish to you, that really doesn’t mean anything. Yours is a lower order of intelligence.

            I’m not so much worried about you being a mod, but I am concerned about you caressing guns.

          • Alex Dương

            Wa, you might want to read the conclusion of that article, as it describes the finding of another paper that is also very relevant to you: “Pennebaker and Lay
            (2002) have shown that people are more likely to use big words when they are feeling the most insecure.”

            Alex, you are someone who bases an entire argument on finding a word in a Google search absent all other evidence.

            That’s not how I remember it, but you’re welcome to disagree.

          • Wa

            And apparently you think many words are big words.

          • Alex Dương

            No. In your case, you’re guilty of both wordiness and using long words needlessly. Case in point:

            If people make a rational decision to buy the same amount of water they would use from their now non-functional taps over an extended period of
            time, the term socio-economic term “panic buying” may in fact become a misnomer as there is no panic (Boris also noted this is true in some of the cases cited in China above), there is only a logistical problem. Since both Surfeit and Boris both referenced people’s motivation and Surfeit specifically their psychology (to which you acutely objected), clearly you are arguing for *equivalence* on the basis of an obliquity and eschewing a line of inquiry that might yield meaningful comparison.

            A shorter way of saying this would be, “if people always prepared themselves for disasters, then they would never have to panic buy. I define panic buying differently than you do, and I refuse to accept your definition, therefore we cannot have a meaningful discussion.”

          • fabulous

            From your selected quote, it would appear that there was a lot more to your conversation with Wa. Even then, your abbreviated version of his text isn’t an accurate translation. You’ve not illustrated that brevity is preferable; you’ve illustrated that you read what you want to read.

          • Alex Dương

            From your selected quote, it would appear that there was a lot more to your conversation with Wa.

            Not really. It was just Wa doing everything he could to pretend that panic buying doesn’t happen in the U.K.

            Even then, your abbreviated version of his text isn’t an accurate translation. You’ve not illustrated that brevity is preferable; you’ve illustrated that you read what you want to read.

            Let’s start from the first sentence, shall we? If you disagree that it can be stated much more succinctly as, “if people always prepared themselves for disasters, then they would never have to panic buy,” then I’d love to read what you think it means in your own words.

          • Wa

            “Not really. It was just Wa doing everything he could to pretend that panic buying doesn’t happen in the U.K.”

            I swear the man has as much sentience as garlic…either that or he has become the first trolling mod. He still can’t understand the entire thread in which several people pointed out multiple times that his obsession over whether panic buying happens in the U.K. isn’t even the issue. Instead, we offered to compare the behavior of those involved while he stuck with affirming the definition absent any credible evidence of fear or panic. He was kicked around in several ways but ultimately chose to hang his hat on a definition the relevance of which he didn’t understand: an act of desperation I’ve seen from him before and have obliterated.

            “If you disagree that it can be stated much more succinctly as, “if people always prepared themselves for disasters, then they would never have to panic buy,” then I’d love to read what you think it means in your own words.”

            Not only is it insufficiently succinct, it is demonstrably inaccurate. The “extended period of time” referred specifically to an indefinite period after the taps were shut off; thus his focus on preparation is false and another indication of his clumsiness.

            A more abbreviated version might be:

            Whereof one has no evidence of fear or panic, thereof one must be silent.

            But you don’t really expect him to understand that, do you?

          • Wa

            Obviously what you wrote doesn’t come close to the content of my statement or the references I made to other people’s comments. It has nothing to do with their preparation. I did give you the opportunity to address their behavior, however, which you refused so you could focus on only a definition. You remain, as ever, an inept reader who can’t even cite things properly to support an argument. Stick to Google and analogies.

          • fabulous

            I’ve heard this before from you Kai.
            FYI, not everybody is impressed by a university degree.
            Is it also possible that someone who is impressed by a reasonably high degree of formal education, will be prone to have impressions of lower intelligence when talking to other people? Is it also possible that brevity has its place when a point is made briefly; as opposed to briefly repeating a single, unexplained position? Is it also possible that, “not everyone appreciates my love for minimalist design” is a terribly hipster and self-serving attitude toward life in general and conversation in particular?

            Before I unpack what I wrote, let me first answer your Year 5 English comprehension question; I am arguing against the point that China won the Sino-French war. Although the replacement officer ordered a retreat against better counsel, in the face of no opposition, the French had won that battle against superior numbers. So, the French while living up to their reputation for retreat and surrender, still killed more of the enemy than they had lost themselves. While the word retreat is quite a loaded term, if that’s what you are “crow”ing about, then maybe you should reconsider. At the completion of hostilities, China had gained nothing but rather lost to France, all that the French had come.

            If you want to crow about Chinese military might, you could point to the Beijing Offensive, in which the Chinese goal for complete subjugation of 1.3 billion people was only momentarily held back by a man with shopping bags.

          • Alex Dương

            You might have heard it from Kai, but I’m not Kai. And I never said you should be impressed if someone has a university degree; I only said that at least for those who have a reasonably high degree of formal education, trying to “sound smart” can backfire. Badly.

            Feel free to argue that the Chinese did not win the Sino-French War. I never said they won. I merely pointed out that the war did not end well for the French. It’s more than just the unnecessary surrender from Lang Son. As I said later, Jules Ferry’s career as a politician was over, and France’s colonial enthusiasm was temporarily curbed. And whereas China had to pay indemnities for losing the Opium Wars, the manner in which the Sino-French War ended meant that the French were unable to force the Chinese to pay indemnities.

            You are arguing a position that I did not make, and your word choices have repeatedly affirmed the position I did make. As you yourself said, quote, the French lived “up to their reputation for retreat and surrender.” Your words, not mine.

          • fabulous

            I see that you are trying the longstanding Kai backout, “We just have a difference of opinion. People interpret language differently.”
            Maybe. Maybe you aren’t aware of what you’ve said.

            Chris said:
            “Now does it surprise anyone that the froggies won against the rice eaters?”
            And you said:
            “It seems that you’re not familiar with how the Sino-French War ended.”
            (This means that you think they won against the French. Another way of saying that is that, yes, you think they won.)
            After WW2 political careers ended, attitudes changed and people get stiffed out of territory; but sure as shootin’, we won that war. Which is why I say, don’t reach for straws when China has an unmatched military history.

            Everyone knows the French retreat and surrender, but if they get to kill a bunch of your people and steal your land and sink your shiny boats, and all you did was not have to pay indemnities… How do you not get this?

            And to be honest, unless you wrote the wikipedia article on which you are basing your particular historical skew, I’m struggling to see where you “said later” anything about Jules Ferry, colonial enthusiasm or the Opium War.

          • Alex Dương

            This means that you think they won against the French. Another way of saying that is that, yes, you think they won.

            Does it now? Who won the War of 1812? How about the Korean War? In the case of the Sino-French War, the Chinese didn’t win because they lost suzerainty over Vietnam. The French gained suzerainty over Vietnam, but they couldn’t force an indemnity, and as I mentioned, their then Prime Minister was forced to step down. Hardly seems like a “no surprise” victory to me.

            After WW2 political careers ended, attitudes changed and people get stiffed out of territory; but sure as shootin’, we won that war.

            Truman’s political career did not end after WWII; he won reelection in 1948. Churchill’s party lost in 1945, but his career was not over the way Ferry’s was after the Sino-French War; Churchill returned to the premiership six years later. Stalin remained General Secretary for another seven years after 1945. Chiang lost mainland China in 1949 but remained in power in Taiwan until his death. Your statement is accurate only in the literal sense that all of these politicians eventually died after WWII, and thus their political careers ended with them.

            And to be honest, unless you wrote the wikipedia article on which you are basing your particular historical skew, I’m struggling to see where you “said later” anything about Jules Ferry, colonial enthusiasm or the Opium War.

            Did you miss this comment? I’d like to point out that you’ve actually trashed the French much more than I have. You’ve now characterized them as being prone to retreat and surrender three times.

          • fabulous

            Yes, I did miss your comment. Not that it diverted much from your existing line which appears to be, “War is won or lost in many different ways. One of these ways means that my initial comment and subsequent clumsy arguments is also true”.

            Are you suggesting that French people would feel that their reputation has been trashed by my comments? I would hazard a guess that I’m not the first person to make note of their reputation; Chris’ initial comment was a direct reaction to this. I would also hazard a guess to say that France winning that little war goes a little way to repudiating that stereotype. Now, I agree with you that French colonialism lost from that war. And Jules Ferry! Oh, Jules Ferry lost that war for sure. And Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Gustave Herbinger lost the byjingoes out of that war!
            But France and the French people won the war.

            Also, if you feel that my statement is accurate in the literal sense, take it literally.

            Also, South Korea won the Korean War because they don’t live in North Korea and Canada won the War of 1812 because they burnt the White House, and because they don’t live in the US.

          • Alex Dương

            Are you suggesting that French people would feel that their reputation has been trashed by my comments?

            No. I’m pointing out that for someone who is trying to defend France, you sure like to refer to a stereotype that Chris argued against. On this note…

            I would also hazard a guess to say that France winning that little war goes a little way to repudiating that stereotype.

            …you might have had a better case had you not felt compelled to bring up that stereotype no less than three times and more than that, to admit that the retreat from Lang Son is completely consistent with it.

            Also, if you feel that my statement is accurate in the literal sense, take it literally.

            In that case, your comparison is very poor. You know perfectly well that the political careers of Truman, Churchill, Stalin, and Chiang didn’t end after WWII the way Ferry’s did after the Sino-French War.

            Also, South Korea won the Korean War because they don’t live in North Korea and Canada won the War of 1812 because they burnt the White
            House, and because they don’t live in the US.

            Your bar for winning is set so low for these two wars that both sides in both wars could pass the threshold. What a surprise.

          • fabulous

            Am I defending France? Well Vive la France! In case it matters, I’m not actually defending France. I was defending this discussion board from your pompous, wikipedia-fueled assertion that China got a better deal than France at the end of the Sino-French War. I understand that is neither word-for-word-precisely what you said or what you are now arguing, but the fact that you are now arguing my comments line for line instead of arguing against my initial position points to your capitulation. Vive la fabulous!

            If you feel France retreating to a win doesn’t help their reputation, I’ll buy that.

            If you say my comparison is very poor, but I still win, I’ll take that. We can’t all win like Germany. Some of us take our wins like Argentina. Regardless, if you’d rather get hung up on such a minor aspect of what I wrote rather than go down 7-1, I won’t begrudge you.

            But, the wars issue… I don’t know what bars look like where you are from, but if one side of a bar is North Korea and the other side is Kia driving, Samsung swiping, melodramadic movie making South Korea… Pick better arguments to make Alex.

          • Alex Dương

            I understand that is neither word-for-word-precisely what you said or what you are now arguing…

            In other words, despite your protestations to Kai, you are acknowledging that you’ve straw manned me.

            If you say my comparison is very poor, but I still win, I’ll take that.

            Well, if being diplomatic doesn’t get my point across, let’s try bluntness: your comparison is wrong. Jules Ferry’s political career ended with the Sino-French War, and he left office in disgrace. That was not true for WWII and Truman, Churchill, Stalin, or Chiang.

            But, the wars issue… I don’t know what bars look like where you are from, but if one side of a bar is North Korea and the other side is Kia driving, Samsung swiping, melodramadic movie making South Korea… Pick better arguments to make Alex.

            Your bar for victory was maintaining independence; you claimed that South Korea won because it isn’t North Korea. That would suggest that the U.N. forces sought only to expel the DPRK from the ROK and to maintain status quo antebellum. That was not true, and you know that was not true, which is why you had to claim that South Korea won because it isn’t North Korea.

            Similarly, you claimed Canada won the War of 1812 because it maintained its independence from the United States and because the British burned down the White House. Your view throughout this discussion has been that wars must have winners and losers, and parties on the opposite side of the winners are the losers. Well, did the U.S. lose its independence after the War of 1812? No. Therefore, by your own bar, the U.S. “won” the War of 1812, and you’ve contradicted yourself.

          • Kai

            Ugh, I am too verbose. *weep*

          • bujiebuke

            “Historically France has the highest number of victories among every countries in the world.”

            LOL. OK if that true then great, but lets see your “stats”.

          • There you go my dear. I’d take the French Foreign Legion to protect me anytime instead of the “mighty” Marines…

            http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp

          • Dr Sun

            I counted 7 solo French minor battle victories since 1814, hardly impressive.
            Interesting to note, not 1 single victory listed from their 8 year solo war in Vietnam.

          • Brian227

            China’s also if not unique then certainly highly unusual in having vastly more civil wars than external ones. They’ve historically preferred diplomacy of varying degrees of hardball to warfare. War’s far too uncertain.

          • Insomnicide

            “China on the opposite has the highest number of defeats. ”

            Which is why China still exists as a nation today? Regardless of victories or losses, mocking China for being a subject of European colonialism is simply uncouth.

          • James Clark

            France has the highest number of victories? really? Where is this statistic coming from? I’m willing to admit I’ve never thought about it and actually have no idea, so I’d be interested to know. However even if true, it’s pretty irrelevant to……..well, anything really. Most successful country in the history of war? My vote goes to Switzerland.

        • Brian227

          For all that they were a pretty lousy bunch towards the ends, I think the Manchus get a bit too much bad press for this. It’s a far more accurate picture to say that the Qing Dynasty lost all those simultaneous and overlapping wars to every single European power, including the French, the Taiping, the Nian, various Western Islamic groups, and southern fringe minorities at the same time as experiencing widespread flooding and earthquake, famine, bankruptcy, the breakdown in capability of the official class under the explosion of population, the rise of a provincial gentry with their own centrifugal agendas and a crisis of belief in the own Manchu identity amongst their rank and file kinsmen.

          There’s only so many crises one ruling house can be expected to deal with at time. In many respects, they did a creditable job under the circumstances.

          • Alex Dương

            I disagree with some of the wars you mentioned, especially the Taiping Rebellion. The Qing Dynasty weakened as a result of the rebellion, but in the end, it managed to put it down with the (ironic) help of the British and the French. Ito Hirobumi remarked that in his opinion, the British made a huge mistake in siding with the Qing, as they disrupted the “natural course” of events in China whereby a weakening dynasty that ostensibly loses the mandate of Heaven is replaced by a new dynasty. For the next half century after the Taiping Rebellion was crushed, the Qing did not do anything to suggest that they deserved to stay in power.

          • Brian227

            Given Hirobumi’s enthusiasm for pan-Asianism, he’s not likely to have said anything else. Personally, while I think the dynasty had exhausted its vitality and ability to command loyalty by the end of the Taiping revolt, it’s a matter of opinion whether they did nothing to suggest they deserved to stay in power.

            The beginnings of industrialisation (Elman’s ‘A Cultural History of Modern Science in China’ is an excellent source), reforms to Imperial finances, streamlining government toward one fitted for a nation rather than an Empire, reforming and then abolishing the Imperial exams as selection criteria for officials (although I’m not of the opinion that was an absolute success), the beginning of a constitutional monarchy. Their efforts to revitalise the Empire ironically did as much to kindle the spark of patriotism that got them chucked out as any other factor.

            It was definitely ‘too late’ but I’m not totally convinced it deserves the ‘too little’ bit.

          • bujiebuke

            They did perform an admirable job in adopting new weaponry and technology towards the end, but failed to address the root of the problem: corruption.

    • Edward Kay

      Exactly. If they all pissed from Shanghai beach it’ll flood Japan. The Chinese proverb “the humans are the Chinese, the devils are the Chinese too”. They lost because of traitors, inability and foolish pride.

  • madfor3

    War always brings a lot of horrible things and that’s sad. However it’s quite a paradox that nowadays many people in China don’t give a shit about their own race and especially don’t give a shit about how the unhealthy environment is killing their “beloved” motherland. But when it comes to these “China-Japan” topics, everyone becomes so patriotic. If Chinese people would put the same effort with which they hate Japan also to improve their own society, they could probably stand up a bit higher than Japan… just my 2 cents.

    • Alex Dương

      But when it comes to these “China-Japan” topics, everyone becomes so patriotic.

      Seems like several of the featured comments were critical, either directly or indirectly, of the CCP, and others expressed sentiments of moving forward.

  • Markus Peg

    The past should not be forgotten but the feeling of retribution that is being spread around is not improving the situation. Japan then and Japan now are very different just as China then and China now is very different.

    They can hate the historic actions but modern day Japan and Japanese people should be forgiven for their grandparents actions. Government issues arrise from time to time, but, why should that inspire hatred between the citizens of the two nations…

    Sadly nothing will change anytime soon. Try to reply to hate with kindness (and that goes to everyone regardless of nationality).

    • Kai

      Ignorance is frightening, especially for how easily it is exploited, and there’s a LOT of ignorance in China. The Chinese internet is often a depressing reminder of it, though it also where there are so many signs of things improving.

      • Chris

        Nothing is improving, people have always been more straightforward and harsh on the internet than IRL thanks to anonymity, people directly criticize the CCP on internet, people ask for changes (at every levels) on the internet, for a better China, but back to reality they put on their costume and go to their boring office job, then are too tired on the weekend to do anything else than ranting and trolling on the internet.

        • Kai

          Very true for a lot of people, even the vast majority of people, but I think change starts somewhere and the internet is one such place for China.

  • hess

    “Can you first take care of the terrorists in the country [domestic China] before bringing up history, okay?! Can you first improve the quality of domestic products before boycotting Japanese products, okay?! Are you trying to start another anti-Japanese protest of beatings, rioting, and lootings?! If you want to educate the next generation to not forget history, then put it in the history textbooks, as opposed to disseminating the seeds of hate like this. Forever living in past hatreds, now that’s true cowardice!” Amen

    • mr.wiener

      True, so many keyboard warriors baying for blood, yet not all are so blind.

  • Jap no good but Chinee commie kill more Chinee.

    • David

      ummm succinct if not articulate. Well put.

  • Rick in China

    In relation to the first translated comment – it seems that the ‘traitors’ represent modern Jesus…

  • Ruaraidh

    Why not forget national humiliation though? Why rage over something you can’t change, unless the aim is to forget about things which you could change but that the CPC doesn’t want you to…

    • KamikaziPilot

      What also contributes to this thinking is that it’s human nature to place heavier blame on outside forces rather than “your people”. It’s always easier to make a scapegoat out of someone different than yourself. Kind of how like in a lot of places domestic violence is supposed to be kept a secret from the outsiders. Anyways whenever stories like these come up the comments are predictable as ever.

      • Kai

        Are they? I can easily think of groups of people who would find these comments different from what they expected.

        • KamikaziPilot

          I’m talking about both the Chinese netizen and CSmack comments. The Chinese comments fall into 2 basic categories 1) those hating Japan unconditionally and 2) those questioning the CCP and their continuing “propaganda” against Japan. The second group realizes that the current government is using Japan as a scapegoat to cover up their own deficiencies, for the most part. Now if you want to say that the more rational voices (2nd group) are increasing in numbers then you may have a point. What I don’t know is how representative the Chinese comments presented on CSmack are of the entire Chinese population.

          Regarding the CSmack comments, most are along the lines of “the Chinese government has killed more than the Japanese ever did” or “why are you bitching about the Japanese when you should be more concerned about your own government” or “never forget the past but don’t dwell on it, look to the future”. I know it’s a terrible generalization but doesn’t that about sum it up? These stories just keep coming up every so often and to me it seems the comments are the same.

          • Kai

            I thought you were referring to the translated Chinese netizen comments. With regards to cS Comments, yeah, I would consider what I see so far to be fairly predictable.

      • Chris

        You mean like Chinese won’t blame the CCP for killing 10 times as many Chinese as the Japs did?

    • Murasaki

      Because the anti-Japanese sentiment helps maintain the Communist government’s legitimacy. That and also the continuous delivery of prosperity.

      • FlyingTiger

        Its no different than Kim Jong Il/Un constantly harping on about the evil American oppressors during the Korean War. Its juvenile.

    • Kai

      They don’t forget it for the same reason Americans (for example) don’t forget the displacement of Native American or the enslavement of Africans. You remember it so you can change what allowed it to happen in the past.

      The problem is when it becomes exploited to foster nationalism or to distract from other legitimate issues.

      • firebert5

        The difference then is how they are addressed.

      • FlyingTiger

        The Japanese remember the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki every year. But it is always addressed as a solemn call for world peace and abolishment of weapons of mass destruction by Japanese and Americans alike. I have never seen it as an opportunity to attack the U.S. or call for vengeance.

        When the U.S. remembers Pearl Harbor, it does not degrade into a condemnation “japs” and blaming current Japan for the deaths. It too is a solemn call for peace shared by Americans and Japanese a like.

        This is how modern First World nations remembers WWII.

        • Kai

          I don’t think your comparisons are fair. The Japanese approach the bombing of HIroshima and Nagasaki from the perspective of victims but with the understanding that they were the aggressors in the war and more or less brought the American’s wrath upon themselves.

          The US approaches Pearl Harbor as victims but with the understanding that they ultimately triumped as victors, decisive victors with the might of two atomic bombs. Victors generally have the humility to not rub it in, and even then, probably too many Americans still make some tasteless jokes about Pearl Harbor when they beat Japan in international sports.

          The Chinese just see themselves as victims. They don’t have the benefit and self-assuredness of being the world’s dominant super power (USA) or even a developed, modern first world nation that is an economic power in both absolute and per capita terms (Japan). Instead, it is a developing nation with a huge population of poorly educated and impoverished peasantry, a glorified past to comfort themselves, and only a promising but still uncertain future to look forward to. It is keenly aware of its shortcomings and current inferiority.

          So it clutches to whatever it can for pride, for a sense of self-value. It clutches to resentments because it is easier to blame others than to blame yourself.

          Korean nationalism and anti-Japanese sentiment draws from the same roots and motivations. The Chinese arguably have it worse because they “fell” from a loftier position of historical prominence. So much of how Korea has picked itself up and climbed its way to the first world has been systematically built upon a government policy of fostering nationalism in its population. So much of how the US geared up for WW2 to help kick ass in both theatres was built off nationalism. So much of how Japan industrialized and modernized to become a imperialist power was built off nationalism.

          It is easy to call for peace and be “solemn” when you’ve “made it” to the “First World” often on the backs of others. It’s easy to preach about militarism when you’ve been forcibly neutered but otherwise have a patron saint in the form of the world’s dominant superpower. Just as it is easy to preach about pollution after you’ve industrialized. The “First World” largely remembers WW2 from a position of advantage that has allowed it to “move on”, while China remembers it from a situation where it is still feeling its effects.

          Nationalism is really distasteful and inherently dangerous, and to be insensitive of how and–more importantly–WHY the Chinese tend to feel certain things is either ignorant or arrogant. This whole “this is how the modern first world” this or that self-righteousness is used on the MIddle East and Muslims as well, feeding into radical JIhadism.

          Self-righteously passing yourself off as superior either in terms of development or some vague sense of enlightenment is NOT the way to defuse Chinese nationalism and anti-Japanese sentiment.

    • Insomnicide

      Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

      • Boris

        History repeats itself often.

        • David

          That is because it is still made up of people.

  • x1sfg

    All our problems are due to the Japanese. Nothing to see here folks, please blame Japan while we distract you from real issues plaguing the country. Burn some Toyotas and stage some xiao riben protests while we take your money to send our kids to other countries, including Japan so they can get an actual education.

    – the CCP

  • Sean Van Cura

    Unless you lived under Japanese occupation or through the era, you have no right to despise the Japanese in any fashion. And even so, Imperial Japan hasnt existed for 70 years. Who do these young Chinese think they are blaming modern Japan when they allow their own government commit human rights violations to this day? Hate the Japanese? You are utterly children.

    • Teacher in China

      Yeah I’m getting pretty tired of hearing that myself. Whenever someone up here talks about hating all Japanese, the first thing I ask is “Do you know any Japanese people? Have you ever met a Japanese person?” The answer is inevitably “No”. From there, I just try to explain that there’s a difference between the government and the people, and that most Japanese people are just like Chinese / Canadian / Russian / Country X people – they just want to be happy and raise a family and have a good job. Don’t really care if they actually change their thinking or not, I just can’t stand saying nothing anymore.

    • WFH

      but why do the Jew have the right to hate the Nazis into eternity? It’s a hatred that is encouraged and celebrated by others as well….

      • lonetrey / Dan

        I feel like that’s different, because the Nazi Party from back then no longer exists as well as the fact that they are universally agreed to be evil. (I’m talking about the historical Nazis, not including today’s Neo-Nazis and etc.)

        On the other hand, this article and the translated Chinese netizens’ comments places blame on historical Japanese soldiers/military AND modern day Japanese people. I don’t think people would have a problem hating the historical Japanese military if China made a distinction.

        For example, how angry would you think people would get if China sudden decides to extend EVERY courtesy they have to modern day Japanese government while shaming their historical military body but acknowledging that they are not the same thing?

        I would think less people would be offended.

        • Kai

          A lot of Chinese people who still harbor resentment against “modern” Japanese people do so because they feel a lot of modern Japanese people are not nearly as contrite as a whole about WW2 as the Germans seem to be. Part of it is an issue of proximity (that Japan was the main villain that they were subjected to vs. Europeans), but part of it is how vocal Japanese right-wingnuts are. There’s a general sense that Nazi apologists are far more marginalized in Germany than Japanese right-wingnuts are in Japan. This makes a lot of Chinese skeptical about the level of contrition and remorse present in the general Japanese population, especially when right-wingnuts are getting re-elected.

          A lot of anti-Japanese sentiments from a lot of Chinese people are indeed just ignorant irrational bigotry, fostered and maintained by negative pseudo-historical propaganda. But there’s a lot of very understandable resentment and skepticism as well.

          • Alex Dương

            A lot of Chinese people who still harbor resentment against “modern” Japanese people do so because they feel a lot of modern Japanese people are not nearly as contrite as a whole about WW2 as the Germans seem to
            be.

            Do you think if the Showa Emperor had been “allowed” to apologize to MacArthur, attitudes would be different?

          • Kai

            Attitudes in China/Korea or in Japan? I lean towards wondeirng how that might have trickled down and influenced attitudes in Japan over time, and then how those attitudes influence how much of an excuse it gives Chinese people to continue resenting the Japanese. Too hard to say.

        • WFH

          again goes back to the fact that the LEADER of Japn has made no secret of his admiration for the historical Japanese military….at that point, it’s pretty easy to relate the past to the current together don’tu think?

          • firebert5

            Considering the current differences between Germany’s Merkel and Japan’s Abe in their attitudes toward World War II atrocities, that’s probably a valid point.

          • FlyingTiger

            When has Prime Minister Abe expressed his admiration for the Imperial Japanese Army WWII era?

      • Germandude

        Well,

        but why do the Jew have the right to hate the Nazis into eternity?

        because they have every right to do so! And they should never forget about that past. It only gets very very very very tasteless if they address Germans with “You did…” or “You are responsible…”.

        The guilty generation is soon completely gone and with exception of a very little percentage of deniers and/or sympathizers (read Neo-Nazis), every German has learned about history. Every German knows that he is responsible to an extent not to what has happened, but to not let sth like that ever happen again.

        • David

          True, and Jews don’t hate the German people, they hate what happened at the hands of the Nazis. Nobody thinks China should FORGET what happened, but the CCP uses that history to deflect from what they are doing TODAY. This is what many outsiders see and dislike seeing the Chinese people used and fooled AGAIN. By their own people AGAIN.

    • Kai

      People, including Chinese people, can hold two thoughts in their head at once. Americans can allow their government Guantanamo while still criticizing China for its human rights violations.

      Irrational hate and generalizing the innocent into the guilty is wrong. A lot of Chinese are guilty of this. However, it would be as wrong to ignore the fact that there are indeed modern Japanese people who are “guilty” of giving many Chinese excuses to continue resenting them.

      • firebert5

        To be fair, most Americans thought they were closing Guantanamo by electing President Obama. So, maybe one American and his cabinet can hold those two thoughts at once?

        • Kai

          To be fair, Americans (and pretty much any generalized group) have no lack of things that might suggest cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy, which was what I was trying to discourage Sean from getting too invested in.

          • David

            I agree with the point you are making about having two (or more) thoughts and feeling about something. Not only is it possible but often necessary as a survival instinct to remain sane.

            However, I disagree with your example (what a surprise huh?). Comparing the human rights violatons of the CCP on millions of people (and I mean right now, not in the past) with an American prison built to hold terrorists captured on the battlefield trying to kill Americans is not logical.

          • Kai

            I, like many people, use Americans for examples illustrating points because American examples tend to be the most visible and well-known around the world. It’s better to use examples that have a higher chance of others recognizing than more obscure examples. I hope you don’t think I’m biased against the US and picking on it unfairly. Examples and analogies are only as useful as they are recognizable.

            I wasn’t comparing the human rights abuses, I was comparing the seeming cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy invoked. Don’t disagree with my example, because doing so would be straw-manning me.

          • David

            No, I did not think that at all. You do not seem to me to be biased against the U.S. I actually agreed with the point you were making, just think a better example would probably be the civil rights movement. Those involved certainly were still able to live a life and, if they wanted, avoid trouble with the government and those in power (after all their ancestors did it for 100 years) they could have but they were unhappy with their lack of opportunity and the cultural fairness compared to what others were able to do. It is not a perfect comparison but IMO it is better than Guantanamo Bay, which is not suppose to be a nice place for free citizens but a prison.

            Not to open up this can of worms, President Obama and the Democratic party in general were very critical of President Bush on the matter of GB He vowed to close it in his first year in office. He has been president for almost seven years and GB is still open, which should make people at least think it might be necessary for now (instead of thinking President Obama, who I am not a fan of and never defend, is being incompetent).

            Hmmm I am re-reading your comment before I post this. I have have misunderstood you. I was speaking of internal disobedience (as I thought you were) but now it seems to me you may have been speaking about the trouble it causes on an international front.

    • Insomnicide

      Modern Japanese people and their government still look down and discriminate against Chinese people. In fact, racism against Chinese and Koreans among Japanese people is more extreme than racism against other types of foreigners. Sure, they’re not genociding Chinese civilians anymore. But their attitudes still haven’t changed. There’s still a large following in Japan where they believe Chinese people are somehow inherently inferior and evil.

      • FlyingTiger

        All conjecture. Perhaps there are SOME of the people you describe, but not the majority.

      • FlyingTiger

        And FWIW, how can you reconcile your whole Japanese “racism against Chinese” theory when Japan’s attitude towards, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, ethnic Chinese emigrants is markedly different than its attitude toward China?

      • Riiiiight, coz’ some Chinese don’t look down on “foreign devils” at all.

  • fuck japanese imperialists

    • Blue

      Also Chinese imperialists.

      • ninxay

        Fuck imperialists of whatever colour or nationality.

    • David

      You know a lot of Japanese Imperialists do you? I think Japan stopped being an Empire about the time your grandparents were born. They can call their hereditary leader an emperor but his Empire are the four main islands of Japan and a few Chinese fishing boats who get too nervy.

    • I had the illusion that I was going to read interesting comments…and then you came.

      • Wa

        Waaaar-waaree-wareee-weeeerrrnnnn…

        IIII’ve been really tryyyyyinnngg baaaby
        tryying to hoold back this feeling for sooooo loong…

      • Read the others

        • Mighty曹

          LOOL

  • Mighty曹

    Nothing infuriates me more than Japanese atrocities during the war and even more enraging when the present day government downplays it in the history books.

    • Wa

      Which history books? The less than 1% of Japanese history books the PRC has a problem with?

      • Mighty曹

        Where did you get that figure?

        • Wa

          “The book, “The New History Textbook,” by the conservative Fusosha Publishing Co., was turned down by at least 532 of the 542 municipal school districts in Japan, according to unofficial results released by national broadcaster NHK.”

          http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/16/news/mn-34817

          “Currently,the notorious textbook has been adopted only in Ehime Prefecture, Otawara, Tochigi Prefecture and Tokyo’s Suginami Ward. Most of Japanese junior high schools have refused to use it.

          According to the major Japanese daily Mainichi Shimbun, of all 11,035 state and private junior high schools across Japan, only 48 adopted the Fusosha textbook, merely 0.4 percent of the total and far less than the publisher’s target of 10 percent.”

          http://english.people.com.cn/200509/01/eng20050901_205637.html

          “Most textbooks in Japanese schools condemn the country’s militarism and portray the period of Japanese aggression as a terrible error. Furthermore, the rose-tinted patriotism of the Japanese textbook that sparked large-scale Chinese protests last April called the Fusosha text after its publisheris rare among Japanese textbooks. The book was adopted by only 18 of more than 11,000 Japanese junior high schools, and it has been denounced by Japanese liberals and the country’s leading teachers union.”

          https://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2005/07/31/think_again_japanese_textbooks

          • Mighty曹

            You are specifically talking about one book, The New History Textbook, that was widely criticized. I was not talking about a ‘single’ book. What about the ones that were approved by The Ministry of Education? Those are the ones being used in school that downplay the Imperial Army’s atrocities. Here’s a more recent (2013) BBC News article by a Japanese journalist that provides some insight as to what an average student learns or knows. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21226068

            Those who upvoted the preceding need to understand the difference between one book versus the ones that are being used. @Kai and @Germandude, I’m very disappointed in you.

          • Mighty曹

            @kaipan:disqus and @disqus_qpFQtxPJyF:disqus

          • Wa

            So which history books are you talking about? I don’t think you know, but in response to your post I encourage you to read the third link I provided above. The book I referenced is the one the PRC decided to protest, i.e. the most severe (milquetoast for all of that). Apart from that, if you still want to be furious, be furious.

          • Mighty曹

            That link is nothing more than ‘what about’ comparisons as justifications, which fall short. Exaggerating a country’s accomplishment or comparing to what the Americans did to the native Indians is nothing like ‘hiding’ the dark history if crimes committed against another country on its soil.
            REPEAT: I know exactly what book you referred to and I said it’s not about one single book. Give me something else to back your claim.

          • Wa

            The link really is more than that. It cites an historical shift that occurred and points out the error of believing the Japanese government now shapes the content of history textbooks:

            “The Japanese Government Manipulates Textbook Content to Boost Nationalism
            Not Anymore. The Japanese government once played a major role in shaping textbook content, but it stopped doing so in response to criticism at home and abroad. For many years, liberal Japanese authors protested that conservative bureaucrats were censoring their descriptions of war and atrocities. In the late 1990s, after a series of lawsuits, as well as disputes with South Korea and China during the 1980s, Tokyo decided to stop interfering with textbook content. Education ministry officials now check books only for accuracy, and they allow factually correct books to compete for selection by school districts. Japanese government officials defend this policy as the best solution. They say that rather than have Tokyo decide which events should be included in textbooks, the government will encourage the free dissemination and debate of ideas and let the market decide which ones are sound.”

            “REPEAT: I know exactly what book you referred to and I said it’s not about one single book. Give me something else to back your claim.”

            So you say. You stated how enraging it is that the present day government downplays its atrocities in its history books. I asked which history books? Then you gave a link which showed one person’s experience with an unidentified text 20 years ago. Again I ask: which history books? Face facts: you have no idea.

          • Mighty曹

            All books (I have no name/title for each). References made on the atrocities being downplayed is confirmed by that article, which you completely misunderstood. It’s an article in 2013 by a Japanese correspondent for BBC Tokyo. She asked a ‘twenty year old’ student and her sister what they knew about Japan’s history in WW2. The photo of her textbook confirms that the “Nanjing Massacre” was just a mere footnote. What else do you need to validate such claims?

            This article also highlights former history teacher and scholar Tamaki Matsuoka’s view, who “thinks the government deliberately tries not to teach young people the details of Japan’s atrocities.”

            “Today there are 30 unique textbooks for Social Studies (社会, Shakai?), from 5 different publishers, in Japanese primary schools. Additionally, there are 8 unique textbooks for the study of history as part of the Japanese Social Studies curriculum (社会-歴史的分野, Shakai-Rekishi teki bunya?), from 8 different publishers, for junior high schools. In Japanese high schools, the number of available options is much greater, with 50 unique textbook editions available for teaching Japanese, and world history.” – (Wiki)

            “by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II…” – (Wiki)

            “Tokushi Kasahara identifies three time periods in postwar Japan during which he asserts the Japanese government has “waged critical challenges to history textbooks in attempts to tone down or delete descriptions of Japan’s wartime aggression, especially atrocities such as the Nanking Massacre.” The first challenge occurred in 1955, and the second took place in the early 1980s. The third began in 1997 and continues unresolved to this day.” – (Wiki)

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies

          • Wa

            “All books (I have no name/title for each).”

            You don’t really think this will work, do you? You know of no specific textbooks, so you decide to claim all books? That doesn’t sound a bit deranged to you? A bit of an overstatement or demonization?

            “References made on the atrocities being downplayed is confirmed by that article, which you completely misunderstood. It’s an article in 2013 by a Japanese correspondent for BBC Tokyo. She asked a ‘twenty year old’ student and her sister what they knew about Japan’s history in WW2. The photo of her textbook confirms that the “Nanjing Massacre” was just a mere footnote. What else do you need to validate such claims?”

            Sorry, it’s you who appear to have misunderstood. The BBC Tokyo correspondent was primarily writing on her personal experiences. The photo was of her own textbook from 20 years ago, which we know by the caption indicating the author’s name and a paragraph repeating the exact same point, not of a more recent textbook. Thus, we will need more than “She asked a ‘twenty year old student and her sister what they knew about Japan’s history in WW2” to validate the claims that *all books approved by the “present day government” downplay japanese atrocities.*

            “This article also highlights former history teacher and scholar Tamaki Matsuoka’s view, who “thinks the government deliberately tries not to teach young people the details of Japan’s atrocities.”

            Good. Not much evidence offered, though. And no specific textbooks mentioned. The article also highlights Nobukatsu Fujioka, who points out:

            “The Japanese textbook authorisation system has the so-called “neighbouring country clause” which means that textbooks have to show understanding in their treatment of historical events involving neighbouring Asian countries. It is just ridiculous.”

            He certainly sounds like an ass, but he does acknowledge (and is indeed frustrated by) an important fact about the Japanese educational system which you refuse to see.

            “Today there are 30 unique textbooks for Social Studies (社会, Shakai?), from 5 different publishers, in Japanese primary schools. Additionally, there are 8 unique textbooks for the study of history as part of the Japanese Social Studies curriculum (社会-歴史的分野, Shakai-Rekishi teki bunya?), from 8 different publishers, for junior high schools. In Japanese high schools, the number of available options is much greater, with 50 unique textbook editions available for teaching Japanese, and world history.” – (Wiki)

            “by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II…” – (Wiki)

            I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with this other than supporting the information in the third link I addressed to you above. The rest states nothing.

            “Tokushi Kasahara identifies three time periods in postwar Japan during which he asserts the Japanese government has “waged critical challenges to history textbooks in attempts to tone down or delete descriptions of Japan’s wartime aggression, especially atrocities such as the Nanking Massacre.” The first challenge occurred in 1955, and the second took place in the early 1980s. The third began in 1997 and continues unresolved to this day.” – (Wiki)

            Dude, not just Wiki quotes…but uncontextualized and uninterpreted Wiki quotes. Come on.

          • Mighty曹

            By “All books” I meant what was stated in the wiki link. The entire link was provided should you care to read the entire page.
            I provided the excerpts for reading convenience that, in summary, says: Most common Japanese schoolbooks ‘contained references’; About 88 books are available from primary thru high schools; Govt’s attempts to tone down or delete descriptions of wartime aggression continues today.
            If you’re so insistent on ‘naming books’ how about you identify the books, or even just one, that actually teaches about Japan’s involvement in war crimes? Go ahead.

          • Wa

            “By “All books” I meant what was stated in the wiki link. The entire link was provided should you care to read the entire page.”

            Yeah, I don’t think that’s what you meant. You cited this passage:

            “Today there are 30 unique textbooks for Social Studies (社会, Shakai?), from 5 different publishers, in Japanese primary schools. Additionally, there are 8 unique textbooks for the study of history as part of the Japanese Social Studies curriculum (社会-歴史的分野, Shakai-Rekishi teki bunya?), from 8 different publishers, for junior high schools. In Japanese high schools, the number of available options is much greater, with 50 unique textbook editions available for teaching Japanese, and world history.”

            Which literally means all textbooks for those fields. Honestly, I don’t think you have any idea what your citations mean.

            “I provided the excerpts for reading convenience that, in summary, says: Most common Japanese schoolbooks ‘contained references'”

            Again, I don’t think you have any idea what you are quoting or saying. The wiki passage you cited was this:

            “Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II,[2] all historical issues which have faced challenges from ultranationalists in the past.”

            You do realize this means the textbooks actually cover those events and issues, right? And you do realize that this is a positive development? This is how you justify your rage?

            “About 88 books are available from primary thru high schools”

            ??? Another valuable tidbit of information? Another attempt to shoehorn all textbooks into your claim? Do you have any idea what you are saying?

            “If you’re so insistent on ‘naming books’ how about you identify the books, or even just one, that actually teaches about Japan’s involvement in war crimes?”

            Dude, this is a desperate tactic called shifting the burden of proof. I am not enraged or furious about the issue. Since you are, it behooves you to know enough about the subject that you can at least rationally justify some modicum of your anger, otherwise you come off as someone who is just looking for an excuse to hate.

            Here, I’ll help you:

            http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=YH4m00NJB2UC&pg=PR2&dq=Language+Ideology+Japanese+History+Textbooks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O_69U8-UO8zAoASbjoCYCA&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Language%20Ideology%20Japanese%20History%20Textbooks&f=false

          • Mighty曹

            Yes, 88 books in use but none is credited with having extensive coverage of the atrocities.

            >”You do realize this means the textbooks actually cover those events and issues, right? And you do realize that this is a positive development? This is how you justify your rage?” Does making a ‘reference’ mean ‘actually cover those events and issues’?
            This has been my sticking point and maybe I’m nitpicking this word but to me a ‘reference’ is only as good as a footnote.

            Shifting burden? Hardly. Simply asking you to provide some evidence that the books in question do not downplay the issues.
            The latest link you provided was mostly the author’s explanation for his method for translating and beliefs of actual meaning, etc. However, there was this glaring admission by the author, “The general conclusions are that the language of the textbooks very consistently downplays the responsibility…” (see photo below).

            Also, BBC, is known for its integrity and being unbiased, would not have approved that article unless it was confident of its content. An article written by a Japanese that highlights her own and current students’ lack of knowledge of the war crimes, seem to me, to be a very good proof. That is more than you’ve been able to furnish.

            In closing, I DO WISH you or someone can convince me with a shred of evidence that the current school books are actually teaching the students the acts committed by the Imperial Japanese Army. This will help lift the burden of harboring my rage.

          • Wa

            “Yes, 88 books in use but none is credited with having extensive coverage of the atrocities.”

            Seriously? Credited by one Wiki page you couldn’t even properly utilize or comprehend? The passage you cited had nothing at all to do with a criticism of all those books: in fact, it was just the opposite. The range of books published was contrasted to other Asian countries in which the “governments of those countries write a single history textbook for all of their schools”, China first and foremost.

            So this IS your attempt to claim that all books in Japanese history and social studies curricula whitewash atrocities…despite the ineptitude of your reading and your transparent attempt to back your way into the claim without evidence.

            “Does making a ‘reference’ mean ‘actually cover those events and issues’? This has been my sticking point and maybe I’m nitpicking this word but to me a ‘reference’ is only as good as a footnote.”

            Yes, it does. I’m surprised you’d think “making references” can merely mean footnotes as opposed to factual accounts within the narrative. That kind of impoverished exegesis could only be a “sticking point” for someone who chooses to restrict the common meaning of “making references” in order to fit his speciously convenient interpretation. I’m trying to understand how you can so grossly misunderstand words and texts, so I’ll just ask the obvious without any intended insult: Is English your primary language?

            “Shifting burden? Hardly. Simply asking you to provide some evidence that the books in question do not downplay the issues.”

            Yes, you are shifting the burden. You think your anger is justified, yet you have never seen the texts you are furious about. Nevertheless, you claim *all books* in the Japanese curricula whitewash atrocities. This kind of second-hand mindless rage over Japan is fairly typical in the Chinese diaspora, but that doesn’t make it any less ugly. Now you are actually asking me to give you a reason NOT to be angry. In all fairness, this sounds like a pathology.

            That said, I don’t mind doing more work than you:

            “The supplies were insufficient for the troops of the Japanese Army heading toward Nanjing, and so many troops acquired their food on the spot. Because of this, the Japanese soldiers took produce from the fields, attacked farmhouses to find food, looted various goods from the shops, and took from private houses pieces of furniture such as tables and chairs to use as firewood for cooking meals. Moreover, Japanese soldiers, looking for goods to pillage, frequently entered the back rooms of private houses to find and assault women who were hiding there. These acts of pillage drew the antipathy and resistance of the farmers and peasants, some of whom the Japanese Army viewed as [organized] anti-Japanese resistance and killed on the spot. The Japanese Army captured Nanjing on December 13, and then began a clean-up operation, during which time it mass murdered huge numbers of Chinese prisoners of war. One of the division commanders wrote in his diary: ‘‘In general, the line was not to have prisoners of war, so that [the division] decided to do away with them [Chinese
            prisoners of war] one and all,’’ and ‘‘the number one division did away with was approximately 15,000, and one company, garrisoned at Taiheimon, did away with approximately 1,300.’’ The Japanese Army committed
            atrocities such as murdering civilians who had not been able to flee for safety, and so stayed in Nanjing, assaulting women, setting fire, and plundering.”

            –Sekaishi B [World History B], published by Hitotsubashi Shuppan

            Similar and more graphic accounts are present in Chugaku Shakai-Rekishiteki Bunya and texts published by Tokyo Shoseki

            “Also, BBC, is known for its integrity and being unbiased, would not have approved that article unless it was confident of its content. An article written by a Japanese that highlights her own and current students’ lack of knowledge of the war crimes, seem to me, to be a very good proof. That is more than you’ve been able to furnish.”

            Your reliance on the BBC’s “integrity” is circumstantial and unconvincing. The article is largely an episodic personal memoir with a few questions asked to students of a younger generation. You misunderstood it and did not see that it provides no firm evidence of your claims pertaining to current Japanese textbooks. Hence I provided you with a text that focuses on the language used by current Japanese textbooks rather than what people remember from school. Less emotion. More fact.

            “The latest link you provided was mostly the author’s explanation for his method for translating and beliefs of actual meaning, etc. However, there was this glaring admission by the author, “The general conclusions are that the language of the textbooks very consistently downplays the responsibility…”

            Yes. Is there any other help you need?

          • Mighty曹

            Oh fuck.

          • Wa

            No worries, man. I can understand frustration and a lack of patience on this issue. I just think we need to be a little more precise with our understanding of how serious it is. The Chinese victims deserve that, and so do the Japanese.

          • Mighty曹

            Thanks, man, for the work. I’m still digesting all this. To be fair, credit and a shout-out to the Japanese who’s making the difference.

          • Kai

            Don’t be disappointed in me. I know Wa (and his previous incarnations) and generally disagree with him. In this case, he introduced information that I considered relevant to the discussion. Here’s more:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_textbook_controversy

            There IS whitewashing of history in Japanese textbooks (the BBC article mentions a good number of them) and there ARE efforts to whitewash further. However, I think some of the accusations are a bit exaggerated and thus inaccurate and unfair to the Japanese. Do you understand my upvote now?

          • Wa

            Ah…how many “incarnations” do you think I’ve had precisely? I’m quite sure you don’t know me.

          • Mighty曹

            Still disappointed. I read that Wiki link repeatedly and what’s relevant is this:
            1) ‘References’ made on the atrocities. *Does not equate teaching.
            2) Government’s attempt to “tone down or delete” continues to this day.
            See my response above to Wa.

          • Kai

            Do you feel the information he presented is not relevant to the discussion and thus not worth an upvote? Are you disappointing in me upvoting people who introduce relevant information into a discussion?

            I’m just as irked as you are by efforts in the Japanese government (or members of the Japanese government) to “tone down or delete” Japan’s actions in WW2. I agree with you that mere “references” or a paragraph or a page in a huge textbook suggests not enough emphasis is being placed on certain important but perhaps uncomfortable facts about Japanese history, especially with regards to achieving the stated mission of the education department in teaching Japanese students Japan’s relationship with its neighbors.

            Still, I think some accusations are a bit exaggerated and thus inaccurate and unfair to the Japanese. Still, I think Wa introduced information that is also present in Wiki and thus relevant to the discussion.

          • Mighty曹

            I don’t feel that the information provided adequately refutes the argument that the books ‘downplay’ the war crimes. Maybe I’m confused but we’re all citing the same information but interpreting it differently. Namely the word ‘reference’. His argument is that the books make ‘reference’ on the issues therefore they cover (teach) them. My argument is that a mere ‘reference’ is only as good as a footnote and doesn’t cover the scope or extent of what really transpired.

          • Kai

            I really like how you’re going to bat on this issue of whether or not Japanese textbooks arguably downplay Japanese WW2 actions to an inexcusable degree. You care about the issue and you’re devoting time and energy to it. I applaud that because I do like earnest discussions and I’m following what you’ve been arguing.

            What I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t see my upvote as necessarily a vote for Wa “winning” this debate/argument. I often upvote comments on “both” sides of a debate as long as I think they make a good point or bring in good information.

            The information he introduced is already one level deeper than what most people familiar with this controversy are aware of. I like when people point out that there is more to what most people already know. You’re taking it even deeper, and that’s good.

            I understand your argument about references vs. teaching. There’s a difference between mentioning something and really emphasizing something. I interpret you as arguing that Japanese textbooks generally at best may mention Japan’s atrocities but don’t actually slam home the point that these were really morally questionable acts that (if we invoke the spirit of the education board/textbook approval authority) help Japanese children truly understand Japan’s strained relationship with its neighbors.

            I think you argument is certainly arguable. It’d be like American textbooks mentioning there was slavery but never really giving students a true appreciation for how bad and unfair slavery was. I get your point and I encourage you to continue arguing it because it’ll help people understand the issue further, on a deeper level. But I upvoted Wa because some, even a lot of, people do have an exaggerated and inaccurate view of how some of the more notorious revisionist textbooks are actually used in Japan. Wa made his argument and he cited his sources. That’s already above the average debating on cS.

            If you still want to be disappointed in me, fine, but I don’t want you to be disappointed in me for the wrong reasons. I guess I’m vain like that. Cheers.

          • Mighty曹

            Thanks, Kai. I DO care about this issue passionately. Probably the only issue on the internet that can rile me for personal reasons.
            The information he introduced also validates my primary argument but was conveniently ignored.
            Also, I was just joking about the ‘upvote’. :D

      • lonetrey / Dan

        What do you mean? The PRC has a problem with 100% of Japanese history books.

        • Wa

          The PRC has a problem with history period, but they only protest the use of certain books.

    • Teacher in China

      Yeah, the government there seems to be made up of a bunch of morons determined to aggravate the situation between the two countries in whatever way it can.

      • Mighty曹

        It was said that their political seats are filled with many surviving family members of war criminals. Abe’s own grandfather was a war criminal.

        • “it was said…” = conjecture.

          • Mighty曹

            “was arrested as a “Class-A” war criminal but never tried and later released” = Secret Deal

  • DC

    I will soon plunge my meat saber into a japanese girl to commemorate..

    • ninxay

      As with all wars, this one’s gonna have a wet and messy ending…

  • jovis

    It’s strange that people dredge up the past… Most of the current Japanese have nothing to do with Second Sino-Japanese War. It would be like the Chinese hating themselves for the 1938 Yellow River flood or atrocities committed by their forefathers.

    • Alex Dương

      My attitude is move on but don’t whitewash. This applies domestically as well; for example, I don’t berate white Americans because of slavery or various episodes of nativism throughout our history, but I will certainly not sit silently if someone is pushing a position that the U.S. has a long tradition of tolerance.

      • KamikaziPilot

        Couldn’t have said it better myself. With regard to slavery, I’d say something if someone appeared to be glorifying or white washing the issue and even though I know the affects of slavery are still being felt by people today, I don’t think it’s productive to dwell on the issue. Obviously a lot of the younger Chinese generation’s hatred of the Japanese is because their government constantly reminds them of what happened. In other words they’re taught to hate since I doubt much of the younger generation (percentage wise) has had much of a chance to interact with a Japanese on a personal level. I also don’t think it’s pure hatred either, since on an individual level I’ve seen them get along just fine, but when they’re in groups might be more of a problem.

        • WFH

          well…Abe does have the tendency of rubbing it China’s face…it’s not all on the Chinese to take the moral high ground

          • KamikaziPilot

            True, and so do other Japanese politicians, so it’s really a two way street. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say the Japanese who do express these views represent the majority of ordinary Japanese. Even though according to recent polls most Japanese don’t consider China to be their friend, I don’t think many would embrace the views offered by the aforementioned politicians and others with similar views.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t think many would embrace the views offered by the aforementioned politicians and others with similar views.

            Do you think they keep getting elected because the “young people don’t vote” generalization applies to Japan as well?

          • ninxay

            Young people in Japan couldn’t give a damn when all the politicians are old fogeys with entrenched interests. I’ve met plenty of young Japanese travellers throughout the world, they’re friendly people who just want to enjoy life. Maybe young people in China could get to know about young people in Japan before listening to the hateful propaganda spewed out by their own entrenched old fogeys.

          • David

            Don’t you know they are trying? That is why they import so much Hentai, in the spirit of cultural exchange. They figure they could all bond over their misogynistic and pedophilic depiction of young girls being raped with demon testicles. Pretty soon they will have to invent a Chinese word that means Otaku. Then they will all be too busy living in mom’s basement to worry about attacking each other.

          • KamikaziPilot

            That might be a part of it. However, I’d think there would be a lot of other more important issues that people take into consideration when deciding who to vote for. I mean, assuming you vote, do you agree with everything the person you voted for does or says? Another thing is that I don’t know how often a politician really means what he says as opposed to trying to curry favor with a certain group (ex. conservatives). They are after all politicians.

          • FlyingTiger

            Yes. This is the reason. Voter turnout is usually below 30% and the majority of voters are senior citizens. Politicians are mostly old dudes of political families or people with mucho connections. I think most young Japanese would agree that Imperial Japanese soldiers did some terrible things during the war, but are mostly puzzled by the animosity STILL harbored towards them by the Chinese.

          • Alex Dương

            puzzled by the animosity STILL harbored towards them by the Chinese.

            I’d say the vast majority of the animosity is irrational and has no basis. What’s the exception? Japan is a democracy; its people elect their leaders and representatives. When these elected politicians subsequently play with fire with respect to whitewashing history or visit Yasukuni, it’s really tone deaf to insist that these are “domestic” issues.

          • FlyingTiger

            Except that Prime Ministers have been visiting Yasukuni for a long time. Its a tradition that arguably should be changed, but the amount of hatred generated is out of proportion with the act shows the issue is not equally balanced.

            A dude visited a shrine based on hocus-pocus fairytale sh*t. That sparks mass riots, damaging of property and injury as well as derogatory and violent language across sizeable swaths of the population. I’m not saying visiting shrine is the right thing to do, but the reaction is clearly an OVER-reaction.

          • Alex Dương

            Except that Prime Ministers have been visiting Yasukuni for a long time.

            So? The Showa Emperor used to visit Yasukuni too. He stopped after 1978, and his son, the current Emperor, has maintained the boycott from 1989 onward. Traditions can change.

          • FlyingTiger

            The emperor doesn’t need to elected by a bunch of old dudes. I agree its pandering, but its about the least amount of pandering a Prime Minister can do to get votes from the right. And again — nothing to do with with China or Korea.

          • Alex Dương

            And again — nothing to do with with China or Korea.

            So as I asked you before, do you think that when the Westboro Baptist Church pickets funerals, that has nothing to do with the people attending the funerals?

          • FlyingTiger

            And I ask YOU is Abe sending out Japanese people to China and Korea to picket their war-time memorials?

          • Alex Dương

            As far as I know, he isn’t. I suppose this is where you would say that my question is irrelevant. If so, then you are, in my opinion, purposefully viewing this too narrowly. An action that has bi- or multilateral consequences is not domestic or personal.

          • Wa

            As ever, your analogy here is misleading and indicative of your perverse bias. The Westboro Baptist Church intentionally pickets funerals to piss off people whose lifestyles or whose participation in certain acts they stridently oppose. That you would compare *this* to Japanese visiting their own shrines, i.e. having their own funerals of sorts, tells us all we need to know of you predilections and ignorance. I doubt sincerely whether you’ve ever swept any of your ancestors tombs. You are entirely backwards.

          • Alex Dương

            Japanese visiting their own shrines

            “Their own shrines” rings hollow when the shrines commemorate Class A war criminals whose actions led to immense suffering across Asia.

          • Wa

            “‘Their own shrines’ rings hollow when the shrines commemorate Class A war criminals whose actions led to immense suffering across Asia.”

            It doesn’t ring hollow. The shrine was created for Japanese war dead. The Japanese built it. The Japanese observe rites there. They did prior to the enshrinement of war criminals, and they did after. You may be upset with the latter part of that, but it doesn’t make the shrines and the ceremonies any less Japanese or less directed to the Japanese.

            These facts highlight just how false and duplicitous your analogy is. Your analogy suggests that the Japanese, like practitioners of the Westboro Baptist Church, are visiting other nations’ shrines/temples with the sole intent of humiliating others. We know this is not true. The ceremonies are for the Japanese war dead. They are, essentially, Japanese funerals. And here you come with the Westboro Baptist Church…

            For some time now, you’ve shown a derangement in finding things similar which are dissimilar. Each time you’ve failed in your assertions and made an ass of yourself. That was ok when you were a lonely idiot. But what is a mod’s job again? To pursue what you consider “justice”, even if that is based on illogical arguments and false analogies? To pursue your own agenda? To let your psychological issues overcome your political analysis?

          • Alex Dương

            It doesn’t ring hollow. The shrine was created for Japanese war dead. The Japanese built it. The Japanese observe rites there. They did prior to the enshrinement of war criminals, and they did after. You may be upset with the latter part of that, but it doesn’t make the shrines and the ceremonies any less Japanese or less directed to the Japanese.

            I did not say the shrines or ceremonies were not “directed to the Japanese.” I said to leave it at that is incomplete and incorrect. The shrine commemorates Class A war criminals responsible for immense suffering across Asia. The late Showa Emperor understood this, which is why he refused to visit the shrine after 1978, the year in which the Class A war criminals were secretly enshrined. You have chosen to defend a practice that the former nominal highest authority of Shinto found so distasteful that he chose to never set foot in that shrine again.

            These facts highlight just how false and duplicitous your analogy is. Your analogy suggests that the Japanese, like practitioners of the Westboro Baptist Church, are visiting other nations’ shrines/temples
            with the sole intent of humiliating others. We know this is not true. The ceremonies are for the Japanese war dead. They are, essentially, Japanese funerals. And here you come with the Westboro Baptist
            Church…

            No, my analogy points out that first, you shouldn’t take what an entity says at face value; and more importantly, second, actions that have bi- or multilateral consequences cannot be said to be personal or domestic.

            For some time now, you’ve shown a derangement in finding things similar which are dissimilar. Each time you’ve failed in your assertions and
            made an ass of yourself.

            That’s not how I remember it. As I recall it, in the past, you’ve tried to argue that people can change their ancestries by changing their cultures, Mike Huckabee “acted Chinese” while pandering for votes in front of a mostly white Republican audience (my favorite), residents of Cinderford couldn’t have panic bought bottled water because the commodity in question was tap water, and not carrying enough bottled water to meet the daily water needs of a town of 9,000 is a failure of logistics.

            But you’re welcome to remember it differently.

          • Wa

            “You have chosen to defend a practice that the former nominal highest authority of Shinto found so distasteful that he chose to never set foot in that shrine again.”

            No, I’ve chosen to understand why others go when I would not. Has the emperor done everything he can to force people to stop attending? No. Then we are in the same boat.

            “No, my analogy points out that first, you shouldn’t take what an entity says at face value; and more importantly, second, actions that have bi- or multilateral consequences cannot be said to be personal or domestic.”

            Yeah,you only have face value. You inverted a relationship critical to your analogy so that the deeper we look the more it appears you are trying to make the sun and moon trade places

          • Wa

            “That’s not how I remember it. As I recall it, in the past, you’ve tried to argue that people can change their ancestries by changing their cultures, Mike Huckabee “acted Chinese” while pandering for votes in front of a mostly white Republican audience (my favorite), residents of Cinderford couldn’t have panic bought bottled water because the commodity in question was tap water, and not carrying enough bottled water to meet the daily water needs of a town of 9,000 is a failure of logistics.”

            What I find most amusing about you is your willingness to remain irremediably ignorant and logically abject in order to keep picking the same scabs. Hey, that’s just how you remember it.

          • vincent_t

            Let’s setup a shrine too for the Manhattan Project scientists and the pilots who dropped the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then get the US president and high ranking officials to pay respect to the shrine on yearly basis. What you think?

          • Wa

            Again, you idiots fool yourself into believing this is a shrine intentionally built to honor war criminals. No logic. Emotions and hatred is all you have.

          • vincent_t

            This shrine is build to enshrine war dead from 1867–1951. Tell me how many of those enshrined there died because of war defending their own country, instead of invading other countries?

          • Kai

            There may be people who mistakenly think that the shrine was built to honor war criminals. However, I think most people especially here are simply recognizing that the shrine cannot as a result of the enshrinement (and museum, etc.) of the war criminals be separated from questions of remorse and contrition. It has become a symbol and now carries more meaning and significance. Even if the Japanese don’t want them, they still have to be sensitive to them.

            It is like the term “laowai”. By itself, it was not meant to be pejorative. It wasn’t created to be pejorative either. Yet people take offense to it and thus Chinese people still need to be sensitive to how usage of that term affects others who might be offended by it.

            Same with Yasukuni. It wasn’t built to honor war criminals. But it is now tainted by the secret enshrinment of war criminals (among other things). This cannot be ignored.

          • Wa

            Kai, do yourself a favor and stop trying to make ridiculous analogies. You are truly terrible at it and I’ve had to point out how on several occasions.

            There may be people who mistakenly think that the shrine was built to honor war criminals. However, I think most people especially here are simply recognizing that the shrine cannot as a result of the enshrinement (and museum, etc.) of the war criminals be separated from questions of remorse and contrition.

            Not may be. There are two here who clearly do. Alex went so far as to claim the other war dead don’t matter. Funny, but when we had a debate on the admiration some have for the Nazis in China, you went all Colbertesque: “The Nazis, they had some good ideas…” Separation then wasn’t a problem at all even though you couldn’t exactly explain how things could be separated.

          • Kai

            Sure, I agree, and no one is saying that reaction isn’t. The only thing anyone is saying is that there are justifiable reasons for Chinese resentment and objection to Japanese behavior in relation to the shrine and the general issue of WW2.

      • jovis

        Who would say the US has a long tradition of tolerance other than some politicians? They would have to miss most of US history or ignore it… I mean almost every decade of US history there is some issue or event that shows how intolerant the US is. The gay marriage debate in our last few years for instance.

        The Japanese don’t come into China every decade and start a war or commit some atrocities. Some Chinese are dredging up the past because some Japanese politicians whitewash the events of a war that happened in the 1930s to 1940s. Really why do they care? It is some event that very few that are alive experienced. It is not like the Chinese official history is all that accurate and not whitewashed.

        I don’t see the Germans complaining about the ethnic cleansing of their people during the end/post war period of WWII being whitewashed by half of Europe and the US. History happened, people disagree about what happened. History books for that country tend to portray their own country in a better light. End of story. China use to give about zero credit to the nationalist and glorify the communists for the victories in the Second Sino-Japanese War. And still their account of the war is not all the accurate with so many myths portrayed by Chinese historians to glorify the communists. Yet, the Chinese historians complain about the inaccuracy of Japanese portrayal of the war. It is really strange where their complaints focus, and it is strange that the general populace care so much about the official Japanese view in light of the fact of the whitewashing of history by every nation.

        But anyways just because some politician says the US is tolerant, and I disagree with him, doesn’t make me think, fuck Americans. It makes me think fuck him.

        • Alex Dương

          Some Chinese are dredging up the past because some Japanese politicians
          whitewash the events of a war that happened in the 1930s to 1940s.
          Really why do they care?

          Do you usually expect people to live their lives as if they were Jesus?

          • jovis

            Jesus? It isn’t like they were there to even understand what happened or feel it. It is just a story about the past to most Chinese. What wounds do they have to ignore? I can understand if they were like some 80+ year old comfort woman, and they were bitter about those events and the way the Japanese portray them, but for most Chinese it is just something that happened 70+ years ago they weren’t even alive to experience. Why do they care what some guys across the sea says about those events?

            I think the popularity of anti-Japanese nationalism has deep roots with China’s history of propaganda, biased media, nationalist elites, and the government’s accommodation of such.

            If the politicians left the history to historians and the Japanese and Chinese abandoned their myth-making and talked over the history then this nationalism would probably disappear.

          • Alex Dương

            I agree with your conclusion, but I still think you’re expecting a very high standard of behavior that I’d say the vast majority of humans would not meet.

          • Kai

            Why do they care what some guys across the sea says about those events?

            For the same reason we care about Neo-Nazis and Nazi apologists. For the same reason we care about people who whitewash and downplay historical slavery or racism. Because people care about what others think, because what they think can affect others and ultimately us.

            I think the popularity of anti-Japanese nationalism has deep roots with China’s history of propaganda, biased media, nationalist elites, and the government’s accommodation of such.

            Yes, it does. It also has deep roots in legitimate grievance and Japan giving the Chinese more excuses. The problem has to be solved on both fronts I think.

            If the politicians left the history to historians and the Japanese and Chinese abandoned their myth-making and talked over the history then this nationalism would probably disappear.

            Eh, probably not but it’d be a good start.

        • Kai

          Really why do they care? It is some event that very few that are alive experienced.

          Because they don’t like Japanese politicians whitewashing history that affected their ancestors and has had lasting reprecussions they are living in?

          It is not like the Chinese official history is all that accurate and not whitewashed.

          Which makes the Chinese hypocrities but doesn’t invalidate their objection or criticisms of Japanese people doing the same. Both should be criticized on their own. What hypocrisy should invalidate is self-righteousness, but not criticism itself.

          I don’t see the Germans complaining about the ethnic cleansing of their people during the end/post war period of WWII being whitewashed by half of Europe and the US.

          Because Germans have the context of THEMSELVES being the aggressors and perpetrators of one of history’s most nefarious and notorious acts of genocide. The Chinese were the victims, not the aggressors.

    • DC

      and I thought I was the master of dumb comments…

  • WFH

    so if the cops arrive in time to stop a crime..the criminals are no longer guilty?

  • Murasaki

    LOL, I’m Canadian.

    • Germandude

      LOL, I’m hot.

      There. Fixed that for you. You’re welcome.

      • DC

        ……..

    • David

      Well, the Canadians are ALWAYS doing something wrong lol j/k

      • Murasaki

        But we always apologize for our wrongdoings. No pun intended.

  • Alex Dương

    In the real world, Japan has not fought a war for 70 years. It hasn’t even threatened its neighbours with one.

    Yes, yes, let’s pretend that there is neither Article 9 nor a mutual defense treaty between the U.S. and Japan when making this statement. That aside, when I think of a change of direction, insisting on glorifying Class A war criminals who were secretly enshrined doesn’t qualify in my book.

    • moop

      how did this biased shit bag become a mod on this site? why dont you just invite hongjian or colobanana to do some mod work? wtf

      • moop

        hehe, got you confused with Whaddaysack, so sorry about the confusion . you’re still kind of a douche though, :)

        • Alex Dương

          By all means, feel free to disagree with any of my opinions. I’m happy to engage in a discussion so long as it’s in good faith.

    • FlyingTiger

      Why pretend there is no Article 9? It exists. Technically they could overturn the Article anytime they want. The U.S. has even given Japan its blessing to overturn Article 9 yet it still stands.

      That qualifies them as peaceful in my book.

      • Alex Dương

        No, you miss my point. The statement “In the real world, Japan has not fought a war for 70 years” is not as impressive as it seems because it is ignoring Article 9 and a mutual defense treaty.

        • FlyingTiger

          Is the freedom of America less impressive because the Constitution guarantees basic human liberties? The U.S. tried that sh*t with Iraq and how’s that working for them? Japan is peaceful in spite of essentially being occupied by the U.S., and that in my book speaks to how committed they are to peace.

          • Alex Dương

            Is the freedom of America less impressive because the Constitution guarantees basic human liberties?

            Even the PRC Constitution “guarantees” basic human liberties. That’s why I didn’t say Article 9 was the full story; the other part of the story is the mutual defense treaty. And FYI, I never supported the war in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

            Japan is peaceful in spite of essentially being occupied by the U.S., and that in my book speaks to how committed they are to peace.

            Is it “in spite of” or “because of”?

          • FlyingTiger

            But Japan honors its Constitution despite it having been written for them by the U.S. and it exists peacefully despite being essentially occupied by the U.S. military for almost 70 straight years — unlike, my example, Iraq. You want to undercut their peacefulness by bringing up Article 9 and the Defense Treaty. It doesn’t change the fact they have been and are peaceful. It makes the peacefulness seem less impressive to you, but it doesn’t to me. They could’ve changed Article 9 — but they didn’t. They could’ve revolted and tried to kick the U.S. military out — but they didn’t. Peaceful. End of Story.

          • Alex Dương

            But Japan honors its Constitution despite it having been written for them by the U.S. and it exists peacefully despite being essentially occupied by the U.S. military for almost 70 straight years — unlike, my example, Iraq.

            Again, is it “despite” or “because of”?

            It doesn’t change the fact they have been and are peaceful.

            Change, no. Partially or even substantially explain why, yes.

          • Brian227

            The current move to ‘reinterpret’ Clause 9 seems to have cross-legislature support and opposition is coming mainly from died-in-the-wool pacifists and strict constitutionalists who don’t want a precedent of the Executive deciding when and how it’s constrained by the Constitution.

            Article 81 gives the Supreme Court the sole power to decide on Constitutional matters, including any interpretation or reinterpretation. That they’re not raising a fuss over being sidelined shows just how seriously it’s being taken.

          • fabulous

            Around this delightful planet, you will see people revolting against the peaceful, well-intentioned efforts of their own democratically elected governments. Further, and I would agree more acceptably, you will see people revolting against the heavy handed, self-seeking efforts of their own tyrannical governments. Above all of that, you will see people revolting against the colonizing efforts of foreign governments.
            I can’t say that there are many groups of people around this world who have gotten on with the task of bettering themselves, and their people (can I also say “and the world”).

          • Alex Dương

            Not sure what that has to do with my comment.

            Edit

            I guess that’s your roundabout way of saying what Zhegezhege said. If so, well, what I said to him and FlyingTiger applies here.

          • fabulous

            Then let’s leave that last comment to people who don’t need to take English comprehension tests and I’ll reply to you in clear short sentences.
            You keep repeating that Japanese people are being nice and getting on with their work because they have America telling them to.
            Flying Tiger keeps repeating, with examples, that people have free will, and that if people don’t want to do something, they generally won’t.
            I gave further examples of Flying Tiger’s sentiment, because he is right and you are myopic.

            I apologize that the sentences weren’t shorter, but if I simplify them any more the level of condescension in this comment will reach critical mass, and I’ll end up calling you “little fella”.

          • Alex Dương

            Considering that you did, in fact, just repeat what Zhegezhege said in an extremely circumlocutious manner – you used four long sentences to restate two short ones – your condescension seems rather misplaced to me. But if it makes you feel better, feel free to condescend. I’m always amused when people reveal that they’ve significantly overrated their intelligence.

            Let’s analyze what the mindset of a Japanese person probably would have been in 1945. They just had two atomic bombs dropped on them; they lost all their colonies and gains from the previous half century; and for the first time in their history, they have been militarily occupied by a foreign country. Hmm. Doesn’t seem very sensible to me that “they could’ve resisted.”

          • Kai

            You just strawmanned Alex Dương.

            Zen My Ass said Japan’s “change in direction” after the war was impressive, meaning Japan went from a warring imperialist into a peaceful pacifist nation.

            Alex said the “change in direction” is “a bit more debatable”, pointing to how Japan was neutered by its constitution and agreements with the US.

            “Debatable” is the fact that Japan’s “change in direction” was not a unilateral decision by the Japanese. It was forced upon them, and then socialized into them.

            “Debatable” with regards to being peaceful is the questionable decision to enshrine war criminals, secretly.

            Flying Tiger’s argument is to defend the notion of Japanese people being peaceful now, by arguing that the Japanese could remilitarize if they really wanted to but they haven’t. Alex doesn’t fail to understand this, but Flying Tiger fails to understand Alex’s hesitation with what Zen My Ass and Zhegegege said. In a way, he’s also strawmanning Alex, by not comprehending Alex’s context and point.

          • fabulous

            Sorry Kai.
            You backing “him” up makes the whole thing even worse.
            Alex is not a good poster. Not good.

            If he wanted to say the words you’ve written for him, which are very nicely put and much more easily defended, he should have said them. Instead he wrote that, “As for the change of direction, well, that’s a bit more debatable.”
            So, he got a debate. And, just because nobody agrees with either of his personal reasons for why he thinks the concept is debatable, it doesn’t mean that we are strawmanning him.
            We argued his first point; that even with an occupying force a population will do what they want. And the Japanese, the majority of Japanese, obviously want to get on with a peaceful life.

            Your explanation of Flying Tiger’s argument is just as strawmanacled as you perceive ours to be. Alex apparently did fail to understand it. Twice, he read what was written and then just repeated his own thoughts. Then, when I explained the concept in more global terms he couldn’t put the concepts together. Then, I explained it again. And after all of that, he still couldn’t tell that I was expanding on Flying Tiger’s comment.

            We didn’t argue his second point… Well, I don’t know why other people
            didn’t argue his second point, but I know that I didn’t because it is a
            ridiculous, CCTV line. I’m not going to ask him if he thinks that the
            Japanese had a secret ballot, and that the majority of them voted to
            enshrine these war criminals secretly.

            Any point is “debatable”, and you may feel as though you are winning, if you are not willing to accept reasonable criticism of your arguments.

          • Kai

            I’m of the opinion that Alex is a better commenter than you are. That said, whether he is subjectively better or worse than you has little to do with whether or not you are strawmanning him.

            Alex repeated his own thoughts because, as I said, Flying Tiger (and you) failed to understand him. Of course Alex would reiterate his point in that situation. You guys strawmanned Alex’s response to Zen and Zhege and he’s tried to reiterate his point to you guys but you keep wailing on the straw man you guys fashioned.

            To accurately interpret what Alex is saying, you have to start with how the conversation unfolded from Zen to him to Zhege and so on. You can’t just start with Flying Tiger’s response to him because that’s causing you to lose the context of what Alex said. You’re basing your interpretation of Alex’s comment on Flying Tiger’s own straw man.

            Look, why don’t you take a stab at stepping us through the conversation like I did, starting from Zen. Maybe you can convince me that way. I’m willing to listen.

            What do you think is Alex’s “second point” BTW?

            I agree with your final paragraph wholeheartedly.

          • Kai

            I don’t think the comparison with Iraq is appropriate. The Japanese population at the end of WW2 was war-weary. They saw themselves less as victims and more as the defeated. Not only do Iraqis have a whole different host of background issues, they also see themselves as victims, as the invaded, and not the original aggressor. This perception of one’s role in the conflict is important. It frames how you view and reconcile yourself to a situation.

            Having lost the war and having attacked the US first, the Japanese find it easier to accepted the victor’s justice that was the US occupation. They also happily accepted US reconstruction because, frankly, most people just want to live a comfortable life, not really wage war. The Japanese had no choice and were frankly too tired to care at first. Over time, they were socialized with US help to shun militarism. Japan is “peaceful” largely BECAUSE it was so completely neutered.

            This isn’t to say Japan would necessarily be warlike had the US allowed them to keep their military and not occupied them. This is to say that you can’t underestimate how Japan has been socialized into what it is today. Being socialized into something is not as conscious as something like “commitment”. Are the Japanese “commited” to peace or “socialized” to be peaceful? There’s a difference.

            That said, I think most Japanese today are generally also commited to peace in addition to being socialized to shun militarism. I think it’s part socialization but also part conscious and that’s good. What I’m trying to hedge against is the notion that Japanese people are now somehow inherently peaceful people, will thus always be so, and thus should never to be feared.

  • Zappa Frank

    at the end of ‘800? not really.. ottoman empire was the sick man of Europe.

    • David

      Do you mean 1800? Because there was no Ottoman Empire at the end of 800 (quite frankly until Charlemagne crowned himself on Christmas day in 800, there really wasn’t a Europe in 800 A.D.)

      • Zappa Frank

        i thought that the use of ‘ before a century like ‘400 ‘500 and so on was a common method to indicate 1400 and 1500 … however maybe it is something just used in italy as we often refer to the century without mention the millenium.

        • David

          I see. No, in most English speaking countries we write the whole year. Actually as a historian I have never seen that. But my Italian is limited to a few bad words my father would yell. : )
          Actually even if we say the end of 1800, we actually mean the end of the year 1800. If we mean the time period of 1801-1900 we call that the 19th century; so we would say the end of the 19th century (in which case you would be 100% right about the Ottoman Empire).

        • Alex Dương

          We don’t do that in the U.S. Probably a cultural difference, like commas versus periods for decimals.

  • Alex Dương

    they say if the communist party had stepped in at that time….it wouldn’t have happened.

    Which comment was that? Certainly, several of the translated comments were strongly nationalist, but it seemed to me like there were more comments that were critical of the CCP’s role in the Second Sino-Japanese War.

    • Boris

      Think he confused someone mentioning that if the CCP stepped in earlier and helped out, rather than conserve their power, the numbers might have been lower.

  • Alphy

    “Same principle, a certain government in the mainland should build a memorial museum for the Cultural Revolution!”

    My Grandfather actually fought in the war in the resistance against Japan. Then after the war, he started a local business, and was subsequently arrested during the Cultural Revolution because of this entrepreneurship. He was imprison for 30 years by the same government that is asking for people to honor and remember this date. The irony is just incredible.

    • FlyingTiger

      Same here. Grandfather fought the Japanese. Communists swooped in and took all of his and his family’s possessions and he and my grandma fled the country with NOTHING. Thats the thanks he got for being patriot. Have much less animosity towards Japan who ate two nuclear bombs and have since been peaceful, productive participants on the global stage than towards the current government who rules “China” who claims 5000 years of history even though they can only really claim around 60-70 of those years.

      • Alphy

        To this date, you still see crazy history bending TV show of the Japanese resistance on Chinese daily TV. These shows CCP forces wiping the floor against Japanese army with either some batman style weaponry or crazy kungfu, when in fact CCP did much less then they claim.

        If you want to honor those who gave up lives and future for the protection of their love ones, they should at the very least give credit to those who deserves credit. Stop making up history and try to stuff it down the throat of the population.

  • Load me up

    about what China to in the Asia sea right now

  • Karze

    Mao and his gang killed more innocent Chinese than all foreign powers combined ever did.

    Don’t Chinese remember 1989 June 4 massacre at Tianamen square.

    • ninxay

      4 June 1989 was someone’s birthday?

      History in China is written and rewritten by those in power. If young Chinese knew about the movement for democracy in 1989 that was crushed by tanks and shot down with machineguns, there wouldn’t be a Communist Party in China now.

    • David

      Short answer: NO, but thank you for playing.

  • ninxay

    Down with the Japanese Devils! Let’s burn some Toyota!
    (Hey boy, you finished washing my Lexus yet? Here’s 10 kuai for your effort. And you missed a spot.)

    The only reason behind continuous sob-sob coverage of the Anti-Japanese War is to get people’s attention away from internal issues. CCTV keeps harping on Japanese militarism when China itself is becoming a bully to its neighbours. The average Chinese doesn’t give a shit about the Diaoyu Islands when local corruption, deadly pollution and unsafe food have bigger everyday impacts.

  • 950619

    “Only by walking away from the past can we respond to the future.”
    “Forever living in past hatreds, now that’s true cowardice!””

    preach.

    • bujiebuke

      You meant to write learning from the past, right? >.>

      • 950619

        i didnt type it i copied and pasted it from one of the comments……………

        • bujiebuke

          That makes sense, you could have clarified that part

          • 950619

            ok .-.

      • David

        He was copying a comment from a Chinese netizen. That is why they are in quotation marks.

        • bujiebuke

          There weren’t quotation marks at first. He just wrote:

          Only by walking away from the past can we respond to the future.

  • bujiebuke

    I’ve seen just about every picture from the rape of nanking and marco polo incident. It seems that a lot of the Japanese soldiers take a lot of pride and enjoyment in decapitating/raping/mutilating their victims, some including infants – just look at their cheek to cheek grin, you’d think they had just won the lottery. I often wonder if these are the type of people who are running the government now in Japan.

    • Boris

      Its the same with Israeli soldiers who took selfies when they were harrasing/killing Palestinians or the US Soldiers who were abusing prisoners at Abu Grahib Prison.

      They think of the ‘other side’ as non-humans. It makes it easier to do what you do when you think they are not human or not on the same level as yourself.

      • bujiebuke

        I never said nor implied they were “non human”, in fact I think a lot of the Japanese soldiers were sociopaths led by psychopaths who enjoyed killing. Many of those descendants are probably sitting in the national diet.

        I’m not familiar with Israeli soldiers toying and then killing Palestinian captives, but U.S. soldiers who hazed their prisoners certainly does NOT equate to mutilating and decapitating prisoners.

        • Alex Dương

          I think most were “normal” people. The thing is, as Boris mentioned, “normal” people can behave savagely under the “wrong” circumstances. It’s very difficult for a “normal” person to kill another human being, but if that other human being is dehumanized and viewed as subhuman, then it becomes all too easy to kill.

        • Boris

          I did not mean it does equate. I think my words were not carefully chosen.

          What I meant was that people (i.e. the Japanese soldiers) that do these things (e.g. hazing, mutilating, decaptiating, taking out kits with sniper just for sport), during war or occupation, see the other as less than human.

  • moop

    “Why disrespect us”…..”Japanese are evil people”

    • David

      I don’t think he has learned the word ‘irony’ yet in English class. Probably still on ‘H’, but hypocrisy is at the end, so hasn’t learned that one yet either.

  • Balkan

    I’m not Chinese or communist, but I do believe that Japanese apologies are insincere. The moment Japanese officials apologize, Japanese public attacks them which is why many officials even deny of apologizing. Japanese history books, the interpretation of their aggression as “liberation of Asian people”, denial of forcefully recruited women as prostitutes, visits by the officials to Yasukuni Shrine… I don’t think they’re sincere.

    • Bluex

      Wrong. Ask any Japanese of later generations and many actually knew what happened because Japan never blocked any information on the internet. Those protesting are but a small minority, not the majority of the population.

      • Alex Dương

        So how does it come to pass that it is “Japanese of later generations” who are getting elected to public offices and making these provocative claims?

        • FlyingTiger

          Which ones?

          • Alex Dương

            Setting aside Abe, how about current legislator and former multiple-term Tokyo Governor Ishihara?

          • FlyingTiger

            Dude. The guy is 82. His KIDS are in their 50’s. He had a famous actor for a brother and wrote some novels so he rode on that popularity into office.

            Classic old Archie Bunker curmudgeon who is racist, rude and ignorant but is considered amiable because of his straight-talk and his combative attitude voters perceive him as strong on foreign policy. Like I said — Archie Bunker-type and the U.S. Congress is RIFE with them.

            But he is on the way out. He was born before the war, so considering his age, he has a foot at death’s door.

            When he tried to form a coalition with the younger Osaka mayor’s Ishin party, it was derided the younger constituents of the Ishin party and the party ended up doing terrible in the election so they split up. The guy is basically poison outside of Tokyo.

          • Alex Dương

            is considered amiable because of his straight-talk and his combative attitude

            If that’s the answer to my question, great. You remember what my question was, right?

          • fabulous

            You understand what later generations means, right?

          • Alex Dương

            Good catch.

      • vincent_t

        I did, and none of my Japanese friends can tell me much what happen in China, and why the war started. Yes, the internet is not blocked in Japan, but I assume not many Japanese would be interested to dig for the WW2 information, which is not really a glory history for them.

      • Brian227

        They don’t need to block them on the internet, they’re raising their kids to block them from their minds. A far more effective tactic.

        http://www.news.com.au/world/japans-rising-worrisome-rhetoric-denying-its-world-war-ii-crimes-has-china-and-the-west-worried-about-its-new-ultranationalism/story-fndir2ev-1226822379758

        Let’s not pretend that the Class A war criminals just happened to be buried at Yasukuni and it’s all just a bit unfortunate but there y’go and whatcha gonna do? They were exhumed from their existing burial sites and deliberately moved there so that they could be honoured.

        I’ll say that again so that the point is clear. The Japanese government deliberately and consciously moved the bodies of convicted Class A war criminals to a site of national remembrance so that they could be honoured.

        • Rick in China

          I’ve always liked the ridiculous word “war criminal”.

          For example: drop a nuclear bomb on a city, NOT a criminal act. Mistreat a prisoner of war, War Crime.

          • KamikaziPilot

            And just “coincidentally” most of the war criminals seem to come from the losing side.

          • Rick in China

            Weird! Kinda like um…. “the founding fathers”. I suppose they were actually _terrorists_, no? Funny how words can be twisted like yin and yang to describe the exact same person in the exact same circumstance legitimately, yet have such a drastically opposite implication to those who hear/read/observe it.

          • James Clark

            Terrorists to MY ancestors anyway lol. I despise the use of the word “terrorist” nowadays. Its got to that horrible stage where it’s still a major buzz word but people in the media just throw it around so it has no real significance. At least terms like “enemy combatant” have legitimate legal criteria. All of these pale in comparison to the ultimate, “collateral damage”, which is generally how we hear war crimes on our side described nowadays.

          • Rick in China

            Right.. everyone the western media/gov’t labels terrorist, likely thinks the same of gov’t/military/private military contractors from their perspective. It’s such a ridiculous term thrown around way too freely. War criminal is similar _sometimes_, I mean, all of the atrocities committed by Japan during the JapaneseChinese war of occupation…have not been committed by any Chinese in the last century – upon other or their own people? All the rape and murder of non-combatants, all the abuse and torture… that didn’t happen within China, by Chinese, upon other Chinese in recent history? War criminal. Fuck that. Subjective perspectives for the win, lets make more enemies rather than solve problems, that’s the way to victory! *derrrr*

          • James Clark

            People who should probably be considered war criminals: Churchill, Macarthur, Rhodes, Custer, Wellington, Nixon, Kitchener, Bush, Blair. That’s just from our two countries off the top of my head. The idea of things like the geneva convention is fine, in practice, people will do anything not to lose a war. This is why the concept of M.A.D. works so well. Everyone knows that when the chips are down someone WILL push that button. It doesn’t really come down to national ideology or morality; it’s about what war does to the human brain and how easily we can become totally desensitized to violence no matter how brutal.

          • Brian227

            The reason they lost was that so many nations were fighting them. The reason so many nations were fighting them was that they were murdering little shits.

            Cause and effect, see?

          • KamikaziPilot

            You totally missed the point. Why they lost or whether they deserved to lose the war is irrelevant. My point is that the term “war criminal” is applied arbitrarily, so it doesn’t have much meaning. Yes, the “war criminals” from Japan were guilty of terrible things, but by not even investigating the actions of those on the winning side, calling someone a “war criminal” doesn’t carry much weight since the same standard isn’t applied to everyone. The Russian sacking of Berlin at the end of the war was far worse, numbers wise, than the Rape of Nanking, but the latter is far more vilified in Western media. Why is that?

            Killing of innocent civilians is wrong in any war, but it happens all the time. Giving some people a free pass but prosecuting others as war criminals when they kill civilians is why the term “war criminal” is just inane and lacks any credibility whatsoever.

          • Brian227

            I’m pretty sure I’m getting the point. It’s just wrong, that’s all. You’re making a moral equivalence over things which are defined in law. They’re war CRIMINALS because they’ve been convicted of a crime, not just because somebody happens to think they were a bit nasty. There was a chain of evidence linking them to the deed.

            The Rape of Nanking is probably given more weight in Western media because their were no western sources present to report on it, as there were in Shanghai earlier, unlike Berlin. There’s certainly a great deal of scholarship on the subject of Russian ‘revenge’ atrocities through East Prussia and Berlin if you care to look for it. Max Hastings’

            ‘Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45’ is a good start point.

            If you think that calling someone a war criminal doesn’t “carry much
            weight” just because someone else somewhere else hasn’t been given that
            same label then I really do despair of your values. It’s their own acts that make them war criminals, not someone else’s.

            Ask yourself this: if you or a member of your family were mugged, do you think the police should not bother arresting the mugger just because other muggers haven’t been caught?

          • KamikaziPilot

            It’s unlawful to deliberately kill or rape civilians or mistreat POWs during wartime. Can we agree with that? Now, are you telling me the Japanese and Nazis were the only ones guilty of this during WWII? It’s a rhetorical question as of course the answer is “no”. The convicted “war criminals” are of course war criminals in a technical sense since they were convicted in a court of law (made up entirely of Allied powers). I am not arguing against these facts. What I’m saying is that to me, and a lot of other people, the term “war criminal” is almost meaningless and is a ridiculous term since only certain people (the losing side) are even eligible to be tried as war criminals. Yes, they deserved to be hanged or be given prison sentences but I don’t think having the term “war criminal” attached to their name necessarily makes them any more evil than those who fought on the other side (Allied powers) and committed the same atrocities.

            An analogy I can think of is 19th century America, where blacks couldn’t testify against whites in court. So if a black man killed a white man’s sister because that white man had killed the black man’s sister, well guess what happens? The black man gets branded a “murderer” while the white man gets away scott free. So in that case the term “murderer” has very little meaning since it isn’t applied equally. Yes technically the black man is a murderer in the eyes of the law, but realistically, he isn’t any worse than the man who killed his sister and got away with it. Regarding you last sentence my answer would be no, but I don’t think that’s a good analogy.

          • Brian227

            Extending your logic, Slobodan Milosevic should never have faced trial because the forces under his command were not the only ones committing atrocities. Do you hold that position?

          • James Clark

            People always talk about the “straw-man fallacy” on this site. I googled it to find out what it meant. I think this is an excellent example right here.

          • Brian227

            I’m taking the argument that some people (Japanese war criminals) should not be called war criminals on the grounds that some other people (non Japanese war criminals) did similar things but got away with them and I’m transposing it onto a different example of multiple-war-criminal-ness (the breakup of Yugoslavia) to show how ridiculous the notion is.

            It’s called ‘reductio ad absurdam’ and it’s a commonplace debating technique.

          • KamikaziPilot

            To me it wouldn’t matter if he went on trial, or his enemies shot him dead when they found him. Better yet get rid of the term “war criminal” all together. What I don’t like is the use of the term as if it’s some kind of absolute definition of the most evil, diabolical figures in any war. It’s like they’re the worst of the worst of any war participants, not always true. When only participants of one side (the losers) are subject to certain laws, it really devalues the meaning of the term and the whole trial process altogether.

            War crimes trials are basically used to validate the winning side’s reasons for going to war and as “proof” that they were the “good guys”. It’s not even primarily about punishment either, as many of the “war criminals” from WWII were paroled after a few years and members of Unit 731 weren’t even brought to trial for turning over information over to the allies.

          • Brian227

            “Better a hundred guilty men go free than that we only get some of them,” doesn’t strike me as a morally-tenable position. I was involved in clearing up the aftermath of FRY’s disintegration and my only regret is we didn’t get anywhere near enough of the guilty parties on trial.

            I don’t see either that or that they were predominantly from only one of the offending parties as a reason to let them go scot-free. Go pick some body-parts out of a mass grave and see if you’re so tolerant of identified war criminals afterwards.

          • KamikaziPilot

            You’re reaching the point of turning this into a straw argument. When did I ever say the “war criminals” didn’t get what they deserved? I’m talking about the usage of the term and the connotation many people have with the term. Your personal experience is irrelevant to this discussion. Put it this way, there are some who chose to view “war criminals” as those who are solely responsible for atrocities in a given war, or at least the most evil people in a particular war, then there are others like myself who realize the while “war criminals” did indeed commits horrible acts, there are parties from all sides of each war that have committed these same horrible acts, and that the only reason “war criminals” are deemed such is because they fought on the losing side. If they fought on the winning side there’s no way they’d be prosecuted. I don’t view “war criminals” any differently than those who committed equally or more horrendous acts but never got prosecuted.

          • James Clark

            It’s like “two members of your family are mugged. The police charge one mugger and put the other mugger on the jury of the first.” At the end of the trial, are you going to be happy that one went down or pissed that the other got away scott-free?

          • Brian227

            Do you have evidence that any member of a FE War Crimes trial jury was themselves connected with war crimes? Your argument translates into “two members of my family were mugged by a black guy. The police caught one black guy and put him on trial before a jury WITH BLACK GUYS ON IT!!! How could that be a fair trial?”

            The IJA accused were not on trial because of their nationality, they were on trial because of a chain of accountability linking them personally to specific acts.

          • DavidisDawei

            You hit the nail on the head…
            With an unconditional surrender, the winner writes the History.

            If the Axis powers had prevailed in WW!!, then a lot of Allies would have been executed.
            However, I doubt the Japs would have bothered having trials.

          • Probotector

            History is written by the victors.

          • Brian227

            Drop any sort of bomb on a city of an enemy nation still actively engaged in fighting a war on other countries’ soil, NOT a war crime, rounding up the population of surrendered enemy city or enemy POWs and inflicting any sort of deliberate, organised violence on them IS a war crime.

            Happy to help.

          • DavidisDawei

            If the Japs weren’t going to surrender,
            what other viable options were there?

          • Rick in China

            You’re of course right.. I’m commenting more on the fact that we use (or misuse, I suppose) words often to create these sort of framings of evil in the majority public’s mind. Terrorists. War criminals. Hate crime. The frustration with the transparency in this propaganda is only emphasized by the amount at which it actually works.

            I’m not entirely against the drastic measures required in some wars (although obviously no war is better than any war), I don’t even know what my stances are on things like torture or nuclear weapons.. they are extremely complex questions when dug into a bit.

          • DavidisDawei

            right…
            labels create prejudice and most people aren’t willing to challenge what they are told to believe.

  • The murderers are all dead now right? Time to leave it for the history books and quit the anti Japanese sentiment… People should learn from the horrors of war and stop it happening again.

  • wabby

    The CCP treat the population like mushrooms, they keep them feeling warm, keep them in the dark and feed em’ sh#@.
    Also what kind of shite parent knows about the evils of paedophile Mao and his butchery business yet keeps quiet while their offspring are fed hate, hate and more hate against a foreign regime that no longer exists?
    Finally, despite hat you in China think about the middle kingdom (so called because it only occupied a central area in what they call China these days) nobody outside gives a toss about the country, apart from those having goods made there.
    Get over yourself!

  • Alex Dương

    I think you confused the Second Sino-Japanese War with the first. A war that was supposed to have ended in three months lasted for eight years.

    • Kai

      I wouldn’t go down that path again. “ass kicked” doesn’t necessarily mean “one-sided” much less “quickly”, which is what your point most solidly refutes. I think it is fair to say China got its ass kicked by Japan. If there is any point to argue, it is that it is a little unfair to point out the difference in numbers without pointing out the difference in technology and training.

      Chris in this comment and past comments (under multiple different identities) has the stereotypical desire to humble China wherever he can because he feels China is being too uppity. His comments and characterizations are necessarily going to sound a bit unfair.

      • Alex Dương

        Hmm. I’m trying to think how common it is to hear non-fanboys refer to the loser of a close series as having their asses kicked. I don’t recall any non-Heat fans saying that the Spurs got their asses whupped in last year’s finals; this random blogger I found from a Google search characterizes last year’s Spurs as having been “beaten” and this year’s Heat as having their “asses kicked.” It was some time ago, but I also don’t think anyone would’ve said Stephan Bonnar got his ass kicked by Forrest Griffin, even though Griffin won with a unanimous decision (i.e. it was fairly “clear” he was the winner).

        I guess in my mind, I’ve always viewed having your “ass kicked” as synonymous with “one sided.” I suppose it doesn’t have to be fast, though; there’s a scene from The Wire in season 3, if I remember correctly, where one of Cutty’s students boxes against a much younger and smaller but better trained opponent. He almost never got a single punch in and took a beating for the full duration, so he definitely got his ass kicked, but it wasn’t fast.

        Nonetheless, thanks for the heads up on Chris.

  • Alex Dương

    Hirohito, emperor of Japan at that time and some of his generals are the
    only people responsible for the atrocities committed by the Japs.

    So maybe Japanese Prime Ministers shouldn’t be visiting Yasukuni where several of these people responsible are enshrined?

    • Wa

      Along with a couple million others. But I’m sure they don’t matter.

      • Alex Dương

        In what context? Sino-Japanese relations?

        • Wa

          In the context of Prime Ministers visiting a shrine. China doesn’t get to determine what lens this act is to be viewed in, nor do the occasional whinging overseas Chinese who duplicitously don the mantle of PRC spokesperson from time to time.

          • Alex Dương

            In the context of Prime Ministers visiting a shrine.

            Then of course they don’t matter. They are not the nation’s elected leader.

            nor do the occasional whinging overseas Chinese who duplicitously don the mantle of PRC spokesperson from time to time.

            I invite you to produce a single quote where I have “donned the mantle of PRC spokesperson.” If you’d like to have a discussion in good faith, I’m happy to. Otherwise, by all means, please feel free to be as much of a pseudo-intellectual as you like.

          • Wa

            “Then of course they don’t matter. They are not the nation’s elected leader.”

            Try to be coherent. Over 2,000,000 people unobjectionably enshrined in any religious site may warrant a visit from leading politicians. The site was visited and venerated prior to the enshrinement of class-A war criminals. The millions of others mattered then and they continue to matter now, unless you are foolish enough to argue Prime Ministers go to the shrine specifically to see war criminals.

            “I invite you to produce a single quote where I have ‘donned the mantle of PRC spokesperson.'”

            I invite you to explain why that comment has to make reference to you and not, say, Insomnicide. Your sensitivity here, Alex–it doesn’t speak well of your position. Nor does your insistence on the significance of the Yasukuni Shrine visits.

            “If you’d like to have a discussion in good faith, I’m happy to. Otherwise, by all means, please feel free to be as much of a pseudo-intellectual as you like.”

            I love the way we’ve already discovered the depth of your resources and its residual projection.

          • Alex Dương

            The site was visited and venerated prior to the enshrinement of class-A war criminals.

            Yes. The Showa Emperor visited Yasukuni on several occasions before 1978. He never visited again after 1978, and you know why.

            I invite you to explain why that comment has to make reference to you and not, say, Insomnicide. Your sensitivity here, Alex–it doesn’t speak well of your position. Nor does your insistence on the
            significance of the Yasukuni Shrine visit.

            Maybe because you were replying to me? If you have something to say to Insomnicide, say it to him. Take some responsibility for your words.

            I love the way we’ve already discovered the depth of your resources and its residual projection.

            I appreciate that. Perhaps in the future, you won’t be so desperate to appear “intelligent” at the expense of writing coherent comments.

          • Wa

            “The Showa Emperor visited Yasukuni on several occasions before 1978. He never visited again after 1978, and you know why.”

            So, with this obliquity, you cede the point that 2,000,000 war dead who are not criminals may conceivably matter to the nation’s elected leader and to those who might vote for him. Do attempt to be more straightforward, Alex.

            “Maybe because you were replying to me? If you have something to say to Insomnicide, say it to him. Take some responsibility for your words.”

            And the fact that I used the plural didn’t register with you because you are a plural? Admittedly, you are a whinging overseas Chinese; but unlike your comments to me in the past, I did not preface my generalization with “you people” and thus necessarily include you.
            You tend to be someone motivated more by ethnic..shall we say…sentiments?

            “I appreciate that. Perhaps in the future, you won’t be so desperate to appear ‘intelligent’ at the expense of writing coherent comments.”

            Perhaps in the future you’ll recognize that your repeated and inept attempts to float this vapid point only reveal your insecurities.

          • Alex Dương

            So, with this obliquity, you cede the point that 2,000,000 war dead who are not criminals may conceivably matter to the nation’s elected leader and to those who might vote for him. Do attempt to be more straightforward, Alex.

            Oh, if you don’t know why or are just pretending not to know why, let’s get it out in the open then: it is a fact that the Showa Emperor stopped visiting Yasukuni because of the enshrining of Class A war criminals.

            So with this absolutely clear, no, I do not cede that point. If the Showa Emperor also felt that “2,000,000 war dead who are not criminals may conceivably matter,” he would have continued to visit Yasukuni after 1978. He did not.

            And the fact that I used the plural didn’t register with you because you are a plural?

            Please, have the dignity to own your words. If you have something to say to me, then say it. Don’t beat around the bush. And if you have something to say to Insomnicide, then say it to him. Why say it to me?

            Perhaps in the future you’ll recognize that your repeated and inept attempts to float this vapid point only reveal your insecurities.

            Yes, perhaps you will.

          • Wa

            “So with this absolutely clear, no, I do not cede that point. If the Showa Emperor also felt that “2,000,000 war dead who are not criminals may conceivably matter,” he would have continued to visit Yasukuni after 1978. He did not.”

            Or…wait for it…he didn’t need to be elected. So yes, you have conceded that point and have only offerred an obliquity in response. Don’t hide your brilliance, Alex.

            “Please, have the dignity to own your words. If you have something to say to me, then say it. Don’t beat around the bush. ”

            I have. Repeatedly. Your are simply slow to understand.

          • Alex Dương

            Or…wait for it…he didn’t need to be elected.

            Alright, I’m out. Even after I point out the exact reason why the Showa Emperor boycotted Yasukuni after 1978, you still try to insist that another, equally plausible if nor more plausible, explanation is that the Emperor didn’t need to be elected. The “logic” here seems to be that he didn’t need to be elected, therefore he felt no pressure to visit Yasukuni to placate voters.

            The problem with this explanation should be obvious: the Showa Emperor didn’t need to be elected between 1945 and 1978 either, yet he visited Yasukuni on a number of occasions during that time period.

          • Wa

            And all you did was find one individual whose motives for visiting the shrine were not precisely the same as Prime Ministers who have visited the shrine. An obliquity which concedes the point.

            Once again, you act as though there could only be one motive for doing visiting the shrine. This is your, “It’s not part of the Chinese mindset. It’s part of the human mindset” idiocy. The Prime Ministers face different pressures than the emperor and they respond to them on their own terms. You really are a simpleton looking for convenient convictions.

    • FlyingTiger

      He shouldn’t, but its an old tradition and a form of pandering to get votes for the Lib-Dems from the old conservative farts who had family who died in the WWII. And obviously his dad and his whole family had an influence on him.

      Fukuda, Hatoyama, and Noda refrained from visiting the shrine during their terms, what did it get them from China and Japan? Nothing. No good will, no recognition of “good job, Japan” just same old animosity, same old demonization and more agitation. AND, their political party gets kicked out of government for being perceived as weak ass on foreign policy.

      Abe refrained from going in his first term, but after getting a letter from Koizumi saying “Dude, Hatoyama and Noda refrained from visiting Yasukuni, and look what it got them from China and Korea — even more sh*t. So whats the point? You might as well visit.” A few weeks later, he visits as a private citizen. He openly stated he does it to remember the atrocities of war and not to honor war criminals. So you can call him a liar I guess if you don’t believe him.

      But in any event, it shouldn’t matter because those war criminals are dead, and who cares if their “spirits” or “ghosts” exist there, cause thats all B.S. anyway, and its none of China’s business what Abe does on his own private time anyway.

      • Alex Dương

        From what I recall, Sino-Japanese relations thawed during Hatoyama’s premiership. I’m also under the impression that Fukuda, Hatoyama, and Noda’s administrations (along with Abe’s first term) were so brief mostly because of domestic issues.

        none of China’s business what Abe does on his own private time anyway.

        This is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church is just practicing freedom of speech when they picket funerals.

        • FlyingTiger

          I’m sorry is Abe and crew out picketing in Nanking right now?

          • Alex Dương

            So is that your way of saying you disagree that the WBC is “just practicing freedom of speech” when they picket funerals?

      • DC

        yeah…and his subtle nods to Unit 731…no goodwill from China for past PMs but certainly no vitriol to this degree either…it was live and let live until Abe came along

      • Kai

        but its an old tradition and a form of pandering to get votes

        That only helps Alex’s argument and the argument of many Chinese that too many Japanese are not sufficiently contrite and remorseful for WW2.

        Fukuda, Hatoyama, and Noda refrained from visiting the shrine during their terms, what did it get them from China and Japan? Nothing. No good will, no recognition of “good job, Japan” just same old animosity, same old demonization and more agitation.

        I don’t think that characterization is true or fair. First of all, there’s an argument that you shouldn’t expect praise from people for doing (or abstaining from doing) something those people expect you to do (or in this case, to abstain from doing). By the way, China openly praised Fukuda for his stance on Yasukuni, as did others.

        Second, what Fukuda, Hatoyama, and Noda got was less condemnation from China. If they had gone, they would’ve gotten more condemnation and more ill-will. There is certainly persistent anti-Japanese sentiment in China, but to say visits to the shrine by Japanese politicians has not affected its diplomatic relations with China is dishonest.

        I understand the feeling you are trying to express, a sort of frustration, the sense that Japan will never be forgiven by China so why even bother trying anymore? Well, because it is the morally right thing to do. Because if you try long enough and consistently enough like the Germans have, you very well could be forgiven and China (as well as others) may move on.

        AND, their political party gets kicked out of government for being perceived as weak ass on foreign policy.

        Again, this only lends credence to skepticism about the level of contrition and remorse in the general Japanese population.

        Abe refrained from going in his first term, but after getting a letter from Koizumi saying “Dude, Hatoyama and Noda refrained from visiting Yasukuni, and look what it got them from China and Korea — even more sh*t. So whats the point? You might as well visit.”

        Did Abe solicit advice from Koizumi? Why did Koizumi not mention Fukuda? Any advice solicited or received from Hatoyama and Noda?

        He openly stated he does it to remember the atrocities of war and not to honor war criminals.

        Abe is not stupid. He knows how the visits are interpreted symbolicly on the international stage. He knows how Yasukuni is itself tainted by its own controversial museum if not the history of how the war criminals were enshrined. He knows the controversy and the expected fallout. He makes a conscious decision weighing his foreign and domestic interests. He might try to find ways to compromise on both by how he frames his visits, but he’s not stupid enough to know he’s making choices about who he will appease or pander to.

        You have to understand that the very fact that he has a vested interest in pandering to a demographic suggests that demographic is sizeable. That it is sizeable again fosters more skepticism about the amount of contrition and remorse in the Japanese population.

        I’m of the belief that the majority of Japanese people are generally aware of what Japan did in WW2 being bad and something to be remorseful about if not ashamed of. If you make the argument that right-wingers are getting elected but don’t represent the general population because not enough of the general population are voting, then you still fall to the argument that voter apathy is still acquiesence and tacit approval. The question becomes: why doesn’t the Japanese population disagree enough with these controversial inflammatory positions of these elected officials to remove them from office?

        That they remain and continue with such positions ultimately reflects upon the general population, somewhat unfairly but also somewhat fairly. That’s the nature of culpability and responsibility in democracy. Unlike the Chinese who have to disagree enough to launch a possibly violent revolution to remove their government, Japanese people merely have to vote…and if they can’t even bother to do that, then what does it say about how remorseful and contrite they are and how much they disagree with the public positions their elected representatives openly take?

        All of this has to be considered in order to understand the whole Chinese Anti-Japanese sentiment problem. There is a lot of irrationality involved, on both sides, but the problem is only made worse by there being plenty of rationality involved. Japan gives China excuses. Germany doesn’t. That’s difference also needs to be considered.

        But in any event, it shouldn’t matter because those war criminals are dead, and who cares if their “spirits” or “ghosts” exist there, cause thats all B.S. anyway,

        Chinese (and others) care because Japanese care.

        and its none of China’s business what Abe does on his own private time anyway.

        That’s the ideal, but almost never realized for people in public positions, especially government positions. If you’re going to take public office, you are going to be scrutinized and you’re going to be seen as representing those who put you there. Fair or not, that’s the way it is going to be, and you likely knew that going in, so you don’t even have the excuse of ignorance.

    • moop

      i dont really care about the background involved, or who is enshrined there or who isnt. i dont care about the secret addition of war criminals 40 years ago. if the leader of japan wants to visit the shrine of those who died in service to his country then so be it. all leaders of other countries honor their war dead.

      this shrine is PRIVATELY funded and PRIVATELY operated. japan’s constitution provides for the separation of church and state, so you can’t force the shrine operators to remove the war criminals, yet as a leader you have an obligation to honor your war dead. the addition of some war criminals does not invalidate the sacrifice of the nearly 2.5 million other people enshrined in yasukuni.

      • Alex Dương

        the addition of some war criminals does not invalidate the sacrifice of
        the nearly 2.5 million other people enshrined in yasukuni.

        It doesn’t to you. But we know for a fact that the reason why the Showa Emperor refused to ever set foot inside Yasukuni again after 1978 was because he discovered that Class A war criminals had been secretly enshrined. He felt that their enshrinement betrayed his wish for continued peace.

        And contrary to Wa’s ridiculous characterization, this was not just “one individual” in Japan; this was the Emperor of Japan. Even as a figurehead, he was still nominally the highest authority of Shinto. If you want to cast this as a religious matter, it would be rather hypocritical for you to ignore how the then Emperor of Japan felt. And just so we’re clear, the current Emperor has maintained the boycott since ascending to the throne in 1989.

        • moop

          the showa emperor’s feelings mean dick, just as the chinese people’s feelings mean dick, just as your feelings mean dick, and just as my own feelings mean dick. this is a privately funded and operated shrine, and as such they can operate it as they please. they have no duty to project the chinese people’s feelings. the leader of any nation has an obligation to honor their war dead (and lets not pretend that all enshrined are ww2 vets or sino-jap war vets). so its damned if you do, damned if you dont.

          • Alex Dương

            the showa emperor’s feelings mean dick

            Considering that

            1. Yasukuni is a Shinto shrine;
            2. In Shinto, the Emperor of Japan is the highest authority; and
            3. Yasukuni itself would like for the Emperor of Japan to visit again,

            I don’t think the Showa Emperor’s feelings “mean dick.” To the contrary, it would seem like the shrine could get the current Emperor to visit if it removed the Class A war criminals of its own volition since, you know, that was what prompted the former Emperor of Japan to boycott the shrine to begin with.

          • moop

            actually his position of authority apparently holds no sway over the private operators of the shrine, so his feelings as related to this shrine’s inclusion of certain individuals really does mean dick. he apparently holds no sway over the operators. how do you know that the operators are not from a different sect of shinto? since the emperor was forced to renounce his divinity, his role in shinto has been significantly diminished and most authority today resides with individual “priests” or shamans or what have you. shinto is extremely localized.

          • Alex Dương

            I can’t help but observe the irony that you are dismissing the Showa Emperor’s feelings as not meaning anything while defending a shrine that contains a substantial number of Japanese soldiers who died for the Showa Emperor himself.

          • moop

            oh, i[‘m sorry, is the showa emperor still in charge of the shrine?

          • Alex Dương

            No, and that doesn’t change the irony of the situation.

          • moop

            you’re right. there still isnt any

          • vincent_t

            That is a ridiculous argument. What if some extremist in Germany put up a private funding and operate a memorial park for Hitler, his generals and his SS? Should the german government let them operate it as they please?

          • moop

            yes, they should. all speech should be protected. but then again, if you are equating a memorial park built explicitly for the purpose of honoring hitler and the SS, then there is a spot next to you on the sidelines so you can listen to the adults talk.

          • vincent_t

            Well, all i can say is that we have different acceptance level for how far freedom of speech could go.
            I believe while freedom of speech is necessary, it must be regulated at some point. And PUBLICLY glorifying anti-human idea or figure..is absolutely not what I can accept.

          • moop

            “Well, all i can say is that we have different acceptance level for how far freedom of speech could go”

            yep, thats the beauty of freedom :) we can openly engage in debate. i wouldnt consider the shrine as “PUBLICLY glorifying anti-human idea or figure.”, as it has been around for well over 100 years and its purpose is to honor all of those who died for japan. it wasnt until the 1970s that war criminals were included. this is much different than a memorial built specifically for the purpose of honoring hitler or some other “anti-human idea or figure”

          • Kai

            Come on, moop, if you’re going to use the language you’ve been using, you really aren’t part of the “adults” talking either.

          • moop

            and what language is that? the word “dick”? have i offended your delicate sensibilities?

          • Kai

            No, though I offended someone else when I recently said China was “ass raped” by Japan.

            Are you really going to be obstinate and not just concede that you emotionally responded to vincent fashioning yourself as an adult but indulged in using childish language? Can we acknwoledge that we should avoid the petty ad hominems and just argue about the actual topic?

          • moop

            and you apologized for it and erased the phrase. you had nothing to apologize for.

            you take my adult comment too literally, i’m not sure why. he was equating an explicit hitler memorial built solely to honor nazis with the shrine. why dont you point out his logical fallacies instead of my “straw men”. that’s what i was doing in a rather abrasive way. he did just write another message that is deserving of a sincere reply, so that i will answer in kind

          • Kai

            Yes, I could defend saying what I want, but it wasn’t worth it. There was just no reason to insist on being offensive. I made a cost-benefit judgement. What is it about vincent_t that made your dig at him worth it? His very first comment in this discussion and you call him an ignorant child? I’m guessing it is because he said your argument was ridiculous? So a bit tit for tat?

            I can understand that, but I think you can also understand how you calling him a child after indulging in your own childish characterizations of “mean dick” is rather ironic. We don’t typically think of adults “behaving like an adult” using such crude language. Come on, dude, you understand the hole you dug and then walked into. You’re just annoyed with the disagreement (or what you think is the disagreement) and being emotional. I get that, but dude, override it.

            he was equating an explicit hitler memorial built solely to honor nazis with the shrine. why dont you point out his logical fallacies instead of my “straw men”.

            This is a good counter-accusation. It doesn’t change my criticism but its a fair one. My response is that Yasukuni Shrine is also infamous for the museum it operates:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Yasukuni_Shrine#Y.C5.ABsh.C5.ABkan_War_Museum

            That makes it far more difficult to say Yasukuni is innocently and neutrally just a place for the war dead.

            There’s a chicken sandwich chain in the US called Chik-fil-a that in recent years was at the center of a public controversy over gay marriage:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chik-Fil-A#Same-sex_marriage_controversy

            Because of what the company voluntarily and proactively associated with, a lot of consumers boycotted it. Same for Yasukuni. It voluntarily and proactively associates with whitewashing and revisionism. It arguably even supports and propagates it. People boycott it for such reasons. The PM can do so as well, and past PMs have. Shinto doesn’t require that the war dead be honored at Yasukuni, so if your only reason is to honor the war dead, there is no need to go there. Going there is a choice and it will inevitably be interpreted along with what else Yasukuni is known for.

            Do you understand this point?

          • moop

            i understand, but as far as i know there is no KFC in japan if you are a shinto practotioner and you want to honor the 2.5 million war dead. if there was an alternative i would probably accept alex’s point

          • Kai

            Then what you know about Shinto and alternatives for memorial is not enough. This sounds harsh, but I’m not sure how else to put it. You’ve based and invested a lot of annoyance into a position with a faulty foundation.

            I’ve made the same mistake before and wrote a huge mea culpa when confronted with evidence that proved that what I knew wasn’t enough to make a correct judgement.

            I think both Alex and I have given you links to a great wealth of information on the controversy over Yasukuni. I personally think the best argument for the “Japanese side” is the whole war criminal classification issue. However, let’s say the world agrees the conviction of those people as “war criminals” was victor’s justice and unfair, Yasukuni is still marred by its own whitewashing and revisionism. It will still be a controversial place to visit by Japanese politicians.

            P.S. – And Japan definitely has the Colonel!

          • moop

            so then there is another shinto shrine dedicated to the 2.5 million japanese who gave their lives for their country that doesnt have war criminals?

          • Kai

            They don’t have to go to a shrine at all and they don’t have to support a shrine that engages in whitewashing and revisionism. Whether they do or don’t reflects their convictions, and therein lies the controversy over how much remorse and contrition Japanese people feel. That the Germans do things so differently also makes it harder for the Japanese.

          • moop

            “P.S. – And Japan definitely has the Colonel!” they damn-well better. good to see we didnt occupy them for nothing

          • Kai

            Why do you think Alex is trying to tell Yasukuni how it should operate? His objection is about the significance of Japanese politicians visiting the Shrine and what that communicates or how it is interpreted by others and thus affects Japan’s foreign relations. The Yasukuni Shrine can do whatever they want and it reflects upon them. What Japanese politicians do not only reflects upon them but also upon their constituents. That’s the problem.

      • Kai

        Straw man response.

        1. He isn’t advocating for the shrine operators to remove the war criminals.

        2. He isn’t against honoring war dead, much less leaders doing so.

        3. He doesn’t argue that the addition of some war criminals invalidates the sacrifice of 2.5 million other people.

        • moop

          ugh, lame. he might as well. he wants the the pm to stop visiting it on account of the inclusion of war criminals. this is unreasonable because leaders have obligations to honor war dead… if he was not to go simply because of the inclusion of the criminals then he would be essentially invalidating the sacrifice of 2.5 million others.

          if a leader is to continue honoring his war dead and you cant stop him, then there arent other alternatives to the problem except for removing the war criminals.this cant happen because they are 1) privately operated and 2) japan has separation of church and state and are unable to interfere. so whether he says it directly or not, he is advocating for either 1) leaders not to vist or 2) government to force them to remove war criminal

          • Alex Dương

            this is unreasonable because leaders have obligations to honor war dead

            Yasukuni is hardly the only option for honoring war dead. Japan’s national cemetery is almost “right next door” to Yasukuni. And it has none of Yasukuni’s baggage.

          • moop

            yes, it is secular. abe is a shinto practitioner

          • moop

            weiner and fauna, you want to jump in here as well? might as well argue with the rest of the mods on here

          • Kai

            You’re being childish.

          • moop

            no, you are… see what i did there? have you extended an invitation to become a moderator to hongjian yet? alex is a big boy he clearly can argue for himself, why dont you let us have an argument, because as you can tell, it hasnt yet devolved into name calling or anything uncivil.

          • Kai

            Yes, I see what you did there. You childishly presumed you’re being ganged up on by mods as opposed to two people disagreeing with you on their own.

            We review the comment history of every person we offer a moderating position to. Of the people who have been made mods including christina and ace of books, mr. wiener is the only one who has had somewhat objectionable comments on cS but has otherwise proven himself to be a fairly decent and fair guy. Hongjian would never be entertained as a mod, for what I think are obvious reasons. That you think we’d entertain him reveals more about how you unfairly project bias onto us than any actual basis in fact.

            Alex was actually first nominated by another commenter who also has a pretty clean comment history. I reviewed Alex’s comment history and while there are some arguments where I don’t think he was on point, he has consistently demonstrated a high level of education, intelligence, and articulation of his positions in agreement or disagreement with others. He has consistently responded with more grace and good faith than those who have gone at him despite having the same frustrations we all have with people who disagree with us. That’s good moderator material.

            …and the fact that he’s on a different time zone than us really helps when we’re asleep.

            You called Alex a douche. Can you actually quote and link us to his past comments that would warrant such a characterization? You once challenged Fauna to embarrass you and she indulged you by posting a long list of comments where you behaved like an ass and indulged in engaged in stereotypical anti-Chinese bashing because you thought it funny and fun. Can you do us the favor of likewise demonstrating how Alex has been a douche?

            If not, maybe you should calm down a bit. From our past conversations, I know you’re capable of reflecting on your own behavior and being reasonable. Maybe you’re in a bad mood right now or whatever. However, I think you can be mature enough to recognize when your arguments aren’t successfully refuting points advanced by others, when they’re straw men, and when you’re indulging in childish retorts. Stay on point. You can be a cool guy, like the guy who loves video games, but you’re flying off the handle a bit here.

          • moop

            weiner is actually the only one on here who acts like a mod, like warning trolls and what not.

            i don’t know why you have chosen to take me so literally today, but obviously i dont think you would actually consider hongjian as a mod. that was clearly hyperbole based on that i think that mods should be impartial and not so active in the commenting.

            i’m not going to comb through a user’s post, but i believe that alex, although reasonable in his arguments, is too biased to be a mod, or at least unable to set aside bias and perform a mod role. he’s too argumentative to be a mod. if you’re going to wear the mod hat then you should act like a mod, if you want to be a commenter, maybe you should either drop the mod hat or get a commenter hat as well.

          • Kai

            You have a specific interpretation of what being a mod is. We have another.

            mr.wiener is also the most prolific deleter of comments and banner of commenters. I doubt you knew that. I’m the dumbass who insists on giving people the benefit of the doubt and giving known trolls second/third/fourth/etc. chances thinking he can reason with them.

            Simply put, you don’t know how we moderate but are passing judgement.

            i don’t know why you have chosen to take me so literally today, but obviously i dont think you would actually consider hongjian as a mod.

            Is that why you vocally said that twice over two days? I ignored your first instance.

            i think that mods should be impartial and not so active in the commenting.

            1. What makes you think mods are partial? Do you still think I’m disagreeing with you just because I’m somehow partial to Alex as a fellow mod and loyally defending him? No, I’m disagreeing with you because I disagree with you. If I’m partial to anything, it is my difference of opinion.

            2. I don’t see why mods shouldn’t be active in commenting, especially when mods are selected from active commenters because they’ve been desirable examples. Mods have a duty to upholding the comment policy, not refrain from commenting.

            i’m not going to comb through a user’s post, but i believe that alex, although reasonable in his arguments, is too biased to be a mod, or at least unable to set aside bias and perform a mod role.

            Articulate what you think his bias is then. People have tried articulating my bias before as well and I’m still a mod. People have accused mr. wiener of bias as well and he’s still a mod. We have yet to encounter a compelling argument of bias that doesn’t degenerate into “I think he’s biased because I don’t agree with his positions or his willingness to disagree with mine.”

            I get you think the “mod” badge lends a person some sort of extra “authority”. You might even be afraid that other people are more willing to agree with someone with a “mod” badge over someone who doesn’t in a disagreement or debate. I understand that fear. I don’t think it is rational though. A mod badge “means dick” against a good argument. So make them.

          • moop

            “Stay on point. You can be a cool guy, like the guy who loves video games, but you’re flying off the handle a bit here.” there may be something to this… i am pretty cool, and i did just start having a massive nose bleed

          • Kai

            Not lame, a straw man is a straw man. Be fair.

            He thinks the PM should stop visiting because it does send a negative message and negatively affects Japan’s relationship with her neighbors. It gives an excuse for anti-Japanese sentiments and ultimately makes it harder for the region to get past WW2.

            Sure, leaders have an obligation to honor the war dead, but they don’t have to do so at Yasukuni. That’s why part of the controversy are ideas entertained to use alternate forms or places of honoring. Like you said, Yasukuni is a private institution. The government has no obligation to go there to honor war dead.

            It is not unreasonable to expect leaders to find alternate less controversial and inflammatory ways to do something. Expecting them to have to go to Yasukuni is what is “unreasonable”. The government can protect Yasukuni’s right to be what it is, but it doesn’t have to be a patron of it. This is like protecting free speech but not agreeing with it.

          • moop

            the pm is a shinto practitioner who avoided the shrine for some time (his first term and then some) and has expressed regret at not having visited it before (maybe religious conviction? i dont know)

            “The government has no obligation to go there to honor war dead.” which is why others who have visited have stressed that they are doing so as individuals, not as representatives of the government.

          • Kai

            And Yasukuni doesn’t have a monopoly on the Shinto religion.

            Government officials don’t have the privilege of being private individuals. The world just won’t give it to them. Obama should be able to attend a KKK rally not as a representative of government but as an individual, but nope, he can’t do that. It is not difficult to be skeptical about politician visits being framed as being done as an “individual”. As a public official, Abe is not stupid enough to know that his every action reflects upon Japan. He has tried to compromise, and that’s a good thing as a politician, but he is still giving people doubts about the level of contrition and remorse he, the Japanese government, and the Japanese population has.

            Frankly, I think he’s making things harder for the vast majority of ordinary Japanese people in order to appease a vocal minority. Each PM and politician will of course make their own decisions and thus accept their own consequences.

          • moop

            you’re making too big of a leap linking a kkk rally with yasukuni. i would asume that at least 99% of people at a kkk rally subscribe to their racist beliefs. on the other hand, of the shrines nearly 2.5 million names, only 0.0004% of them belong to war criminal. should a president who visits the vietnam war memorial in DC be lambasted because some of the names on the wall participated in the mai lai massacre?

          • Kai

            I’m not linking a KKK rally with Yasukuni, I’m linking how Obama or any other public political figure wouldn’t be able to get away with the “as an individual” excuse just as Abe can’t.

            Interestingly, your 99% of the people at a KKK rally vs. 0.0004% of the dead in Yasukuni is itself a faulty “linking”. The accurate linking would be that 99% of the people at a KKK rally have racist beliefs but less than 99% of the people who go to Yasukuni Shrine subscribe to the whitewashing and revisionism of the Yasukuni Shrine.

            If people want to lambast the US president for visiting the Vietnam War Memorial because some of the names on there can be argued to have done terrible things, YES, GO FOR IT. There are a few material differences however. There are no convicted “class A war criminals” on that wall. More importantly, the Vietnam War Memorial doesn’t operate a museum that whitewashes history or engages in historical revisionism. As a result, it has less baggage than Yasukuni does, and that in large part explains the differences in how visiting either is viewed internationally.

            Do you acknowledge this?

          • moop

            “There are no convicted “class A war criminals” on that wall.” and who would have convicted them? the un? the hague? some of these crimes were the same as japanese war criminals. i still see nothing wrong with the visits without a true alternative

          • Kai

            What you said is precisely what I alluded to about the “Japanese” argument about the convictions in the first place, about “victor’s justice”. I think that could be a good argument to remove the gravity of “war criminals” being enshrined there. Problem is, as I said, it still doesn’t change the other things the Yasukuni Shrine stands for.

            I’ve already responded to you in another thread about “alternatives” so I won’t repeat myself here.

          • moop

            simply not going is not a true alternative, but obviously it is an option, one that abe himself chose during his first term. a true alternative would be for maybe a japanese peace group to build a shinto shrine dedicated to japan’s war dead and leave the war criminals out. then the pm would have a real alternative and you could place 100% blame on him. i still dont think the museum or anything else is relevant. the pm doesnt go to see an exhibit on japanese history, he goes to honor the dead. just because i eat at chikfila doesnt mean i am against gay marriage. as i stated before he has stated he regretted not going earlier, if we are giving him the benefit of the doubt then i think we need to assume it was for his own religious convictions. and if it is his religious convictions that move him to visit, then i find no fault in going. the operators might be asshats, but guilt shouldnt be spread to visitors, regardless of their stature.

          • Kai

            I’m not saying “not going” is an alternative. I’m saying “honoring the war dead” doesn’t necessitate going to Yasukuni.

            The alternative you’ve suggested has been suggested before, by Japanese people themselves. Why it doesn’t happen or is resisted only adds to the whole controversy.

            The PM does have a “real alternative”, for “honoring the war dead” as a leader or as a Shinto practitioner, as discussed in the links I’ve given you. He may simply feel those alternatives aren’t preferable, or he may feel those alternatives would lose him a voting bloc that he values more. There is not actual argument for there not being “alternatives”. They have choices, as past PMs have demonstrated.

            The museum is relevant because it removes any doubt that the Yasukuni Shrine operators and thus institution are neutral and apolitical on the issue of WW2 and Japan’s actions in WW2. Would you be a patron of a Chinese business that openly advances a position you find objectionable if not reprehensible? Unlikely, because there is such a thing as voting with your feet and supporting or protesting a business with whether or not you give them your business.

            A lot of restaurants in the US will proudly post photos of “the President” dining at their establishment. The President often does so as a private individual, yet everyone ascribes some significance to “the President” having dined there. When a Japanese PM goes to Yasukuni, there is no way to avoid questions of whether or not he is somehow endorsing or at least turning a blind eye to the positions the Yasukuni Shrine takes. The museum is relevant because it makes clear what the position of the Yasukuni Shrine is.

            Yes, just because you eat Chik-fil-a doesn’t mean you oppose gay marriage. You may just love their chicken sandwiches. Hell, you may not have even know about Chik-fil-a’s corporate position. That’s a passable argument for private individuals, but it’s not remotely as easy and clear-cut for public officials. They knew going into their job that they are going to be scrutinized as a representative of a country. They can’t claim ignorance about the symbolism and thus reprecrussions on foreign relations.

            I don’t think it is religious convictions that made him regret not going earlier. I think he regrets it because he consideres there to be more profit in appeasing a domestic audience than he appeasing a foreign audience. As other people have argued, he’s pandering to a right-wing minority, not the general population. That the general population allows him to do so then says something about the general population.

            We live in a world where our actions and associations define us. If I’m friends with an asshole, that’s going to reflect upon me. It may not make me the same asshole, but it says something about how much of an asshole I think he is, and THAT may make me an asshole of a different kind. Abe and other Japanese politicians KNOW how controversial Yasukuni is, yet they CHOOSE to continue being patrons of it. This reflects their position on issues, or at least how important those issues are to them. As elected officials, how much their voters hold them accountable to this then reflects upon their position or values. It cascades down, and that’s why people have issues with the Japanese.

            Again, don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of irratonal anti-Japanese sentiment, a lot of pettiness and just idiotic bigotry, as well as systematic efforts to peretuate it, but there’s just no way to dismiss the fact that there are rational objections and resentments that the Japanese CAN influence for the better if they choose to. There are a lot of Japanese people who are very sensitive and remorseful and contrite for WW2, but as a whole, they aren’t nearly as consistent or uniform as the Germans are, and that’s why the Japanese get far more shit than the Germans do. The Germans turned their shame into a strength, and thus into a matter of pride. A lot of Japanese chafe at the shame, too proud or even resentful to own it like the Germans do, and that in turn makes other people chafe.

          • moop

            oh god, you are a loquacious sob. i also agree 100% that the germans have handled it better, but there are some cultural differences, ie “face” that can account for some of this and i think its the biggest reason that both sides continue their bickering at this level. i understand all the points alex and yourself have made, i understand the chinese perspective as well, i just think its overkill, and maybe i’m just disgusted in general with the new culture of outrage in the world today and i tend to take an iconoclastic stance on a lot of things. anyways, i’m shelving this argument for another day tbd

          • Kai

            Yeah, dude, I know. Ugh, it’s a mark of low intelligence as Alex pointed out. I’ve always been like this even when I consciously try to be more concise. I guess if I proofread, I can edit what I write down, but when it is stream of consciousness mode, I simply say so much because I feel I need to, that every iteration of a point I make is to adequately communicate the nuances I’m trying to get across. I can only bank on people reading me to understand that I’m being earnest and sincere, in good faith, and not just being wordy for the sake of being wordy.

            So yeah, I apologize for not being better or efficient at communicating.

            I thought of the “face” thing too and I think it IS part of it even though I generally don’t think “face” is a uniquely Asian concept. I can empathize with Japanese people who don’t want to feel guilty about things they themselves did not directly do. If you’re not going to socialize denialism out of the population like the Germans did, then you’ll have to grapple with the minority extremists who know how to leverage populism.

            While I think the Japanese aren’t helping the situation, I do have a special place in hell reserved for how the Chinese government exploits anti-Japanese sentiment and/or nationalism. They figure if the Koreans could successfully harness it, why can’t they? I still think it is playing with fire.

            Anyway, I’m glad we’ve once again reached some sort of reasonable consensus and understanding after a fiery start. Now for something much less serious: do you play Hearthstone?

          • moop

            “do you play Hearthstone?” …. teach me, i have heard good things…. i thought you were moving on to something less serious? do you watch “rectify”?

          • Kai

            I don’t think i need to teach you Hearthstone. It’s pretty easy to get, especially if you’re already familiar with collectible card games like Magic: The Gathering (it’s simpler). The tutorial is also a hoot so you should really give it a try, especially if you’re already familiar with Blizzard’s Warcraft and WOW lore/meta.

            Never heard of Rectify and that’s probably cuz I’m in China instead of the States and don’t have as many environmental ways to learn of new shows. I looked it up on Wiki but otherwise have no idea what it’s about.

            As far as movies and TV goes, I only recently caught up with Mad Men and watched Transformers 4 this past Monday. Yeah, I don’t think I’m gonna be watching any more installments in that franchise… I’ve been wanting to watch Suits but Youku only has the latest season and none of the past ones and I don’t want to buy a boxed set for a show that isn’t finished. Meh.

          • moop

            rectify is on sohu now, not sure if the first season is or not, cant say enough good things about it. beautiful show.

            i’ll be checking out the hearthstone website shorty

          • Kai

            Hey, I watched the first seasons of Rectify last night (on Sohu). It’s pretty slow boil but they’ve so far hooked me into wanting to know just what exactly happened and what’s wrong with Daniel. Sounds like he’s always been a weirdo and isn’t just traumatized by 19 years on death row.

            I haven’t gotten to season 2 yet but I’m afraid the pace of the show won’t keep me interested once I’m finished catching up. I wonder how many seasons they plan on taking to do the master story arc.

            This isn’t the kind of show that would normally pique my curiosity (not really my genre) but I’m glad you recommended it to me because in learning more about the show, I’ve learned there’s such a thing as a “Southern Gothic” genre, which I can kinda seen in some other shows I’ve seen (American Horror Story?) and that’s fascinating to me. The whole evangelical Christian angle with Tawney is also interesting (as was the similarly aborted subplot in FNL) though often a bit irksome from an ideological standpoint.

            What draws you into the show?

          • moop

            hey, yeah, the show being a little slow is definitely the main gripe people have a bout it. i am from the south (grew up in georgia and south carolina) so there is a connection there, but its minor. it is hard to describe why i like the show so much. part of it is aesthetics, because i really think it is beautifully shot, and i guess i just want to see how his story of redemption unfolds… i’m such a softy

          • Kai

            Oh dude, for some reason, I thought you were Canadian. Or are you in Canada? Or have I just totally forgotten and got things mixed up?

            Yeah, I agree, there’s some really good aesthetics and beautiful scenes. Some scenes just really make the viewer appreciate small details like the down pillow stuffing scene. Overall, it does a good job of capturing a sort of small-town America feel, both the idealized and the not-so-idealized.

            But yeah, kinda slow, and only 6 episodes a season… I like how the actor for Daniel really captures the “poor guy, but he IS kinda creepy” vibe.

            There’s definitely the juxtaposition and friction between small town Ted and Tawney vs. big city Amantha and Jon. I find myself relating to Amantha and Jon more, I guess for obvious reasons. I’m trying to figure out the Sheriff at this point. At first, I thought he’d be evil (with the tailing of Amantha), but I get the sense later on he’s trying hard to be fair. Hard to say.

            Definitely want to know why George shot himself and what Trey is up to. Both seemed to profess their innocence of murder really well, to each other and then Trey to the Sheriff. But the show forces us to be suspicions of Trey especially after lying about George and then disposing his body. I might try to watch all the Season 2 episodes so far out tonight.

          • moop

            nope, never been to canada. i like amantha’s character and i think ted is the kind of character that everyone has met – the insecure asshole. good eye on the sheriff, he’s another one that can surprise you

          • Kai

            I keep getting the feeling I shouldn’t like Ted but so far I keep thinking Ted is pretty cool and his faults or mistakes are reasonable.

            For example, he seems pretty nice to his wife and she’s the one weirdly cold-shouldering him. I suppose there’s an argument for the distance between them in the first season tracing that back to how from the start they had different reactions to Daniel getting out and his guilt or innocence. He was skeptical and worried about how Daniel coming out would affect him (granted, selfish); she was more believing and then that developed into a savior complex in her (bringing him to the churck, getting him to accept Christ, baptism, etc.).

            He had the opportunity to cheat on his wife at the senimar and he didn’t. He didn’t even really entertain the thought, so he’s loyal. He didn’t look good making love to her while she obviously wasn’t into it, but that also kinda made her look bad too.

            His apprehensions about Daniel after Daniel got all intense sharing the prison rape experience with him I felt was a reasonable reaction by normal people. We’re biased to be more sympathetic to Daniel but I thought Ted’s reaction was reasonable.

            Granted, him later snidely suggesting Daniel didn’t fight back says something about Daniel was petty and low. And so far at the end of Season 1, it’s unclear whether or not the lesson Daniel gave him (chokehold, coffee on ass) has really changed Ted’s understanding of Daniel.

            Still, overall, I haven’t written Ted off as an “insecure asshole.” I thought his insecurity with his wife being distant and all over Daniel was reasonable from his perspective. He’s said and done some “assholish” things but I feel that’s balanced out by him being pretty nice at other times. I wonder if I’m missing something.

            Tawney rubs me the wrong way more than Ted does, because while I know she’s innocent and good-intentioned, it crosses over into being somewhat naive and ignorant. I guess I have issues with proselytizing evangelicals too, who seem more intent on converting someone than really understanding them.

            There’s something off about Daniel’s mother too and it seems obvious that the show is trying to impress that on viewers. Amantha rubbed me the wrong way when she flipped out on the Sheriff after the mailbox bombing. Her random latching onto Jon seems weird and sometimes out of character compared to how strong she’s supposed to be for Daniel, though it can be argued as understandable.

            ANYWAY, sorry for the long comment. The show is still all in my head and I’m just brain dumping to process it all, and you’re the unwitting victim because it was you who introduced the show to me. I should probably save it for IMDB or some fanpage or something. Cheers.

          • moop

            “He had the opportunity to cheat on his wife at the seminar and he didn’t. He didn’t even really entertain the thought, so he’s loyal.”

            yeah, that’s a good point about his character. i think one of the reasons i dislike ted so much is because of his treatment of daniel regarding prison rape. but i was sexually assaulted at the age of 5 by knife-point so i am admittedly biased (tmi i know, but i didnt tell anyone until i was 25 and on the verge of suicide, so i try to be open about it)

            anyways, hope you catch up with the second season and then you’ll have something to look forward to once a week like i do.

          • Kai

            Whoa, I’m sorry that happened to you and I’m glad you seem to have gotten past it. There’s nothing else I can say without seeming presumptive so I’ll leave it at that.

            I actually just finished watching the 3 episodes of Season 2 out so far. Ted comes across as being less sympathetic. His wife Tawny confesses and while I can understand him being resentful, I think the audience is meant to pity her and feel he’s being too hard on her. I’d still say he’s handling what feels like (and on some level IS) emotional betrayal quite well, at least putting on a strong face. However, the way he’s going about the rim rental business plan of his reeks of him losing control and being obstinate.

            I liked how Daniel’s mom subtly put Tawny in her place before that, at the hospital I think, reminding her that Ted loves her more than anything else, which I think helped Tawny face up to having kinda sorta strayed with Daniel emotionally.

            I get the sense Daniel’s death row neighbors are kinda like the angel and devil on his shoulders, though I’m not sure if I’m just reading too much into it. I like how they are fleshing out Daniel’s uncertainty about what is real (scenes with Kerwin). Could you explain how you interpreted the statue in the woods scenes? How it changed between when he saw it with the goat man and when he later saw it again with Amantha? I should rewatch it but I’m curious about its significance, especially about what is/was real. It had a sort of Jesus wandering in the wilderness wrestling with the devil feel to it but again, dunno if I’m reading too much into it.

            So now we have some idea that Geoge was possibly gay. I feel like Melvin might be significant too. The Sheriff is an honorable man, and Bobby Dean may or may not have learned something from Daniel’s forgiveness.

            Really great show. It’s going to be tough waiting for new episodes to come out.

          • moop

            “There’s nothing else I can say without seeming presumptive so I’ll leave it at that.”
            No worries, like i said, i’m open about it now. i’ve helped some people in different online communities before, so i am not to hesitant to put it out there. if anyone on this site needs someone to talk to about that stuff have chinasmack provide you with my email.

            Regarding the statue, I think you have an interesting take on it, and there is a theme of spiritual elements throughout the show. It is hard to say what the deal is with the statue, as everytime it is different, and in 2 of the three instances Daniel’s mind is not all there. Even when amantha comes with it, its not clear that she even sees the statue, just that she is curious what he is looking at, and he replies “my strange life”. Maybe it reflects his mental state. I really admire how much you were able to notice, i had to go back and find the scenes. Really glad you like the show. If you want the see them earlier than sohu airs them, then get them at ttmeiju.com that is where i get all my tv shows

          • moop

            should be a new episode today actually! ttmeiju is nnormally faster on the upload, but last week they were slower than sohu, anyways, definitely recommend it for TV shows… they have Louie!

          • Kai

            Great resource. I don’t have any space on my laptop to BT much stuff so I’m kinda dependent on getting stuff on my iPad (trying through Baidu Cloud). Thanks for the protip on ttmeiju.com!

          • Kai

            Holy motherfucking shit, it didn’t occur to me that Amantha may not have even seen the statue…

            *mind blown*

          • moop

            oh, and daniel is still hard to figure out, i think i really like that too. i really like the characters. i knew people like that… i kind of like tawney because she reminds me of the sweet southern girl stereotype, i knew some people like her and although we werent close, the fact that i have only been home once in 5 years kinda makes that familiarity more pronounced

          • moop

            ps, i’m really just fucking with you about the length of your posts, i disagree with alex’s link, and it doesnt bother me at all. in fact, i used to think you and anon were the same person. if you started posting more concisely i would start thinking you were someone else, and that doesnt normally work out well, ie me thinking alex was waddyasack…anyways, send me an email anytime about anything

          • Kai

            Nah, I think criticism of my verbosity is warranted, as long as people aren’t using it to attack me personally to distract from the actual argument.

            Yeah, a lot of people thought we were the same but people just love their conspiracy theories, and as I’m the only person in the world who holds the opinions and positions I do. Also funny is how fabulous thinks Alex and I are the same. We’re not, I’m much better looking.

            Nah, Alex is definitely not whuddyasack. Not remotely close. whuddyasack is pretty much unapolgetically anti-white and arguably a bigot. As I’ve told him before both publicly and privately that I can empathize with his grievances with some “white” people but he’s often just as bad as they are and that makes him really unsympathetic. I’d be lying if I said I don’t somewhat hope he sticks to Shanghaiist where he has more people to flame and more people who may actually “deserve” his flaming. We’re trying to discourage racial flamewars on cS.

  • YourSupremeCommander

    So what is your home country? Say it. If you don’t, you are worse than the shit I dumped into the toilet this morning.

    • Alex Dương

      He seems to be German, which is ironic because Germany was a big reason why the Second Sino-Japanese War lasted eight years.

      • DC

        he used “Allo” that probably makes him French or Italian…but he made a dumb “xx decade called” joke..so he’s probably British or American…who knows…such an enigma

    • Chris

      I am a global citizen.

  • DavidisDawei

    Attached is a very graphic photo I came across online.

    One of my favorite references from Sun Tzu:
    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
    If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

    • ninxay

      That’s some decent finger-on-shutter-trigger work there. I didn’t know they had fast shutter speeds back in 1910 or whatever, because that looks like it predates WW2.

      On second thought it looks like Manchuria but the guy doing the swinging doesn’t look Japanese, although the guy on the left wearing the officer’s hat does. Any context on this image?

      • DavidisDawei

        I’m sure someone out there will be able to ID the uniforms and/or clothes/hats to pinpoint location. I want to say it was Japanese occupied Manchuria, but I forget the details now.

  • MonkeyMouth

    name ONE war where the soldiers acted ‘nice’? just ONE…..

    • BillBo

      Cold war? ;)

  • masonman

    Numbers alone do not win wars

  • Brian227

    Have you actually read those ‘apologies’ in your link? They’re variations on a theme of “We deeply regret that some unpleasant things may have happened at some point in our history…”

    I’d take it seriously if they did the German thing of, “Our grandads were murdering bastards and we’re making damned sure we’ll never produce another generation like them!” As they stand, these statements are a textbook example of dissociation.

  • ninxay

    “China” has a hard enough time staying together, let alone fighting off foreign devils. I put the quote marks there because throughout China’s history there hasn’t been one single entity, just a collection of competing local interests held together by feudal power structures.

    Sorry to be blunt but more Chinese have been killed by other Chinese, both before the Japanese invasions and after the Communist takeover, than by the Japanese.

  • oww something bad happened in WW2 now I will totally forget about Israel bombing palestine today.

  • guest

    Why are they using pictures from the Tongzhou incident?

  • BillBo

    This seems less of a commemoration or remembrance then just an excuse to hate the Japanese. It’s been 77 years. Japan is not the same nation. Someone should tell the Chinese that it’s possible to commemorate your heroes without having to vilify the people they fought against.

  • Dr Sun

    to quote you

    “There you go my dear. I’d take the French Foreign Legion to protect me anytime instead of the “mighty” Marines…”

    Check your facts, the French foreign legion have never won a single major battle on their own, ever. The usmc most certainly have.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»