Japanese Stores Create Special Counter For Chinese Tourists

Japanese Stores Create Special Counter For Chinese Tourists
According to the “Japan Economic News” website news report, every well known Japanese shopping mall put out a notice to Chinese tourists about a new limited commodity counter. They especially hope to attract Chinese tourists traveling on “PRC National Day” and enjoying their long holiday. In 2014, Chinese tourists visiting Japan bought an average of 231753 Japanese Yen worth of goods, and this year it increased 10%. Of all duty free sales, 70% of the sales came from China. Chinese netizens think that people that try to boycott Japanese goods are just hilarious.

Source: Netease

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 »
  • not good!

    • KamikaziPilot

      Why? I think it’s just great. Chinese are great shoppers.

    • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

      Money is money.

  • LeanatanHannin

    Japanese are the angelic version of humans.

    • catch a jap dog!

    • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

      Nah, you’re thinking of the Danish.

  • Amused

    Hey cool, looks like they respect Chinese buying power. Expansion of soft power despite the best efforts of the powers that be?

  • Zappa Frank

    is hilarious, during the PRC national days chinese go to japan to buy stuff… short after the celebration of the “victory” against Japan.. the display of nationalism is only on request, chinese think for convenience.

    • Alex Dương

      The parade was obviously very self-serving, but it was a victory unless you think only the U.S. and ex-Soviet countries can legitimately celebrate.

      • Zappa Frank

        Well technically yes, but is more or less like if France claims “yes we defeated Germany” (a bit of an exaggeration but it gives an idea)

        • Alex Dương

          I see your point, but do you think only the U.S. and the ex-Soviet countries can “honestly” celebrate?

          • Zappa Frank

            I think us and ex soviet were the only real winners, other can celebrate they survived… And look, I’m not just pointing China, even more i hypocrite is what happen in Italy where we celebrate “the liberation” from nazi/fascists and we totally forget that at the time we were almost all fascists and we declared war to non belligerent countries for futile reasons (like Greece or Ethiopia) and we even lost having Germans to come to help us….

          • Alex Dương

            Fair enough.

          • Zen my Ass

            So true, bro…

      • Jahar

        Do Americans celebrate it?

        • Alex Dương
          • Jahar

            I’ve actually never heard of anyone celebrating it until this year.

          • Alex Dương

            It is the 70th anniversary. People attach special weight to the decade anniversaries. I assume the point you want to make is that the U.S. doesn’t make anywhere near as big a deal as China and Russia do? If so, point taken. But it’s simply not true to say that there’s no deal at all. Especially in today’s political climate, that would be seen as hugely offensive to the surviving veterans.

          • Jahar

            I’m not trying to make a point.

          • Alex Dương

            My apologies, then. I interpreted your question as you wanting to say that the Americans have gotten over it whereas the Chinese and Russians haven’t.

          • mistertibbs4u

            He may not be saying that, but I’m definitely saying that the Americans had nothing to get over in the first place.

            The Americans never legitimately had anything to “get over” as only months after the Soviets captured Germany, there was an immediate race to provide amnesty to the Third Reich’s top war criminals in exchange for supposedly “winning” the space race (and more abstract plans to dominate the motor industry).

            As for the general public, other than “Saving Private Ryan” and Spielberg’s other “odes” to WWII, there really hasn’t been any hoopla over the atrocities committed by the Axis of Evil against the United States. We have like one “Pearl Harbor” movie (most Americans care so little that they haven’t even seen “Tora! Tora! Tora!” for it to be relevant) and people paid more attention to Liv Tyler and Ben Afflick’s onscreen romance than they did to the historical accuracy supposedly portrayed in the film.

            Why? Because Americans only suffered during a very brief attack by the Japanese that lasted a whole 24 hours, if that.

            All suffering (for all intents and purposes) was done by Jews, whose nationality spanned Poland, the Soviet Union and several other Eastern European countries.

            The only country that can be compared to “not getting over it” in reference to China are Poland (who suffered the worse concentration of deaths in a single period, which spanned over one heightened year, as opposed to several years of occupation) and the Soviet Union (whose numbers are more sporadic than Poland and larger than China) and both don’t seem to give a crap in the national sense whatsoever.

            So as you can see, the Americans hadn’t gotten over it, because frankly, they were never in it to begin with.

            Which deduces the comparison down to the Chinese and the Soviets, who frankly vastly outnumber the Chinese in numbers killed by the Third Reich vs numbers of Chinese killed by the Japanese. That number is within the millions if not more and globally, they could have cared less even 20 years after it occurred.

            The irony is that their country encompasses the original version of Communism, which leads me to believe that the “not getting over it” sentiment by the Chinese nation is primarily an Asian one.

            The idea of ancient “ancestor worship” and common day filial piety play more into the idea of why the Chinese as a nation state continue to focus more attention on “never forgetting” than either Poland or the Soviet Union.

            At the end of the day, the thing that offends the Chinese the most psychologically, is that the atrocities were so easily prevented (with the Japanese initially taking control over Manchuria and several other areas administratively on paper and not forcibly) which gives the victim a stinging agitation of hindsight.

            I think the one thing the Chinese truly want to forget is not the atrocities that took place, but the act of letting its guard down in the first place.

          • Alex Dương

            I have several disagreements.

            1. I don’t agree that Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, “doesn’t give a crap in the national sense whatsoever” about WWII. At least on paper, Putin calls Victory Day Russia’s “biggest holiday.”

            2. I don’t agree that Soviet deaths, both civilian and military, vastly outnumber Chinese deaths in WWII. 24 million Soviets died in WWII compared to 15-20 million Chinese. Of course, 4-9 million is a lot of people, but it’s not as if we’re comparing 2 million to 24 million.

            3. I strongly disagree that the atrocities were easily prevented. Between 1895 and 1937, Japan was far, far, far, stronger militarily and technologically than China. I don’t see how you can credibly argue that the Chinese could have easily resisted the invasion of Manchuria in 1931. You are aware that Japan easily beat China in 1895?

          • Vance

            You make several good points. I would only add that in numbers, the Soviet losses were only a little more than the Chinese losses, however, as a percentage of population, I think the Soviet losses were far greater than the Chinese losses. That doesn’t take away from the fact that these numbers are staggering. The losses suffered by the Soviet Union and China combined make up a large majority of total WWII losses, although that exact number varies widely among sources.

            In hard numbers, the suffering by the US was much smaller, however, mistertibbs4u left out the suffering by Americans in the Philippines in his accounting. The Bataan Death March and the thousands of civilian Americans including women and children that were imprisoned in that university campus in Manila, many starved to death during this imprisonment. I think it is also important to note that the Filipinos themselves were under American jurisdiction at this time as the Philippines was actually an American territory at this time, although scheduled for independence in 1946. The Americans lost half a million in WWII. A small number compared to the Soviet Union and China, but still very significant. I think much of our ability to “move on” is because the fire bombings and atomic bombings placated our need for vengeance and balance for earlier atrocities. For the Chinese, while they were on the victorious side, it was more like the Japanese were in their streets committing atrocities, and then one day they surrendered and just left. The Chinese never got much chance to literally burn the Japanese in retaliation for atrocities committed against them.

          • Alex Dương

            Point very well taken about deaths as a percentage of total population. I did not consider that.

          • mistertibbs4u

            1. Didn’t you use the term “get over it”? So why would you then refer to Russia acknowledging their victory over the Third Reich as a reference? That’s not an actual correlation. The Soviet Union was the tactical reason for the demise of the Third Reich for two reasons: a) They absorbed the largest portion of their global offense during operation Barbarossa, and as a country they don’t acknowledge their losses separately from the victory. The victory is the focus by far, so your disagreement doesn’t have any merit. The Victory Day celebration in fact solidifies my statement that they have “gotten over it”. Now, had the Soviets spent a large portion of their Victory Day celebration discussing the atrocities of Barbarossa, among other offenses, then we can say they hadn’t gotten over it.

            2. Actually, the number is higher than that, it is 17-22 million. Firstly, the reason I used the term vastly, is because it needs to be solidified to certain members of this conversation (both Chinese and foreign) that the Soviets did indeed lose a larger number of people during World War II and it’s no small number. Secondly, it’s no small number. While I generally stand up for issues against general belligerence against many Mainland commenters, it also stands that some of them need a reality check against who died and exactly how much.

            3. As an African-American, I uniquely both understand and empathize with the plight of the Chinese in a way that is both improbable and implausible for white Westerners to even begin to comprehend: a) the aggressor of contemporary global history (Europeans, White Americans and the Japanese) should always be seen as the antagonist as they have largely initiated said conflict) and b) the history of said struggle is always undermined and should never been taken for granted in said conflict. This is why I as an African-American (before you underestimated the number of Chinese by a couple of million) already mentally acknowledged that number in my mind, because those who have been oppressed “pre-emptively” (for lack of a more concise term) deserve to be recognized for the “initial” slaughter and how it plays into the entire scheme of the conflict. However, militarily and from a basis of morale, the Japanese were not prepared and did not have confidence to overtake China as an actual campaign until Manchuria was under their total control. And it is generally agreed that if Manchuria was never “signed away” the Japanese could have been held off long enough to stage a coup on the little administrative and military power they did have. (CASE IN POINT: Had Mao’s revolution occurred before the signing over of Manchuria [or even the same time] there’s no way they would have had the balls to strike before retreating at least a little bit.

            There are in fact two Sino-Japanese campaigns: the first being of 1894-1895 and the second being 1931-1945. Some people say 1937, but that excludes the MOST important act of the Second Sino-Japanese war, which was the taking of Manchuria.

            As an African-American, I acknowledge the casualties of from 1895-1945 because it has much significance in the grand scheme of things (most importantly the blame of the Japanese), but militarily there are indeed two distinct wars.

            Don’t forget that the Japanese government initially was OUTRAGED by the localized sect’s decision to invade and were prepared to stop further support and advances. This is a whole other conversation within itself, but the bottom line being that during this brief period before the year 1931, there was chance for insubordination from localized armies sympathetic to the Emperor’s actual ideas about the Japanese before he bitched out and those close to the Chinese government loyal to the nation.

            Remember, the more government officials you get drunk with, the more true Communist members that you fraternize with, the clearer the truth becomes.

            To the mind of leaders (who ultimately form public opinion and sentiment towards war policy and national morale) , the takeover of Manchuria was a much bigger offense than the actual atrocities. For them, Japanese dogs are Japanese dogs. However, Chinese should be true Chinese.

          • Alex Dương

            1. Yes, I said, “I interpreted [Jahar’s] question as [him] wanting to say that the Americans have gotten over it whereas the Chinese and Russians haven’t.” “Getting over it” in the context of our discussion referred to not making a big deal out of celebrating the end of WWII. So, if Russia continues to prepare and carry out large parades commemorating the end of WWII, then they have not “gotten over it.”

            I think the problem here is that you interpret “it” to be the death count while “it” in the context of my discussion with Jahar referred to the end of WWII.

            2. If you want to use a higher range than what I gave, then that weakens your point. Again, it goes without saying that 2-7 million is a lot of people. But if you’re comparing 17 million to 24 million, 24 million does not vastly outnumber 17 million.

            While the Soviet role in WWII is underemphasized in the West as a vestige of the Cold War, I don’t think anyone here was denying the substantial contribution and sacrifice the Soviet Union made in ending the war.

            3. You didn’t explain how the Chinese could have credibly resisted the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. The closest seems to be a claim that if Mao’s revolution had occurred before 1931, then the Japanese would have been deterred from invading.

            Well, you’re aware that the Chinese Civil War began in 1927 and didn’t go on quasi-hiatus until 1937, yes? And you’re aware that the Communists weren’t doing so well from 1927 to 1931 and indeed, were forced to retreat in the Long March from 1934 to 1935, after the Japanese invaded and annexed Manchuria?

            If this is your argument, you might as well say that if the Qing had fought more wars between 1758 and 1839, China would’ve been better able to resist European colonialism and none of this would’ve ever happened. But the fact is that the Qing didn’t fight very many wars between the end of the Dzunghar conflict and the First Opium War, so this argument is not valid, and neither is yours.

            Given what actually happened in history as of 1931, I do not see how the Chinese could have had any chance of seriously resisting the Manchurian invasion. The Japanese were simply far, far, far stronger.

          • mistertibbs4u

            1. That makes no sense. No where in the English-speaking world is “getting over it” inferring “it” as having anything other than a negative context. Your “it” statement holds no water, because in the phrase itself, “it” connotes an unpleasant event or experience. It is lexically impossible to get over a victory. In that case, we would have to call on the phrase “get over oneself”, which would denote getting past one’s past one’s previous glories, which simply wasn’t the case here. That said, it only leads back to my original stance, which was the Soviets being the only party (aside from the Polish, being my own personal interjection) who, as much as the Chinese, had something to “get” over. That’s a fact. The Americans from their own personal agenda, had nothing to get over.

            2. Again, you’re not talking to a white guy. You’re talking to a black guy. This means my dimension of argumentation has more layers by default than someone would a privileged and uninformed mind state, so if you’re Asian, start having a conversation with me as if you understand what I’m saying. As an Asian, you should understand that me supporting the suffering of the Chinese by acknowledging higher numbers, in no way on this earth, weakens my point of comparison against the Soviets. Your stance in this conversation is very Western, so I don’t think you’re appreciating the depth of my argument at this point. My point is that unlike the brief German occupation of the Russian land mass, the Japanese occupation covers more years and is much more complex.

            It is that same complexity that adds strength to my argument, as the Nanjing incident is not the “be all” off the occupation. There were many years of peace interwoven into the Japanese occupation and if you’re a real student of those years, you’ll readily understand this. So using eastern (African and Asian) consideration depth practices should allow you to understand that there were many instances in which the morale of the Chinese people were determined as much by the show of force by the localized Japanese military as it was by the ineptitude of many Chinese warlords (along with the dwindling influence of the Qing Dynasty) at the time.

            You’re standing back on semantics, when I already told you the reason I used the world vastly. I don’t think you misunderstood what I said in my previous post and I’ll say it again for good measure: the word vastly was specifically used by myself, because it emphasizes two things: a) the actual number of deaths on the Soviet side and b) the lack of acknowledgement by yourself and others who disagreed with you. I didn’t argue your number down while making my point. I rightfully increased it because I know that much to be true. It doesn’t take an iota from my point and I stand by it. The symbolic difference (which is KEY in discussions regarding Chinese history and propaganda) is all but key. As a moderator of this board, I think you should at least know that.

            Bottom line is the Soviets out compete anyone who thinks their World War II atrocities should be emphasized and the astounding fact is as the catalyst of Asian communism, they don’t even stick their foot in the race. Which strengthens my first point above.

            3. Let’s take a look at the following comment:

            “If this is your argument, you might as well say that if the Qing had fought more wars between 1758 and 1839, China would’ve been better able to resist European colonialism and none of this would’ve ever happened.”

            Unfortunately, I’m not a novice at Chinese history, so had I been, this gross correlation you made may have made sense, but it does not. Not in the least.

            You’re undermining the importance of information exchange during the Sino-Japanese war. You’re also undermining the hesitation of the Japanese empire during that time.

            You make it seem as if the localized Japanese armies stationed around the Eastern front of China during the early 20th century were not at times detached from the empire in both sentiment against Chinese as well as in distance. As if the CIAs death squads against communism in South American during the late 20th century were ordered directly from Carter and Reagan themselves.

            We all know central military powers that resist new leadership on both the left and right of political influence have existed since time immemorial. Whether it’s the United States or the Japanese empire’s surprisingly weak stance against total occupation right before the actual invasion.

            I have always been interested in this one particular aspect of Chinese history as tides were turned. Not sure how much time you have invested in this particular period, but if I were you I’d research the relationship between 蔣中正, 張學良 and 马福祥. Then try to find some additional information on a specially telling events and how they could have turned out had Chinese propaganda not been so strong as to fail to take advantage of the very small window of Japanese cooperation before the invasion of Manchuria.

            If you require further proof, please research Japanese leader 南 次郎 who is proof of this anti-full on war sentiment building within localized Japanese troops and also his general, 建川 美次, who was quickly dispatched to China to quell the incidents that led to the overall invasion of Manchuria.

            I don’t study this to have stronger points on ChinaSmack. This shit is extremely interesting.

            I think if you read a little more about these individuals who could have turned the tides of the entire war, you’ll understand the point I’m making about acknowledging the number of deaths of the Chinese while understanding the significance that Chinese forces could have played had the call gone out to attack localized Japanese troops.

            You can take my word for it as a black man, or wait for some old white guy to say EXACTLY the same thing on a documentary that has yet to be filmed.

            That phenomena, is another story…

          • Alex Dương

            1. No. In the context of the discussion I had with Jahar, we were talking about making a big deal out of celebrating the end of WWII. That was the “it” I was referring to in “getting over it.” You’ll kindly note that death counts weren’t mentioned a single time in that discussion.

            If you want to talk about death counts, that’s perfectly fine. I’m happy to have a separate discussion on that with you. But then you should not presume that “it” refers to death counts when Jahar and I were not talking about death counts.

            2. Why should I care that you’re black? It makes no difference to me. I don’t look down upon you relative to anyone else, nor do I put you on a pedestal relative to anyone else. I try to evaluate your arguments on their merits, like I try to do with everyone else. If you’re talking about a Chinese death toll range of 17-22 million, then as I said, that weakens your argument: you’re claiming that the Soviets had “vastly” more deaths, but 24 million is not vastly more than 17 million.

            I understand and respect your position that you are acknowledging the suffering Chinese went through during WWII. But that doesn’t change my view that while 2-7 million people is of course a lot of people, 24 million is not vastly less than 17 million.

            You talk about “many years of peace interwoven into the Japanese occupation.” Since you date the second Sino-Japanese campaign from 1931 to 1945, I’m guessing you’re referring to the period after the annexation of Manchuria and before the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937. I would not characterize those years as peaceful, as there were several incidents spread throughout that period (e.g. Rehe, Suiyan).

            You claim that I haven’t acknowledged the actual number of Soviet deaths. Frankly, that’s ridiculous. At no point have I ever denied the tremendous sacrifice the Soviet Union made during the WWII. In fact, that’s why I rhetorically asked Frank whether he thinks only the U.S. and the Soviet Union can legitimately celebrate victory in WWII.

            3. You claimed that the Japanese wouldn’t have invaded Manchuria if Mao’s revolution had taken place before 1931, but as of 1931, the Communists were losing the Civil War. So how could that revolution have taken place? You didn’t answer.

            As for your claim that the Japanese were “hesitant” to invade China, please tell me what happened to Inukai Tsuyoshi.

          • mistertibbs4u

            1. Bro. Whether you were talking about death counts or the thread count in Egyptian cotton sheets, the term “gotten over it” was incorrectly used by the both of you. Anyone who speaks English as a first language (and frankly as a second) would not presume that “it” referred to anything else than a negative experience. That’s just something you’re going to have to understand as an English speaker.

            Side note, I’d love to discuss the death counts if you have the time. I often discuss this issue with my Russian friends, which is why I so speedily had a prepared answer for you in the first place.

            2. I specifically stated to you that as a black man, my viewpoint is more dimensional than the average white man’s opinion, which puts it close to the average Asian person’s cultural opinion.

            The idea that you assumed this as anything to do with “looking down” on another person actually exposes your association with black people and discrimination. You’re entirely off course and frankly a little presumptuous about my intentions which in reality–for lack of a better term– “a little too white”.

            The relation of my cultural mind set to the cultural mind set of Asians and how those are much more in common than the cultural mind set of the average White westerner has nothing to do with discrimination or “looking down” and everything to do with relation. You may want to reread my statement and try not to “assume” too much from a Western perspective.

            Again, it sounds as if you’re not even reading the reason why I told you I used the term “vastly”. I don’t think you’re misunderstanding me, it just sounds like you’re choosing to act like you believe my meaning was literal. You’ve been told twice (and once preemptively when you read my first comment) why I “specifically” used the world vastly. I haven’t out-argued a large number of lame brains on this forum and not learned the fact that you can’t be literal without “losing the crowd” and also the ability to get people’s attention.

            If your intention is to continue to respond as if you’re not understanding my unwavering decision to use the term, then we can continue to go back and forth until you state you understand my intention. It hasn’t wavered since my first statement and I don’t speak just to speak. So that’s up to you, I have all the time in the world.

            3. Are you honestly asking me how a figurative statement that I consciously made, could have taken place? Bro, that was my entire meaning… of COURSE Mao couldn’t have started the revolution any earlier, as the Japanese invasion itself created the factors that led to his amassing of peasant troops.

            The whole point of bringing up Mao as an example, was to equate Mao’s grassroots resistance with the collective dissent of Chinese close to Japanese quarters during incidents such as the Mukden. Had I started with the three Chinese names and the two Japanese names I gave you, there was no guarantee that you were familiar with them. That’s just standard conversational pattern.

            I’m a purveyor of the general paper-thin dynamics of the Sino-Japanese war and our conversation is more like my 100th on the subject, so it’s not like you’re discussing this with someone who just did a quick Google check. I read books on this subject. I’ve spent many a night traveling from Shenzhen to Hong Kong and back to get books that are generally banned on the Mainland on this subject.

            While we’re on the subject, did you really just bring up Inukai Tsuyoshi? I’ve had a few government officials try to pull this guy out of their hat while having this discussion in Mandarin on more than one occasion.

            I’ll tell you what I told them–actually, I don’t have to repeat myself–I’ll just past what I wrote to you in my last comment:

            “Then try to find some additional information on a specially telling events and how they could have turned out had Chinese propaganda not been so strong as to fail to take advantage of the very small window of Japanese cooperation before the invasion of Manchuria.”

            Even more telling of my opinion is what I said before the above comment:

            “You’re undermining the importance of information exchange during the Sino-Japanese war.”

            And that’s exactly the point. Inukai Tsuyoshi alone wasn’t going to change the tides of the aftermath of the false flag that was known as Mukden. Truth be told, the large ball of opportunity was dropped by the Chinese themselves, who–had they amassed more communication with the Japanese empire, instead of solely dealing with localized regiments of the Japanese Kwantung–could have been privy to crucial information regarding the empire’s initial disagreement with behavior of that army.

            At the end of the day, it’s all hindsight… but unlike Poland and the fromer Soviet Union, Asian culture dictates more of an emphasis on the memorial of past wrongs than European culture does.

            Which leads back to my original point and stance.

            If you would like to discuss those numbers and their true significance across the board, I’m up for that as well.

            I eat communism for breakfast. And I have a hell of an appetite.

          • Alex Dương

            1. You’re thinking too narrowly. “Get over it” is synonymous with “move on.” “It” can refer to a negative experience but need not be restricted to negative experiences. For example, people who can’t let go of their “glory days” are also told to “get over” them or “move on,” even though “it” in this case refers to positive experiences, say, being the quarterback of the championship high school football team. A positive experience to be sure, but if you’re still talking about it on a daily basis when you’re 48, maybe you should get over it and move on.

            2. It is very racist of you to assume that because you are black, your viewpoint is, quote, “more dimensional than the average white man’s opinion, which puts it close to the average Asian person’s cultural opinion.” Your viewpoint could be more dimensional based on your education or your experiences, and of course, your being black shapes your experiences. But in and of itself, your being black is totally irrelevant.

            You’re quick to take offense when I referred to not “looking down” on you. But you ignored that I also said I don’t put you on a pedestal either. You seem to demand and expect this because you are black, but I refuse to put anyone on any pedestal based on their race.

            You refuse to back down on your use of vastly and state that you’ve twice explained why you used the term. I read your explanation: it is a straw man. You claim that I downplayed Soviet deaths in WWII. Point to where I said that the Soviets did not make an enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII. Please, no circumlocutious paragraphs; just point to where I downplayed Soviet deaths in WWII.

            3. Great, thanks for admitting that what you said earlier was very poorly thought out:

            However, militarily and from a basis of morale, the Japanese were not prepared and did not have confidence to overtake China as an actual campaign until Manchuria was under their total control. And it is generally agreed that if Manchuria was never “signed away” the Japanese could have been held off long enough to stage a coup on the little administrative and military power they did have. (CASE IN POINT: Had Mao’s revolution occurred before the signing over of Manchuria [or even the same time] there’s no way they would have had the balls to strike before retreating at least a little bit.

            That could not have happened based on what actually occurred as of 1931, therefore it is not a valid argument in support of your claim that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria could have easily been resisted by the Chinese.

            Now, after this, you tried a different argument which is also bad:

            Truth be told, the large ball of opportunity was dropped by the Chinese themselves, who–had they amassed more communication with the Japanese empire, instead of solely dealing with localized regiments of the Japanese Kwantung–could have been privy to crucial information regarding the empire’s initial disagreement with behavior of that army.

            So according to you, it was the fault of CKS, Zhang Xueliang, Ma Fuxiang, etc. that they didn’t talk to Minami Jirou and didn’t try to get him to rein in the Kwantung Army in the five month period between April 1931 and September 1931.

            What’s really pathetic about this argument is that you’re expecting Zhang Xueliang to have done something that you would never have done yourself. From prior discussions with other people, you have often made a big deal about how “alpha” you are. So tell me, if some members of an organization had killed your father, would you later beg that the leaders of that organization to ask the members to be nice to you? Of course you would not, so why do you expect Zhang Xueliang to have done that and blame him for not doing that?

            Seriously, blaming the Chinese for the invasion of Manchuria is a godawfully stupid argument. The Kwantung Army was responsible, the Japanese Government did not discipline the Kwantung Army in the aftermath, and the answer to my request is that Inukai Tsuyoshi was assassinated shortly afterward, and his assassins got slaps on their wrists.

            Also, CKS, Zhang Xueliang, and Ma Fuxiang were with the KMT, so your penultimate sentence is completely irrelevant.

          • mistertibbs4u

            I tried to give you an out, but they rarely take it. So now I’m forced to give you the business:

            1. You’re just flat out wrong about the phrase “get over it” and I’m not sure why you choose to continue to feign as if you’re correct when you’re speaking with a native English speaker that knows what he’s talking about. There’s no way you’re going to get around it because I simply will not allow you to get around it.

            Now, I have to play your English teacher as well as the person besting you in this conversation. When someone says you should get over “it”, it means that “it” is something that has blocked you from doing something else. This means a hardship or adversity that figuratively acts as a “wall” that is blocking you from “moving on”. That is why the abstract idea of either “jumping over a wall” or “turning a mountain into a molehill” becomes an analogy for this phrase.

            Never ever on any continent where a population speaks English, has there been an “case” (as you attempted to state) where “it” is positive.

            I think the phrase you’re looking for is “get over yourself”, which means that as a person, you have yet to move past an especially positive experience (usually of victory or overcoming something) because you subconsciously fear that as you get older, you won’t be able to replicate the strength or fortitude it took you to overcome the initial experience of which you continuously bring up.

            THAT is called “getting over oneself”. However, the hilarity of it is even if you use the phrase “get over yourself” you’re STILL wrong, because the issue at hand is the Chinese getting over the atrocities of WWII (or the Second Sino-Japanese war).

            You made the grave mistake of placing the Americans and the Chinese in the same sentence (which I caught, which is why I responded in the first place), and I clearly told you that while the Chinese have something to “get over” (constantly bringing up the atrocities of the Japanese occupation of Mainland China), the Americans don’t have the same experience, as the Americans are mostly continuously bringing up their victory in WWII.

            Had you the mental dexterity to understand the difference, you would have realized that what the Americans REALLY need to “get over” is their loss in Vietnam, because that’s one instance where American media harbors over how technically it was a victory when we all know the Chinese-backed communist regime of Vietcong clearly kicked their asses.

            So what I’m trying to say is… you’re wrong. And you KNOW you’re wrong. On to your next fallacy…

            2. Your response is kind of silly and while I gave you the benefit of the doubt because you’re a “mod” or whatever, you threw that out of the window during your last response. I know what kind of person you are. And I know how you react to people who are smarter than you. I also know how you react to people who you think you’re smarter than, who suddenly show you as clear as day, you hold no candle. You start getting snippy. There’s flood of your previous comments that prove that. Case in point:

            I didn’t say I was by nature more dimensional in opinion than a white person. I made it VERY clear I was talking about a cultural difference, not a racial one. However, you clearly lack an Asian depth of conversation as well, as you clearly must have missed this gem:

            “The relation of my cultural mind set to the cultural mind set of Asians and how those are much more in common than the cultural mind set of the average White westerner has nothing to do with discrimination or “looking down” and everything to do with relation. You may want to reread my statement and try not to “assume” too much from a Western perspective.”

            How many times did I mention cultural in that last paragraph from my last response? Why do you think I did that? Do you think that was a coincidence? Or is it the more probably likelihood that you’re being read like a novel by myself, because I know your predictable behavior when you feel tested. You’re like a beat cop who lashes out, even if the other person is making sense.

            You think it’s a coincidence that I wrote cultural so many times, so that you can later all but hang yourself with the ridiculous notion that I must be racist?

            Dude, please… you’re starting to fall the way Zappa Frank did… neither him or you were ready to dance with the darkness… you still aren’t.

            I’m not racist, you’re clueless.

            Let’s see if you can address my statement and make the same remark again. You’re CLEARLY not ready to discuss with me.

            3. Now you’re commenting like a child:

            “Seriously, blaming the Chinese for the invasion of Manchuria is a godawfully stupid argument.”

            Why are you so emotional now? Why are you so rhetorical? My original point was the reason the Chinese (as a nation) can’t get over the Japanese occupation is because in hindsight, there were possibilities to turn the tides.

            If you’re not the kind of person who is deep enough to engage in that kind of conversation, that’s on you.

            If I said that “had Africans conversed with each other during the initial contact with European traders, they would have been privy to the scheme of being played against each other for arms and resources, and could have prevented enslaving their own kind to a completely different European chattel system.”

            It’s the truth… Did I blame the Africans for the deception of the Europeans? No, of course not. The Europeans are to blame… however, it’s all hindsight.

            So you really need to stop responding to me like a child and man up with your conversation. You’re a mod. Either moderate other people’s conversations, or have the “god awful” sense to not embarrass yourself by continuously trying to prove that you’ve somehow bested me.

            Here’s some more silliness you’ve typed:

            “So according to you, it was the fault of CKS, Zhang Xueliang, Ma Fuxiang, etc.”

            Did I say it was their fault? Isn’t that PRECISELY MY POINT that it WASN’T their fault… but because there was a possibility of changing the tide, had they fostered a direct connection (or in lamen’s terms, bypassed the Kwantung army) that the Chinese continue to BLAME THEMSELVES and that’s the REAL reason Beijing writers replay the events (the way they wish they occurred) over and over on the TV screen every night?

            It’s almost like you’re not even present in this conversation, man!

            It should already be apparent to you that I don’t waste time on conversations of which I know nothing, so if I engage you in a back and forth… you should probably be ready to be challenged.

            You’ve been challenged. You’ve been bested. I got all night, bro. This is not going away, so either get back to the argument with a more impartial attitude or continue to look silly by trying to emotionally rile up the conversation in your favor.

            As if someone of my intelligence would blame the Chinese for the atrocities that occurred.

            Another ridiculous statement of yours:

            “Also, CKS, Zhang Xueliang, and Ma Fuxiang were with the KMT, so your penultimate sentence is completely irrelevant.”

            ACTUALLY IT’S TOTALLY RELEVANT. AS I STATED BEFORE… had the Chinese collectively had a share of information with each other regarding the Japanese Empire’s non-intent to invade or aggress in any further way, offenses could have been launched.

            Do you know anything about Chinese history? If you did, I would imagine you already understood that when it comes to three-fold offenses, stranger things have happened. It’s like you’re not even reading my words.

            Try to act like you know my skill and my level. Any failure to do so will just wind up with you seeming more incoherent than you already look.

          • Alex Dương

            1. You do realize that I’m a native speaker as well, yes? Or did you actually think that you were talking to someone for whom English is a second language?

            When someone says you should get over “it”, it means that “it” is something that has blocked you from doing something else. This means a hardship or adversity that figuratively acts as a “wall” that is blocking you from “moving on”.

            I agree that “it” is something that has blocked the person from doing something else. I disagree that the something must be a hardship or adversity.

            You say that when something is a previous positive experience, the correct expression is “get over yourself.” To me, “get over yourself” means “you take yourself too seriously” or “you shouldn’t think so highly of yourself.” For example, you’d use “get over yourself” to tell people that they are not “too good” to do something or that something is not “beneath” them. In the context of a person who is still holding on to his glory days in high school, “get over it” feels more natural than “get over yourself.”

            But again, this discussion got awkward because you wrongly assumed that I am not a native English speaker. I will add that despite your insistence that your black racial identity makes you superior to “the average white,” on this topic, you’ve behaved exactly the same as SongYii / Sean did when he used to post here. He also didn’t realize that I am a native speaker and tried to bullshit me by claiming that “avoid like locusts” is a common English idiom instead of “avoid like the plague.” He refused to admit that he had made a mistake. Feel free to prove that you’re better than him, or not. Entirely up to you.

            2. Point to where I said that the Soviets did not make an enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII. Please, no more circumlocutious paragraphs; just point to where I downplayed Soviet deaths in WWII.

            3.

            If I said that “had Africans conversed with each other during the initial contact with European traders, they would have been privy to the scheme of being played against each other for arms and resources, and could have prevented enslaving their own kind to a completely different European chattel system.”

            It’s the truth… Did I blame the Africans for the deception of the Europeans? No, of course not. The Europeans are to blame… however, it’s all hindsight.

            How amusing. So in this example, you are not blaming the Africans; you blame the Europeans. However, in the context of our discussion, what did you say? “Truth be told, the large ball of opportunity was dropped by the Chinese themselves…” Gee, that sounds like you’re blaming the Chinese for the thieving machinations of the Japanese.

            But please, take as many paragraphs as you need to ramble about how “the large ball of opportunity was dropped by the Chinese themselves” does not equate to “I blame the Chinese.” (Actually, just one sentence will suffice.)

            had the Chinese collectively had a share of information with each other regarding the Japanese Empire’s non-intent to invade or aggress in any further way, offenses could have been launched.

            “Offenses could have been launched”? Wasn’t your previous argument that if the Chinese had more information, they could’ve asked the Japanese to play nice? (Your words: “take advantage of the very small window of Japanese cooperation before the invasion of Manchuria.”)

            Now you’re claiming that they could’ve “launched offenses”? Are you aware of the enormous disparity in military strength between China and Japan as of 1931?

            But I suppose this argument, wrong as it is, beats your previous argument. I think you’re well aware that no self-respecting man whose father was killed by members of an organization would ever beg the leaders of that organization to ask the members to play nice.

          • mistertibbs4u

            1. Let me explain something to you, bro. I’ve been coming to Chinasmack for years.

            YEARS.

            That means that since you’ve been a mod, I’ve been here. I’ve seen you moderate, comment and talk (basically you’re entire online activity here) for a WHILE now.

            OF COURSE I know English is not foreign to you.

            The fact that you asked me that question shows you’re not prepared to have this conversation with me, man. Do you honestly think I’ve been here that long and wouldn’t know something like that?

            You’re too literal and it blinds you from the points that I’m trying to make. This is why you have the position in the conversation you have right now. Here is a just a small list of a FEW things you failed to take figuratively (as a native English speaker):

            a). Believing that I BELIEVE Mao has any connection whatsoever to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or Mukden (failing to make the correlations I were clearly showing you to Mao’s resistance and the idea of resistance, not Mao actually rounding up the troops to fight something that needed to occur for him to even become a leader).

            b). Believing that I’m racist because I pointed out (and very specifically stated) cultural differences between ethnicities and the disadvantages of particular ethnicities in conversations regarding contemporary communism).

            c). Believing that I BELIEVE it was the fault of the Chinese that they were occupied and assaulted by the Kwantung army as well as other regiments of the emperor’s army mid-19th century. (As opposed to understanding my reiteration of the same point that Chinese leadership overly acknowledges hindsight of offensive opportunities).

            These are just a FEW. I didn’t even bring up your whole “get over it” statement (which initiated my conversation with you in the first place) or your need to exaggerate in order to gain ground in an argument (which I find surprising by the way, because that’s something white males usually do when losing in an argument, but that’s an entirely different conversation).

            To be honest, that “overtly literal” representation of an argument is honestly why over the past 7 years, less than half of the Chinese or Asian posters who get into arguments with white males on these boards ever best their opponents. You might want to take notes.

            You should be paying me for this advice, dude.

            Examples of your “white male” mentality of exaggerating aggressively to get ahead in an argument:

            THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

            But again, this discussion got awkward because you wrongly assumed that I am not a native English speaker.

            THIS IS MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT:

            You’re just flat out wrong about the phrase “get over it” and I’m not sure why you choose to continue to feign as if you’re correct when you’re speaking with a native English speaker that knows what he’s talking about.

            You want to run that garbage by me again, about how I assumed you weren’t a native English speaker?

            That’s sad, man… it’s right there… right there above you in black and white… do you see what I’m working with here? Do you see why as each response passes, you lose more credibility?

            HERE’S WHAT YOU SAID I SAID:

            I will add that despite your insistence that your black racial identity makes you superior to “the average white,” on this topic

            HERE’S MY **ACTUAL** STATEMENT:

            You’re talking to a black guy. This means my dimension of argumentation has more layers by default than someone would a privileged and uninformed mind state, so if you’re Asian, start having a conversation with me as if you understand what I’m saying.

            I’m sorry… I’m still looking for that superior part…

            You’re lame, man… and the more you reply, the deeper in my web of logic and consistency you become entangled.

            As a moderator, I don’t think it’s a good look on you.

            Let’s take a look at this statement you made near the end:

            “Now you’re claiming that they could’ve “launched offenses”? Are you aware of the enormous disparity in military strength between China and Japan as of 1931?”

            Did I not tell you that this is one of my favorite periods of history? So why would you assume I didn’t know that?

            Are you intentionally not getting any of the very clear points I lay out after your replies?

            The entire point is about initial resistance. The Chinese army wasn’t going to win any long campaigns anywhere near the Eastern front. Everybody knows that!

            The point is if any resistance was shown after the Mukden incident, it would have been the Japanese who would have made more effort to reign in the Kwuntang army.

            You insult me with your lack of depth. I honestly think you (like most Chinese men) need more black male friends who can steer you in the proper direction when it comes to racial perspective in the 21st century.

            If you think I’m wrong, just take a look at the sad status you currently have in this conversation.

            I’m not trying to make this look easy. It really is.

          • Alex Dương

            1. Then you have no excuse for writing something like

            You’re just flat out wrong about the phrase “get over it” and I’m not sure why you choose to continue to feign as if you’re correct when you’re speaking with a native English speaker that knows what he’s talking about. There’s no way you’re going to get around it because I simply will not allow you to get around it.

            Now, I have to play your English teacher as well as the person besting you in this conversation.

            If you know that I am also a native English speaker, then why do you feel the need to mention that you are a native speaker too? How does mentioning that you are a native speaker strengthen your argument given that you know you are talking to another native speaker? Feel free to take as many circumlocutious paragraphs as you need to answer these questions.

            You’re talking to a black guy. This means my dimension of argumentation has more layers by default than someone would a privileged and uninformed mind state, so if you’re Asian, start having a conversation with me as if you understand what I’m saying.

            I’m sorry… I’m still looking for that superior part…

            You said it yourself: you’re black, therefore “by default,” your arguments are better than those of a person with a “privileged and uninformed mind state,” which in context refers to “an average white person.” If that’s not an explicit state of superiority, I don’t know what is.

            2. No answer means this part of the discussion is over.

            3.

            So why would you assume I didn’t know that?

            Because you said “had the Chinese collectively had a share of information with each other regarding the Japanese Empire’s non-intent to invade or aggress in any further way, offenses could have been launched.” So according to you, you know that Japan was far stronger militarily than China was as of 1931, but China could have “launched offenses” against the Japanese to prevent the invasion of Manchuria. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

            The point is if any resistance was shown after the Mukden incident, it would have been the Japanese who would have made more effort to reign in the Kwuntang army.

            Your only basis for this claim is that Minami Jirou sent Tatekawa Yoshitsugu to Manchuria to rein in the Kwantung Army. From that, you then make a huge jump with your claim that if only the Chinese had shown any signs of resistance, the Japanese central government would’ve put the clamps on the Kwantung Army.

            There are many other possibilities. The Kwantung Army staged the whole incident, and if the Chinese had fought back, they (the Japanese) could’ve made themselves look like they were the victims. Why would the Japanese central government back off?

          • guest

            http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/get-over-it.html

            Don’t see any link in the meaning with it being used solely in a negative way.

            (Not disagreeing with you)

          • Alex Dương

            Thanks for the link. It opens with, “We have been told to ‘get over’ our problems for centuries.” So I see where mistertibbs4u is coming from. But the last example in your link is “We’re here and we’re queer – get over it”. I don’t think “the gay community” thinks being gay is a problem.

          • mistertibbs4u

            1. You’re not making any sense. I’ve berated the English of tons of Americans on this board (with me perusing it for several years) and they’ve never accused me of doubting whether or not they’re English speakers. Sounds like you have a personal problem that you need to solve on your personal time.

            Like I said, I already knew you were a native English speaker and JUST LIKE THE OTHER native English speakers who put their foots in their collective mouth, you were called on your misuse of the English language.

            It just sounds like you’re trying to avoid common sense. Like I said, I can only help you as much as you’re willing to be helped and if you refuse, then you’re inability to understand a phrase that was CENTRAL TO YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT (which KILLS me!) was incorrect only puts you on the lower spectrum of logic in this conversation.

            This is ridiculous:

            “If you know that I am also a native English speaker, then why do you feel the need to mention that you are a native speaker too?”

            That is my way of ridiculing you for having HORRIBLE ENGLISH SKILLS. You already know I knew you were an English speaker and yet you have the nerve to drop this awkward sentence:

            “Feel free to take as many circumlocutious paragraphs as you need to answer these questions.”

            You’re so LAME and AWKWARD… I bet that sounded great in your head… trust me… not so much on the screen. Stop trying to be cool, it’s not a good look for you.

            2. Your tactics don’t work with me. I said it before and I’ll say it again:

            “HERE’S WHAT YOU SAID I SAID:

            I will add that despite your insistence that your black racial identity makes you superior to “the average white,” on this topic

            HERE’S MY **ACTUAL** STATEMENT:

            You’re talking to a black guy. This means my dimension of argumentation has more layers by default than someone would a privileged and uninformed mind state, so if you’re Asian, start having a conversation with me as if you understand what I’m saying.

            I’m sorry… I’m still looking for that superior part…

            You’re lame, man… and the more you reply, the deeper in my web of logic and consistency you become entangled.”

            I gave you exactly what was said and how you ignored it. Now you’re going to write this:

            No answer means this part of the discussion is over.

            AND THEN IGNORE IT AGAIN?

            You should be stripped of your moderation privileges.

            And by the way, I EXPECT YOU TO RESPOND to it the next time, instead of pulling a weak “discussion is over” line.

            NOOOO… the discussing hasn’t even started on your end. You still haven’t shown me the superior part and I’m WAITING for you to man up and address it.

            Do your tactics usually work on intelligent people? Of course not. So why are you trying them on me? Stop being silly and answer the question. Stop being coy and pretentious. I’M NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

            3. This is what you said:

            “So according to you, you know that Japan was far stronger militarily than China was as of 1931, but China could have “launched offenses” against the Japanese to prevent the invasion of Manchuria. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.”

            Stop backtracking in order to make yourself look smart. You haven’t looked smart since you replied to my first statement so why would you look smart now?

            This statement reeks of nonsense. FACT: The Chinese propaganda machine during the 1930s was so thick, that at best it became counter-intuitive. The Chinese had access to communication with the Nippongo empire and didn’t take advantage of it, because to the warlords, it appeared as if they were “kowtowing” to the Japanese.

            The Japanese Empire were not hiding the fact that they attempted to sabotage any efforts made on the Kwantung army to past occupation into invasion.

            So the POINT is not invading for defeat, the point was invading as a political maneuver. The Japanese army was just as apprehensive about going to war with the Chinese in the 1930s as the Chinese were of doing the same.

            But without utilizing that line of communication with the empire, they wouldn’t have known that, now would they?

            This has CONTINUED to be my point, and now you’re flip flopping all over the place like a typical Westerner on a ChinaSmack forum.

            I feel embarrassed for you, dude.

            You better reply and you better address my points, instead of trying to find clever maneuvers to get out of the conversation.

            I’m not GOING anywhere. Answer the questions. I extend the same courtesy to you, so act like you have some common sense and do the same.

            I already told you… the more you reply, the shorter and rhetorical your responses become and the less sense you make. I’ll keep roping you back in, into the ACTUAL discussion. You can’t play that crap with me.

            I’ll be waiting.

          • Alex Dương

            1. You didn’t answer my question: How does mentioning that you are a native speaker strengthen your argument given that you know you are talking to another native speaker?

            2. Now you’re mixing up the first part with the second part of our discussion. The second part of our discussion involved you claiming that I do not acknowledge the enormous contribution the Soviet Union made toward victory in WWII. I asked you to “Point to where I said that the Soviets did not make an enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII. Please, no more circumlocutious paragraphs; just point to where I downplayed Soviet deaths in WWII.”

            3. Again, you didn’t answer my question: The Kwantung Army staged the whole incident, and if the Chinese had fought back, they (the Japanese) could’ve made themselves look like they were the victims. Why would the Japanese central government back off?

          • mistertibbs4u

            Now you’re back on track. On to the discussion:

            1. I personally believe you have a psychological reaction to this issue (because you’re an Asian native English speaker), which disallows you to see my point. So, because of your psychological bias towards yourself, I will give you an example with a white American, if that makes you feel more comfortable:

            When a white American and I are having a conversation, and that white American makes a grammar faux paus or misstates something–unless if has anything to do with the main point–I usually will not bring it up, because bringing up grammar and semantics that hold no relation to the talking point at hand is a tactic a person usually uses when their talking point is very weak.

            However, when their grammatical mistake or (as in your case) colloquial misuse of English is CENTRAL to the conversation, then I will bring it up. Usually they try to defend their mistake (as in your case) with some excuse about an “exception” in the language that usually doesn’t exist, at which point I will (as in your case) repeat what I said. If they still harbor on the issue of something so simplistic and one-sided (a fact), then I have two choices in the matter: 1) insult their English skills directly (which I refuse to do, as I have too many valid points that have to be discussed) or 2) strengthen their recognition of my own personal skill set (as a proof that I’m correct).

            Think about it: those white native English speakers are given the SAME thought process that I gave to you, yet you seem to have an issue with it.

            So what I want you to do is to go home and ask yourself WHY you have an issue with it. Technically, I’ve already proven myself to be correct on this point, yet we’re still discussing it.

            Sound familiar? Chinese and Russians, bro.

            The two oldest *continuous* mindsets on this planet are African and Chinese. (Why compare a continent to a country? Because politically, China is country, but culturally, linguistically and anthropologically, China is a collection of nation states, much like Africa, but that is another story.)

            As I said before, those two experiences lead to an immediate CULTURAL communication, much closer between African-Americans and Asians in general. And exponentially closer between Africans and Asians. I’m from California, where all groups have been integrated in a higher consistency for far longer than other places in the 20th and 21st century. This is why my statement is not racial at all. And if you lack that personal depth of understanding because of your own lack of experiences with diversity, then maybe that’s why you keep harboring on the issue.

            2. Guess what? I did a CTRL-F find function for the term “downplayed” (because I KNOW I would have never said anything like that) and it only showed up in two posts: the first post two days ago when you mis-quoted me and 8 hours ago when you referenced your own mis-quotation as if that was some basis for proof.

            YOU SAID:

            I don’t agree that Soviet deaths, both civilian and military, vastly outnumber Chinese deaths in WWII. 24 million Soviets died in WWII compared to 15-20 million Chinese.

            I SAID:

            Actually, the number is higher than that, it is 17-22 million.

            Do you NOT see that I was referring to the Chinese? Why would I say “higher” than and also quote a “range” to compare to your “range”?

            I was saying that the number of Chinese deaths were HIGHER than what you quoted, and so you cannot show me as having any sort of bias, because I have no ILL WILL or ill intention against the Chinese.

            With all of that proof, you just ASSUMED I was referring to the Soviets? You are so ASIAN, man!! No offense, but as you can see above, I’M MORE on your team than YOU ARE. That’s sad, bro… I’m no psychologist, but I would have to say you have an emotional issue with Asian identity as it related to non-Asians.

            How can you go from me making the number of quoted deaths of the Chinese higher, while still proving my point:

            “Firstly, the reason I used the term vastly, is because it needs to be solidified to certain members of this conversation (both Chinese and foreign) that the Soviets did indeed lose a larger number of people during World War II and it’s no small number. Secondly, IT’S NO SMALL NUMBER.”

            Can’t you see that I was stating (because I actually study this, unlike you, for pure interest) that the difference was 2 MILLION deaths at the least and you were quoting that the death was 4 MILLION at the least?

            Bro! I’m giving Chinese deaths MORE PROPS than you are! And you go and pull a disrespectful assumption that I must have been talking about the Soviets! As an black man, I find your assumptions to be disgusting. Here I am trying to help you out, by showing you the number was higher for the Chinese and insisted on using the word vastly because 2 million is STILL A BIG NUMBER (for my point, not yours!).

            This is EXACTLY why I focus on my own ability (as I said in point 1 above) because once you start proving yourself, people start playing the “victim card” (like I have some sort of ulterior motive) as you are doing RIGHT NOW.

            Bro, your entire stance is BROKEN. I WOULD laugh at this crazy assumption you pulled, but as an African-American who stands up for Asian standpoints.

            I’m just too sad at your condition right now. Step it up man… this is not a game.

            3 DAYS AGO:

            “That said, it only leads back to my original stance, which was the Soviets being the only party (aside from the Polish, being my own personal interjection) who, AS MUCH AS THE CHINESE, had something to “get” over. That’s a fact. The Americans from their own personal agenda, had nothing to get over.”

            You have to learn intent dude. I’m trying to be impartial about the situation. Had I had the stance that you’re imagining me to have, I wouldn’t use such impartial language. I would have said moreso.

            So YOU’RE downplaying Chinese numbers, bro. That was the whole point.

            Jesus Christ.

            3. The more you speak about the second Sino-Japanese war, the more convinced I am that you haven’t really understood anything that took place.

            You discuss it like one of those people that go to Wikipedia for a “one-all” summary of the war, without understanding any crucial points, events leading to major battles or important losses on both sides.

            If you REALLY want to understand the Japanese empire’s opinion on total war (before the major atrocities) and at the point where foreign intervention could have been forced by Japan’s not only HESITATION but assistance in pulling back their own army, then you need to focus on the time near the Mukden event (as I told you before) and one document in particuar, the Lytton report on additional proof that the Japanese did not want Kwantung aggression, because it threatened their economic success in the region.

            I do this for a living. So either listen to what I’m saying and try to understand the points or fall back. As I said before, every response just gets more out of touch with you.

          • Alex Dương

            1. “I do the same thing for white people” is not an answer to my question. My question is, how does mentioning that you are a native speaker strengthen your argument given that you know you are talking to another native speaker?

            2. I asked you to “Point to where I said that the Soviets did not make enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII. Please, no more circumlocutious paragraphs; just point to where I downplayed Soviet deaths in WWII.”

            I asked you to do this because you said,

            the reason I used the term vastly, is because it needs to be solidified to certain members of this conversation (both Chinese and foreign) that the Soviets did indeed lose a larger number of people during World War II and it’s no small number. Secondly, it’s no small number.

            Since you are unable to “point to where I said that the Soviets did not make enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII,” let’s try something simpler. Who are these “certain members”? In particular, who is the “Chinese” member, or who are the “Chinese” members?

            3. Oh, so now we have a new argument from you: “foreign intervention could have been forced.” Was “foreign intervention” forced at any time between July 7, 1937 and December 6, 1941? Let’s see: no. So what makes you think that “foreign intervention could have been forced” in Manchuria if only the Chinese had shown “initial resistance” by “launching offenses”? (Let’s just ignore that you, as a native speaker, think it makes sense to “resist” with “offense.”)

            You start with one fact – Minami Jirou sent Tatekawa Yoshitsugu to rein in the Kwantung Army – and then you take a huge leap and conclude that if the Chinese had “resisted,” the Japanese central government would’ve taken the initiative to regain control over the Kwantung Army, and foreign powers would have also stepped in to preserve Chinese sovereignty over Manchuria.

            But you have no answer to my question: The Kwantung Army staged the whole incident, and if the Chinese had fought back, they (the Japanese) could’ve made themselves look like they were the victims. Why would the Japanese central government back off?

          • mistertibbs4u

            1. NOW you ACTUALLY sound like a non-native speaker. I don’t know where you’re being pompous, obnoxious or seriously that dense.

            I understand exclusion and self-deprecation is a part of your culture’s defense mechanism, but that “empty insistence” only works on people who don’t have a point. You’re acting like the Chinese, who couldn’t get over it and had to grind it into the ground, although they were clearly defeated.

            Unlike the Soviets, (or the Americans who I told the same thing I told you), they didn’t have a “self-defeating” aspect of their culture that kept them wallowing in the same frame of mind because of…

            yep, you guessed it…. FACE.

            I have not been more clearer about my point, and your’e squirming around common sense (in ENGLISH) like an oiled piglet.

            Aren’t you supposed to be the moderator? Well, then moderate your own nonsense and deal with the fact that you’re LYING to yourself, bro.

            Remember when I said that people tend to harbor on Semantics when they have no strong points?

            Well, you don’t even have SEMANTICS any longer (since the beginning for me, finally for you, and sometime two days ago for anyone else reading) as I’ve clearly explained to you the purpose of focusing on my own prowess and skill and less on the inabilities of those with whom I’m having a conversation with.

            Are you really so dense that you don’t understand the purpose of me pointing out my my skills as a native English speaker?

            I just lost what little respect I had for you. SERIOUSLY.

            You’re like one of those child prodigies that can “play” the notes on a piano, but have no passion or appreciation for the notes; only expectation that you’ll receive high marks for your ability to play them.

            It’s like my good friend George Carlin says:

            “It’s not enough to play the notes, but you gotta know why they need to be played.”

            As you can CLEARLY SEE, it’s not enough to be a native English speaker, you gotta know how it can be used in different situations.

            And CLEARLY as a NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER… you STILL DON’T. Congratulations! Now you have an answer (which I already gave you several times, of which you don’t acknowledge, in order to save face), clear archival examples of your fallacies (clearly presented by the quotes from BOTH of our previous statements) and a psychological analysis of your reason for not gracefully admitting you were wrong (which, no matter how many times you try, cannot be emotionally triggered in order to make me lose track of the conversation. My analysis is STONE, bro. You’re screwed.).

            Take several seats in the corner.

            2. You truly are drowning. Let’s take a look, shall we:

            MY INITIAL COMMENT ON THE SOVIET UNION:

            The only two countries that can be compared to “not getting over it” in reference to China are Poland (who nobody seems to bring up, but suffered the worse concentration of deaths in a single period, which spanned over one heightened year, as opposed to several years of occupation) and the Soviet Union (whose numbers are more sporadic than Poland and larger than China) and both don’t seem to give a crap in the national sense whatsoever.

            (I didn’t say you denied their contributions)

            MY SECOND COMMENT ON THE SOVIET UNION (4 DAYS AGO):

            Which deduces the comparison down to the Chinese and the Soviets, who frankly vastly outnumber the Chinese in numbers killed by the Third Reich vs numbers of Chinese killed by the Japanese. That number is within the millions if not more and globally, they could have cared less even 20 years after it occurred.

            (I didn’t say you denied their contributions)

            MY THIRD COMMENT ON THE SOVIET UNION (4 DAYS AGO):

            Didn’t you use the term “get over it”? So why would you then refer to Russia acknowledging their victory over the Third Reich as a reference? That’s not an actual correlation. The Soviet Union was the tactical reason for the demise of the Third Reich for two reasons: a) They absorbed the largest portion of their global offense during operation Barbarossa, and as a country they don’t acknowledge their losses separately from the victory. The victory is the focus by far, so your disagreement doesn’t have any merit. The Victory Day celebration in fact solidifies my statement that they have “gotten over it”. Now, had the Soviets spent a large portion of their Victory Day celebration discussing the atrocities of Barbarossa, among other offenses, then we can say they hadn’t gotten over it.

            (I didn’t say you denied their contributions)

            MY FOURTH COMMENT ON THE SOVIET UNION (4 DAYS AGO):

            Firstly, the reason I used the term vastly, is because it needs to be solidified to certain members of this conversation (both Chinese and foreign) that the Soviets did indeed lose a larger number of people during World War II and it’s no small number. Secondly, it’s no small number. While I generally stand up for issues against general belligerence against many Mainland commenters, it also stands that some of them need a reality check against who died and exactly how much.

            (I didn’t say you denied their contributions)

            MY FIFTH COMMENT ON THE SOVIET UNION (4 DAYS AGO):

            That said, it only leads back to my original stance, which was the Soviets being the only party (aside from the Polish, being my own personal interjection) who, as much as the Chinese, had something to “get” over. That’s a fact. The Americans from their own personal agenda, had nothing to get over.

            (I didn’t say you denied their contributions. In fact, I successfully removed the Americans from the conversation, as intended.)

            MY FIFTH COMMENT ON THE SOVIET UNION (4 DAYS AGO):

            Side note, I’d love to discuss the death counts if you have the time. I often discuss this issue with my Russian friends, which is why I so speedily had a prepared answer for you in the first place.

            At the end of the day, it’s all hindsight… but unlike Poland and the fromer Soviet Union, Asian culture dictates more of an emphasis on the memorial of past wrongs than European culture does.

            (I didn’t say you denied their contributions)

            THIS IS YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO MY BRILLIANT PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS:

            You’re thinking too narrowly. “Get over it” is synonymous with “move on.” “It” can refer to a negative experience but need not be restricted to negative experiences. For example, people who can’t let go of their “glory days” are also told to “get over” them or “move on,” even though “it” in this case refers to positive experiences, say, being the quarterback of the championship high school football team. A positive experience to be sure, but if you’re still talking about it on a daily basis when you’re 48, maybe you should get over it and move on.

            (NOT ONLY DID I NOT SAY you denied their contributions, but you straight up CHANGED THE SUBJECT! FAIL! Why? Because you KNEW you were wrong and had to change the subject. You are NO MATCH for me, man!)

            THIS is the point where you “magically” got the idea that I accused you of not being an English speaker. Very sneaky, my little friend! But you’re never clever enough for the kid! The kid is a BEAST in debate mode. You will never be ready for my prose, dude…

            THIS IS THE FIRST RESPONSE BEFORE YOU MADE UP YOUR ACCUSATION (2 DAYS AGO):

            You made the grave mistake of placing the Americans and the Chinese in the same sentence (which I caught, which is why I responded in the first place), and I clearly told you that while the Chinese have something to “get over” (constantly bringing up the atrocities of the Japanese occupation of Mainland China), the Americans don’t have the same experience, as the Americans are mostly continuously bringing up their victory in WWII.

            (Not only did I NOT say you denied the Russians contributions, but I SOLIDIFIED MY POINT of the Americans having no PLACE in the comparison).

            THIS IS YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:

            (The entire time above we spent discussing the Soviet Union (Russia) in part one of our debate… NOT ONLY DID I JUST PROVE I NEVER ACCUSED YOU OF THIS (which you so vehemently INSIST… which honestly, now just appears as a false flag to take attention away from your incorrect blabber), but THEN you switched the response to number two instead of number one (as if I wouldn’t notice). But that makes even LESS SENSE because here’s my #2 statement before you replied:

            2 DAYS AGO:

            I didn’t say I was by nature more dimensional in opinion than a white person. I made it VERY clear I was talking about a cultural difference, not a racial one. However, you clearly lack an Asian depth of conversation as well, as you clearly must have missed this gem:

            (Not only didn’t I say you denied Russian contribution, but you then replied to THIS statement with the following for the first time:

            YOUR FIRST COMMENT AFTER MY EXTREMELY CLEAN CONVERSATION (YOUR LIE EXPOSED, 2 DAYS AGO):

            2. Point to where I said that the Soviets did not make an enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII. Please, no more circumlocutious paragraphs; just point to where I downplayed Soviet deaths in WWII.

            THIS proves your a chronic distorter of the truth. You say something clearly false, and then after injecting it into the conversation, you insist the other person not only agreed, but made it up! You are so DONE man… you are making this look too easy for me…

            This is your current drivel:

            Since you are unable to “point to where I said that the Soviets did not make enormous contributions and sacrifices that substantially contributed to victory in WWII,” let’s try something simpler.

            How about trying NOT LYING. That should be simpler than anything. Imagine my skill being so GOOD, that you have to stray away from the REAL issue, which is you under counted the deaths of the Chinese (which I didn’t) and you were wrong about your English. And you’re a liar.

            Who are these “certain members”? In particular, who is the “Chinese” member, or who are the “Chinese” members?

            DUDE!! YOU ARE THE MEMBER… I know you’re Asian but FFFFUUUUUUUU****, you’re a NATIVE SPEAKER… why is it you get sarcasm EVEN LESS than some of my friends on the Mainland???? You’re an embarrassment. Your account needs to be demoted to normal member.

            3. This is the next nonsense you spewed:

            “Oh, so now we have a new argument from you: “foreign intervention could have been forced.” Was “foreign intervention” forced at any time between July 7, 1937 and December 6, 1941?”

            Now we know you’re a liar, here’s another tactic I’d like to expose. From the beginning I’M THE ONE WHO SET THE TIME LINE. NOT YOU. I already told you the timeline of my argument in the beginning:

            MY TIMELINE STATED BEFORE YOU (THE BASIS OF ALL MY CLAIMS, 4 DAYS AGO):

            “There are in fact two Sino-Japanese campaigns: the first being of 1894-1895 and the second being 1931-1945. Some people say 1937, but that excludes the MOST important act of the Second Sino-Japanese war, which was the taking of Manchuria.”

            Don’t you get it? Don’t you understand that I already TOLD YOU this was one of my favorite moments of Chinese contemporary history and you STILL don’t pay attention!

            Don’t you think paying attention to someone with my intelligence is probably the MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO when discussing an issue like this with me?

            You’re so sloppy with all of your rants and then you make stuff up and then try to hold me accountable and now you’ve been exposed as a FRAUD.

            This is the MAIN REASON I don’t edit any of my posts after 24 hours. So it can be made CLEAR if I’m a hypocrite or not. The history is THERE. The FACTS are there.

            You distort one idea and then try to pile the rest of your trash on top of it, like you’ve got a valid point.

            I’ve got news for you. In school, I was the smartest kid. I was the one tutoring the whites, blacks AND ASIANS in Calculus and Geometry. This was NOT going to be easy for you in the beginning and it has just become IMPOSSIBLE for you now.

            When you’re speaking to me, stick with the facts but most importantly… PAY ATTENTION and STOP PARAPHRASING!!! You start misquoting me and as if I’m not supposed to notice, you start flat out lying like I’m not goint to remember or can’t check the archives!

            I was junior library in my high school BEFORE COMPUTERS, dude! Indexing, bibliography and sub-referencing is how I hold my conversations, so this was a losing battle for you in the beginning.

            Don’t talk to me without a purpose. Don’t be messy when we’re conversing. You’re just going to look silly.

            And the NEXT time you respond, I want you to address the lies that you’ve told and the mis-truths that you attempted to inject into the conversation like a lame “get out of the conversation” virus.

            You make this too easy. Now try to ignore THAT.

          • Alex Dương

            1.

            Are you really so dense that you don’t understand the purpose of me pointing out my my skills as a native English speaker?

            I certainly do not see how pointing out that you share a characteristic with a person you’re discussing with strengthens your argument relative to the other person’s. That is why I asked you, “how does mentioning that you are a native speaker strengthen your argument given that you know you are talking to another native speaker?”

            Unsurprisingly, you do not have an answer. What you have instead is your unquenchable penchant for writing paragraph after paragraph of self-serving drivel.

            2.

            DUDE!! YOU ARE THE MEMBER… I know you’re Asian but FFFFUUUUUUUU****, you’re a NATIVE SPEAKER… why is it you get sarcasm EVEN LESS than some of my friends on the Mainland???? You’re an embarrassment. Your account needs to be demoted to normal member.

            So you “didn’t say [I] denied their contributions,” but I am the “Chinese” member for whom “it needs to be solidified…that the Soviets did indeed lose a larger number of people during World War II and it’s no small number.” I see that we have yet another case of you demonstrating your complete inability to string two sentences together without contradicting yourself.

            3. No answer to my question. But I will grant your last request.

          • WFH

            dam you must be rich to spend so much time commenting here….just kidding!!! I’m far too courteous to not read a page long reply to my ribbing..

          • mistertibbs4u

            hahaha… well, I’m not “that” guy…

            I’m just “that” guy for “this” guy over here…

  • Foreign Devil

    Are Chinese nationals able to buy Japanese real estate the way they can in Canada in USA?

    • WFH

      why? are you a japanese realtor drooling over the commission?

    • hypebeast88

      yeah they can and have been doing so for while.

  • jin

    Wow totally different than those dumb HKer, more money for them.

    • wangdaning

      Ha, funny how Chinese are worse to each other than anyone else. Even the Japanese treat Chinese better.

    • Myk

      Don’t you think that the quantities of people involved here may make a difference?

    • hypebeast88

      different story altogether, in HK they are parallel traders who empty out the supermarkets and the locals don’t have anything to buy anymore, thats not happening in Japan

      • Alex Dương

        Not all of them are parallel traders. For example, the ones that were harassed the last time cS ran a full-length article on the topic were clearly just regular people.

        • WFH

          collateral damage unfortunately. parallel traders don’t have a stamp on there foreheads for easy identification.

    • WFH

      ah..one isolated story is all it takes for the mainlander to curse his own brethren and embrace the “enemy”…..a true 汉奸

      • Alex Dương

        The “brethren” in question would object to being called that, don’t you think?

        • WFH

          brethren in a racial context…I don’t think they disavow their heritage..but yes, I was being dramatic.

  • LeanatanHannin

    Wow, I wasn’t expecting that a few people got butthurt just because I’m giving a partial compliment to the Japanese for being better than other anti-Chinese. I have an unfavourable view to the Japanese politically, and sometimes to certain Japanese people, but I have to admit it that among the whole Anti-Chinese parasites, Japanese are the most amicable ones who can at least have manners and respects to their enemies. Oh come on guys, defensive right away lol.

  • WghUk

    In order to rip them off

  • WFH

    of course the nazi is trying to defend the jap dogs..

  • Zen my Ass

    Note to any Chinese: stop manufacturing low-quality goods and start investing on excellence, then you will rightfully moan.

    • Realist

      China manufactures what the world wants to purchase, as is evident by Chinese export volume vs. Japanese. When broke people who live month-to-month by paycheck only have $20 and want a toaster, China can supply, but Japan cannot. If you want to spend $300 on a professional-grade one, $300 will get you more value from China as well. But no need to compare $500 Japanese toaster to $20 Chinese one and complain that quality is not the same, especially if you yourself don’t even want to drop the cash for a Japanese one. Also, moaning is your mother’s job, not ours.

    • Realist

      China can make everything from 99-cent toys to high-speed rail systems (which can defeat Japan’s bids in Indonesia, Thailand, and even the USA) to rockets that sent our own GPS system into orbit. Don’t worry about what we can make. Just worry about what you can buy/afford.

      • Zen my Ass

        I can afford your Mum for sure, 5 mao’s are enough. Thanks for answering. Now, I have to buy my Jap toaster machine.

        • mr.wiener

          @Realist @Z@zenmyass:disqus.
          Keep it civilized please.

    • James

      China will make whatever the fuck they want to make as long as your dumb ass keeps buying it.

  • WFH

    hmm ..another misconception shattered…I always thought nazis were partial to german shepards..

  • garbo

    Very clever, keep them away from the other people shopping.

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